Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I did not ask for a point of order, I had asked for regular order.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order made.

Ms. PRYCE. Pursuant to the House's rulings, I call for regular order: that the gentleman confine his remarks to the resolution at hand.

Ms. PRYCE. To ask the House for regular order, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. PRYCE. Regular order. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House for regular order.

Ms. PRYCE. There is no point of order. I was trying to enforce regular order, that we would conform to the rules of this debate as previously announced by the Chair.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, under House Rule XIV, which requires that a Member must confine himself to the question under debate, is it relevant to the debate on either this rule or the debate it makes in order to engage in a discussion of the merits of the minimum wage? This is in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker,

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 418 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 418 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2641, the U.S. Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1996, under a completely open rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule also makes in order the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as original text for the purpose of amendment, and provides that each section will be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may give priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration, and such amendments will also be considered as read. As is customary, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, after House passage of the bill, the rule provides for the necessary steps to consider the Senate bill, S. 1338, to insert the House-passed provisions, and to request a conference with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that this is a wide open rule. Any Member can be heard on any germane amendment to the bill at the appropriate time. Although there is no preprinting requirement contained in this rule, preprinting of amendments in the Record is an option that is encouraged, and I hope more Members will consider that option in the future. We on the Rules committee continue to believe that making amendments available for our colleagues to read in advance of floor action serves a very useful purpose and contributes to improving the overall quality of debate. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2641, which this open rule makes in order, is a simple, straightforward bill that seeks to take the politics out of appointments to the U.S. Marshals Service by changing the selection of marshals from that of appointment by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to selection by the Attorney General based on relevant criteria such as an individual's law enforcement and administrative expertise. As a former judge and prosecutor, I worked very closely for many years with highly qualified and well-trained law enforcement officials, at the local, State, and Federal levels. Naturally, I was very surprised to learn that under current law, there is no criteria for the selection of U.S. marshals. As was noted in the Judiciary Committee report on H.R. 2461, in some instances, appointed marshals lack the law enforcement experience and qualifications necessary to carry out the often multifaceted law enforcement missions currently performed by the U.S. Marshal Service. Today, those missions involve such demanding and sensitive tasks and fugitive apprehension, prisoner transportation, witness protection, the disposal of seized assets, and providing judicial security. To address these concerns, H.R. 2641 provides that after the year 2000, new marshals will be selected on a competitive basis among career managers within the Marshals Service, rather than simply being nominated by a home State Senator. In the meantime, marshals selected between the date of enactment of this bill and the year 2000 would continue to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, but would only be permitted to serve 4-year terms. As one of my Rules Committee colleagues said yesterday, this legislation would take an important step toward professionalizing the overall Marshals Service by ensuring that only knowledgeable, qualified, career managers who have risen through the ranks of the Service will be considered for the important position of U.S. marshal. The quality of justice is based, in part, on the public's perception of fundamental fairness throughout the judicial system, and the changes advocated in this legislation will help restore fairness to the Marshals Service by taking political cronyism out of the appointments process. For many in the Nation's law enforcement community, these are trying times, and there seems to be an ever-increasing burden placed on the entire judicial system--not just on the courts or on the local police department, but across the vast spectrum of law enforcement. As a result, the need for capable, professional law enforcement personnel who have demonstrated outstanding expertise in their fields is very great. Mr. Speaker, the public at large expects law enforcement positions to be filled by qualified professionals, and not by individuals with convenient political contacts. I believe this legislation makes important and necessary changes to the process by which U.S. marshals are appointed, and hopefully its enactment will serve to improve and enhance public confidence in the ability of Federal law enforcement agencies to effectively protect and defend its citizens. H.R. 2641 was favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote, as was the rule by the Rules Committee yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support this wide open rule, and continue the spirit of openness and deliberation that we have attempted to restore to this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution, and that I may be permitted to insert extraneous materials into the Record following debate on the rule.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. general leave

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Indian Child Welfare Act, to explain that as it stands today, it has struck tragedy in the hearts of countless children, birth parents, and adoptive families throughout this entire country. The Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA as it is called, was intended to stop State court abuse of Native American children in involuntary placements. In its current form, ICWA is a factor in every single adoption in this country, because it is nearly impossible to determine what child may be part Indian due to some remote part of its heritage. I have already recounted several tragic incidences due to the misapplication of ICWA on this House floor. Today I want to tell the Members about an especially sad story that took place in Oklahoma. A couple, Rick and Kathy Clarke, who were seeking to adopt, were notified that they had been selected for possible placement and home study by a tribal worker from the birth mother's tribe. The home study was conducted by the manager of the tribe's division of children and family services. After conducting the home study, the tribal manager told the prospective parents that ICWA could be waived, and that the tribe had only the best interests of the child at heart. He further suggested that the child be enrolled in the tribe and be allowed to explore his or her cultural heritage. The couple enthusiastically agreed to this suggestion. Rick and Kathy Clarke were with Shonna Bear, the birth mother, when the child was born. It was a joyous and special occasion. Little did they know that because of the misapplication if ICWA, the little boy they already loved so much would be taken from them. Mr. Speaker, the court ordered Rick and Kathy to turn the child over to the tribe. Tribe officials, using ICWA, succeeded in securing a relinquishment order, even after assuring the Clarkes that they would not. Mr. Speaker, the sad irony is that Shonna Bear wanted her baby to have a loving and stable home with these adoptive parents. She, a loving and courageous birth mother who chose life for her baby instead of abortion, had a right to feel comfortable and confident that she, in her judgment as the birth mother, had made the right decision for her baby. But her decision was overturned. The adoption plan she had so carefully and lovingly made was overturned by the court. ICWA was never intended to cause such pain and anguish for potential parents, birth parents, and children. Rick Clarke, the adoptive father, did not enter into this adoption carelessly or without the utmost due diligence to the law that applied. He is an Oklahoma judge, very well- versed in the law and its many pitfalls. Let me quote from the letter that Rick sent to me: We had less than an hour and a half to say good-bye to our baby. I will never forget Kathy sitting in Jeffrey's room, holding him and saying, ``We are never going to see him again, are we?'' The pain in Kathy's eyes tortures me even now. He goes on to say: For weeks we were totally depressed. We cried every day. Even with the help of our pastor, we needed the help of other professionals to pull us out of our tailspin. Even now, months later, when we think of him we get so upset. When we think if adopting another child, we get fearful of this type of thing happening again. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point of this legislation. Surely we want to correct our legislative overbreadth so these individual tragedies do not occur again to loving, well-meaning families, but more importantly, we must realize that this correction will be one small step this Congress can take to encourage adoption in our Nation, rather than foster impediments to it. How many children languish in foster homes and are shuffled about from one setting to the next, year after year after year, because otherwise willing and wanting families are afraid to go through what might end up being a heartbreaking experience? I will tell the Members how many: 500,000 children are awaiting an adoptive home. We have a chance to remove yet another one of the roadblocks to adoption, that fear of being the next front page story. Let me read one more line of Judge Clarke's letter: Because we committed all our resources to this adoption, after having the approval of the tribe, we are effectively prevented from attempting to adopt again. The minor changes I have offered to the Indian Child Welfare Act go a long way towards avoiding such tragedies, while maintaining the intent of the act. Rick and Kathy will never see the little boy again that they love so much, but we can make that right, Mr. Speaker. Rick Clarke is absolutely right: This fight is for the children. I urge my colleagues to join me by supporting the adoption legislation on the floor next week. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from Rick Clarke. The letter referred to follows: Rick and Kathy Clarke, Tulsa, OK, April 25, 1996. Hon. Deborah Pryce, U.S. Representative, Columbus, OH. Dear Congresswoman Pryce: Enclosed you will find a summary of what my wife and I experienced dealing with one Indian tribe and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Also, I am sending along a copy of the letter the tribal worker sent us when they agreed to waive ICWA and place Jeffrey in our home. I send this information to you at Nichole's request. Nichole and I talked earlier today about your goals with the present legislation pending before Congress. She was very informative, professional and still compassionate concerning our ordeal. Please thank her again for me. As you will see from our story, the effect of the ICWA is sometimes devastating to not only potential adoptive parents' lives, but even more so for the children it imprisons. Kathy and I wholeheartedly support your efforts to limit the ICWA's abusive and disastrous results. You are fighting a good fight for the sake of innocent children all over this nation. May God bless you in your battle. We stand ready to offer any assistance you need in winning this fight. I know our story and pain don't even begin to compare to those of others, but we will do what we can to help. Please let us know how we can assist. Sincerely, Rick Clarke. early november John O'Connor called and said that he had someone who wanted to see a biography on us. We revised the one that we have previously given out and sent it to him. We also found out at this time that the baby's father was part Indian. We were not very optimistic because Indian tribes seldom will approve non-Indian homes for placement. However, since we thought they could waive that requirement, we went ahead and tried. Kathy has said that if we don't have a baby by the end of the year, she wanted to stop looking for a baby and try to get an older child. With this possibility, we both agree to try. december John called on 12/16/94 and told Rick that the tribal worker had agreed to do a homestudy of us. At that point, we had given up hope because we had not heard anything for a while. We assumed that since we were not Indian, the tribe had declined. However, even knowing we were not Indians, they agreed to see us. On 12/17/94 Scott Johnson, Manager of the Division of Children & Family Services for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, came to our home for the purpose of conducting a homestudy. Mr. Johnson spent close to three hours in our home talking to us and asking us questions. He informed us that his goal, and that of the tribe, was to make sure that the child's best interests were served by the adoption. Mr. Johnson told us that the primary reason for the strict requirements on adoption of Indian children was to make sure that the Indian children became members of the tribe and to avoid the wholesale baby-brokering of Creek children. We made it clear to him that we were concerned about not being Indian and he told us that the preferences in the ICWA could be waived by the tribe when they thought it would be best for the child. He said that most tribal authorities were most concerned about keeping the numbers of enrolled members high--it somehow effected their financial support. The only conditions he asked us to agree to were to enroll the baby with the Creek Nation and to allow the child to freely explore his cultural heritage if he wanted to do so. We joyfully agreed to those conditions as we both thought they would be in a child's best interest. As we talked with Mr. Johnson, he made it clear to us that he knew the Bear family. He said that the father of this child, Freddie Bear, had several children the tribe knew about that he was not providing for. His general impression of the whole family was not very favorable. He said he was happy that this child would have a chance to be raised in a better environment than would his siblings and relatives. As Mr. Johnson left our home, he commented that he rarely had been in an adoptive home where there was as much peace and love as he felt in ours. With that, he informed us that he would approve our home as an adoptive placement for this baby and that the tribe would not intervene. Needless to say, we got very excited. We went out almost immediately and began to buy baby stuff. We still didn't unwrap many of the items because we had such a long road ahead of us. On 12/21/94, we met with John in his office at 4:30. He said that things were looking very good. He told us at that point we could back out of the process and there would be no legal expense to us since everything up to then was somewhat preliminary to even considering this baby. However, since the tribe was the only party that was previously unknown and they were now with and for us, there appeared to be nothing standing in the way of a successful adoption. Based on that, we agreed to go full steam ahead and committed to adopting this baby and paying all expenses to accomplish that goal. We thought that the baby might be born around Christmas due to the mother having some complications. It was not meant to be, however. January Because of a lack of communication and possibly stress on the mother, we though that the adoption may be off in early January. Shonna's father did not think we were paying enough of her bills. We, however, wanted to avoid the appearance of baby-buying. We agreed to meet with the mother on 1/15/95, and were pleasantly surprised. She restated her commitment to having us adopt the baby. She also told us that we were really the only couple she seriously considered. She read several biographies and liked ours the best by far. On 1/31/95, Shonna went he OU Medical Clinic and is told that the doctor want to induce labor. As soon as we find out, we went to the hospital and talk to her and then wait for the big event. At around midnight, we went home to let the dog out. We were only home for a few minutes when we got the call saying to return to the hospital immediately--the baby was on his way. As we got off the elevator, we met John O'Connor and he congratulated us on the birth of a son. Jeffrey Adam was born at 12:53 A.M. on 2/1/95 and weighed 7 lbs. 20 ozs. He was 21 inches long. Without a doubt, he was and is a perfect baby. January 1, 1995 We stayed with Jeffrey the nursery until around 6:00 A.M. Kathy got a bracelet so we could visit and take him out of the nursery. Rick went to work, but met Kathy and her mom at the hospital at noon. We went in the room with Jeffrey and the mother and had a wonderful visit. We went back up to the hospital after work that evening. Because there was a problem with the bracelet, we could only take Jeffrey to another room if a nurse went with us. While upsetting, we agreed because we just wanted to spend time with our baby boy. February 2, 1995 Again, Kathy and Rick met at the hospital at noon to visit Jeff. Rick's court guard and some friends were there also. Jeff was not in the nursery, so we thought something was wrong. He was in Shonna's room with her. She told us that her mother-in-law and other family members were up and wanted to see the baby. We think they had seen him and that was the reason why he was in her room. Kathy and her mom stayed up at the hospital for a long time after Rick went back to work. Then they went shopping to get Jeffrey a ``going home outfit.'' When we went back that evening, everything got much worse. We know she had been moved to a different room and went directly to the new room. When we passed the nurses desk, we saw an Indian woman and several younger Indians asking for someone's room number and being told she (later found out to be Shonna) was not at the hospital. The would-be visitors were not happy. Shonna told us that the family was looking for her. Because she did not want to see them, she had been listed in the hospital directory as not a resident. Her door was even marked ``No admittance. Check at nurse's desk.'' Jeffrey was in her room at that time. We sat and held him for a short time. Then, a nurse came in the room and told us ``I have to take the baby to the nursery.'' She would not tell us why so we would not let her take him. She returned a few minutes later and told us she had to sit in the room with us if he could not go to the nursery. We eventually found out that there were three lighthorsemen (Creek Nation tribal police) in the lobby with a tribal court pick-up order for Jeffrey. This order, I understand, requested that the child be placed in the custody of the manager of the Family Services Division of the Creek Nation That person was Scott Johnson, the same person that had previously approved us as adoptive parents for Jeffrey. When I walked through the lobby, I saw three Indian men sitting in the waiting room--one dressed in a uniform with a gun and the other two in plain clothes with guns. At this point in time, Jeffrey had not been released by his pediatrician to leave the hospital--any removal would have to have been ``Against Medical Advice.'' The hospital staff had called the ``risk management'' department who eventually got their lawyer involved. The hospital lawyer showed up at the hospital late in the evening. He told the lighthosemen that they had no authority to be on the hospital property, threatened them with trespassing and they finally left the hospital with the threat to return with a different order. Also, apparently the date on the order was incorrect. Needless to say, during this time we were extremely upset. We were calling everybody we knew that might be able to help. This included our attorneys, Shonna's attorney, tribal members involved with children's services, and even tried to get a hold of Scott Johnson. All of our efforts proved futile. Had it not been for the hospital attorney, we would have lost Jeffrey right then. After they left, we stayed at the hospital until Shonna checked out at around 2:00 A.M. on 2/3/95. Jeffrey was returned to the nursery. 2/3/95 We met Shonna at the hospital around 9:00 A.M. with the intent to take him home with us. Because of the tribe's actions and the cloud of uncertainty it caused, we decided not to file the adoption petition that morning. However, because Shonna and we were still in agreement about us adopting Jeffrey, we decided to take him home with us. The hospital required that Shonna check him out and leave with him. We immediately took physical custody of him after she left the hospital with him. That was one of the happiest moments we have ever experienced. Within 20-30 minutes after we got home with our new baby, I received a call from people at my work. They told me that Mr. Charles Tripp, Assistant Attorney General with the Creek Nation, was at the Juvenile Bureau asking Judge Crewson to sign a pick-up order for Jeffrey. It is my understanding that the reason for this was because the mother agreed to give her baby up for adoption, she was not a fit mother and the child was at risk because of that. Our extreme joy was immediately turned into utter terror. Because of our love and concern for Jeffrey, we felt it was in his best interest to return to his mother's physical custody as opposed to the possibility of being placed in a shelter for ``deprived children.'' We know that there was a strong possibility that she would get attached to this lovely baby boy. Also, her two sons had been told all along that the baby would not be coming home with her, but she was having him for someone else. This had to confuse them, too. We called Shonna and told her that the tribe was still trying to remove him from our care and our fear of Jeff going to a shelter. We all agree that it would be close to impossible for the tribe to remove him from her custody and to meet in order to return Jeffrey to Shonna temporarily. While Kathy takes Jeffrey to Shonna, Rick is on the phone with Judge Sellers (acting as presiding Judge while Judge Winslow was out of the courthouse.) Mr. Tripp was before Judge Sellers asking him for the pick-up order since Judge Crewson had recused. After Mr. Tripp talked to the tribal judge, there is an agreement to allow Jeffrey to stay in our home, without tribal interference, until a full hearing could be held in front of Judge Winslow. That hearing was to be set on 2/14/95. However, by the time the agreement was made, Kathy had already returned Jeffrey to Shonna. The rest of that day we spent crying our hearts out. Not only for ourselves, but also for Jeffrey. He had to go back to his mom who could not afford or want to have him. He was the lifetime victim. 2/4/95 Early on Saturday we called Shonna to see if everything was all right. Since she was not prepared to take him home, we were concerned for everybody. She seemed elated and relieved to hear from us. She said she could not handle what was going on and still wanted us to adopt Jeffrey. She even suggested that we go out of state and do the adoption and lie about who the father was and say the child was not Indian. We obviously could not do that, but we told her we could come and get him and keep him until the court date. Once again, we were overjoyed. Our hope that the Creek Nation would do the right thing for this child took over. We met Shonna and took physical custody of Jeffrey early in the afternoon. Even though we were just ``baby-sitters'' at that point, we felt like a family. 2/4/95 to 2/11/95 Kathy has taken off work to spend all of her time to be with Jeffrey. We take him to church on Sunday and introduce him as our baby. We take him to friends homes, bring him to my workplace, and everywhere else we go normally. We are a family. 2/11/95 As we were eating breakfast, Shonna called and asked if she could see Jeffrey to say good-bye. Because of all the problems the tribe caused, she did not have a chance to do that. As Rick talked to her, it became obvious that she was probably changing her mind. The time she had to spend with him due to the tribe's interference forced her to bond with him. We do not believe that she did this maliciously or with the intent to just get some bills paid. Of interest, is that even now the father has not seen the baby nor expressed any interest in Jeffrey. We had less than an hour and half to say good-bye to our baby. I will never forget Kathy sitting in Jeffrey's room, holding him and saying ``We are never going to see him again, are we?'' The pain in her eyes tortures me even now. I met Shonna for the last time with only Jeffrey--Kathy could not bear having to hand him over to her. We gave her almost all of the clothes and toys we had bought for him. We knew she did not have anything to take care of him. We wanted Jeffrey to be happy and safe and have plenty of things he needed. After I gave Jeffrey to Shonna I drove away with a feeling of total loss. I had never wanted something to happen more nor experienced so much pain when it didn't. For weeks we both were totally depressed. We cried every day when we thought of Jeffrey. Even with the help of our pastor, we almost needed the help of other professionals to pull out of our tailspin. Gradually, our pain subsided. However, even seven months later, when we think of him we get upset. Also, when we even think about adopting any other child we get fearful of this type of thing happening again. That is in addition to the fact that we have no money to even begin the adoption process since we spent so much on the failed attempt. After Jeffrey's return to his mother We have been told that after this mess happened, Scott Johnson was called before tribal authorities and told to change his ways concerning his representation of the tribe's position on adoption. This is born out by his behavior. During the time we had Jeffrey in our home, Mr. Johnson called our home and talked to Kathy. He told her we were still the best place for Jeffrey to be and he still would continue to fight for that to happen. He had not, at that time, changed his opinion at all. After his meeting with tribal authorities, we are told that he now says that he never promised us that the tribe would consider us as an adoptive placement for the child and that the tribe would follow placement guidelines as it always does, without exception. Obviously, his letter is clear on this point. Both of us, during separate conversations with Mr. Johnson, expressed our concern over him personally and the possible negative impact he may suffer for his bold and appropriate position for the best interests of this child. He apparently has changed his position. Two days after the article about the failed adoption was in the May 28, 1995 Tulsa World, Shelly S. Crow, Second Chief of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation called Rick at the office and wanted to meet. Within a week after that, Ms. Crow showed up at the courthouse and met with him. She informed Rick that she was very disturbed by the article and wanted to know what she could do to make everything right. She said something like what happened to us should never happen and that the tribe was concerned about Indian children. She also said that sometimes the best thing for Indian children was to be placed outside an Indian family, ``as in your case.'' Ms. Crow informed me that she was contacted by the paternal grandmother and told of the circumstances. She proceeded to write letters to put a stop to the adoption and insisted that the tribe intervene just as it eventually did. I asked her if she was aware that Mr. Johnson had approved our home when she decided to intervene and she said she did not know that nor had she seen the letter. She was also surprised to learn that the paternal grandmother had seven other grandchildren living with her on a permanent basis and that all were being supported by state and tribal assistance in substandard housing. She acted without even considering the best interests of Jeffrey. Since Ms. Crow felt so guilty about her actions, she was very free with even more information. She went on to tell me that after Mr. Johnson changed his ``official'' position, he got promoted to a better/easier job with an extra $3,000 a year salary increase. She believed that Mr. Johnson had been reprimanded at least four times in recent years by the tribe for various infractions while employed by the tribe. Her last comment about Mr. Johnson was that his father worked somewhere in the federal government, possibly for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Because of this, and the fact that if the tribe did anything to Mr. Johnson the federal government may cut funding, Ms. Crow thought the tribe would put up with him no matter what he did wrong. Conclusion The Creek Nation should not be allowed to ruin so many innocent children by their selfish, destructive conduct. Not only have they shattered our lives, after encouraging us to go forward with this adoption, but they have sentenced Jeffrey to live a life in an environment where he was not wanted and could not be provided for adequately--They have not only destroyed our lives, but, more importantly, Jeffrey's. In addition, because we committed all of our resources to this adoption, only after getting the approval by the tribe, we were effectively prevented from attempting to adopt again for some time. The Creek Nation should suffer for the pain they have caused.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, last week I came to this floor to announce my hopes that some minor changes can be made to the Indian Child Welfare Act so that it will no longer have the chilling effect it does on adoptions in this Nation and so that it serves the interests of children first. Last week I told of the heart wrenching story of the Rost family from my own district in Columbus, OH, and their still unresolved battle to adopt the twin girls they have had for almost 3 years now. The girls, unbeknownst to the Rosts, turned out to be \1/32\ Pomo Indian due to blood from a great-great-great-grandparent. The twins and their adoptive parents still fear the day that the courts rule the twins be returned to a dysfunctional abusive environment due to a twisted, inaccurate, yet far too common application of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Today I want to share with you another of the countless horror stories I have heard from all over our country. This case took place in the State of Washington, where the Quinn family spent 3\1/2\ years fighting for custody of their son, Loren. This couple had worked with a 14-year-old biological mother for 7 months prior to the birth of a baby boy. They were even present to celebrate the birth mother's 15th birthday. The prospective parents attended the birth of the little boy at the invitation of the birth mother and and later took him into their home, honoring her wishes. There they loved and nurtured him. Weeks later, they got the horrible message, the worst fear of all adoptive parents, that nightmare that becomes a reality, that the birth mother had changed her mind and wanted the child back. Although she had voluntarily relinquished custody of her child, even chosen this couple, she attempted to reverse her decision under the Indian Child Welfare Act by retroactively enrolling with the Cherokee Nation. It took 3\1/2\ years to finally reach a conclusion in the courts, 3\1/2\ years of horror, sleepless nights and worry of the unknown for this family who wanted nothing more than to provide a secure and happy home for the little boy they loved so much. Mr. Speaker, night feedings, diapers, pediatricians, bottles and baths, birthday parties, first steps, bedtime stories, bedtime prayers, colic, car seats, first words and lullabies, on and on and on, these are the joys of a family. But for 3\1/2\ years the normal joy was somewhat subdued, because for 3\1/2\ years the future of this family was unknown. He would have been removed from the only home and family he ever knew, and, Mr. Speaker, many courts have ruled this way. They misinterpret the intent of ICWA, take these children and send them to strange places. Now, we must ask ourselves, is this what is in the best interest of the children involved? Is this what ICWA was intended to do? Mr. Speaker, not only the legislative history but common sense dictates that the answer is no. Very simple, minor reforms to the Indian Child Welfare Act would clarify these ambiguities. Membership in the tribe would be effective from the date of admission and could not be applied retroactively as in the case of the Rosts and the Quinns and countless others. Mr. Speaker, ICWA was intended to stop State court abuses of native American children in involuntary placements. It was needed and well intended at the time. But it was not intended to interrupt voluntary adoption proceedings. As it is currently written, ICWA is a factor in every single adoption in this country because it is hard to say, and almost impossible to determine what child may or may not, through some remote part of its heritage, be some part Native American. And who can prepare for a law being applied retroactively, no matter how diligent and careful? The simple and minor changes to ICWA will preserve the intent of the act, ensuring the culture and heritage of Native Americans, and at the same time protect the rights of birth parents, adoptive parents, and, above all, the children. Mr. Speaker, I can almost guarantee that every Member in this body has at least one case of a judicial abuse of ICWA in their districts. I urge my colleagues to support these changes. Congress created these ambiguities, with all the best intentions, in 1978. It is time for Congress to correct them and stop the heartbreak.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with just one illustration of the absolute tragedy and heartbreak being experienced right now by countless children and their families due to the misapplication of the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA. A couple from my district in Columbus, OH, adopted twin girls. Both biological parents consented and even chose this family that they wanted the girls to be placed with. After 6 months, as they went on to finalize the adoption, they found out that it was being contested under ICWA, which gives the tribe the final say in custody proceedings involving Indian children. Although only one of the twins great-great-great-grandparents was native American, a judge in California ruled that that was enough to trigger ICWA. These stories are commonplace and have to end. As a result of this misapplication of the law, two little girls almost 3 years old now still await the permanence and stability of the only family they have ever known, and they fear what fate might await them at the hands of the court. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Adoption Stability Act of 1996.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I many consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. general leave

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor today the rule providing for the consideration of the conference report on S. 735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which was passed overwhelmingly by the other body last evening. This is a simple, fair rule which waives all points of order against the conference report, and against its consideration, in order to permit the House to consider provisions which may exceed the scope of differences between the House and the Senate. Ms. Speaker, the devastating terrorist attack that took place in Oklahoma City nearly 1 year ago today serves as a poignant and powerful reminder that the threat of domestic terrorism is a very real and present danger in our society. One hundred and sixty-eight innocent people, including dozens of children, lost their lives in that attack. Combined with the nearly 500 people who were injured in the blast, the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City ranks as the worst terrorist incident ever to take place on American soil. Unfortunately, it was not the first. The bombing of New York's World Trade Center building in 1993, Americans for the first time faced the sobering prospect that terrorists are at work right here in the United States. Among the lessons we have learned from these tragic events is that law enforcement must be prepared to respond effectively and immediately to terrorism when it occurs. More importantly, as technology rapidly advances, law enforcement officials at all levels must have access to reasonable and legitimate tools that will enhance their ability to prevent terrorist acts before they result in the loss of human life. The difficult task which this body has faced during the past year has been to balance the needs of law enforcement with the need to preserve essential civil liberties. Today, under the terms of this simple, straightforward rule, we will debate a conference report that I believe improves upon the House-passed bill, while still assuring the Federal Government an appropriately limited but responsible role in the fight against terrorism. Several key provisions have been added to the House-passed bill in this bipartisan conference report that will assist our country's fight against terrorism. For example, it provides procedures to allow for the removal of alien terrorists, fairly and with due process, but also with adequate protections to safeguard sources and methods of classified information. It provides improved steps for designating foreign terrorist organizations, and contains provisions that severely restrict the ability of terrorist groups to raise funds in the United States. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, money is the lifeblood of these ruthless organizations, and if we cut off their flow of funds, including the blocking of financial transactions, we will surely diminish their ability to carry out these cowardly, heinous acts here at home and abroad. With regard to the exclusion of alien terrorists, the conference report authorizes State Department officials overseas to deny entrance visas to members and representatives of those same groups deemed to be foreign terrorist organizations, and it also allows the United States to stop or prohibit assistance to foreign countries that do not cooperate with our antiterrorism efforts. And finally, in a move that will hopefully prevent future tragedies like the loss of Pan/Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the conference report requires that foreign air carriers traveling to and from United States airports follow the identical safety measures that our own American air carriers must follow under regulations issued by the FAA. Equally important are other provisions contained in the conference report, including three key elements from the Contract With America: First, there are reasonable reforms to curb the abuse of habeas corpus by convicted criminals. This will help, finally, to free the judicial process from endless and frivolous appeals from prisoners convicted of capital offenses while victims and families of victims wait helplessly by for years and years for justice to finally be done. Second, improved procedures for deporting criminal aliens are included which allow judges to order the deportation of aliens convicted of Federal crimes at the completion of their sentence. Third, the bill calls for mandatory victim restitution. Securing the right to adequate restitution is a long overdue victory for crime victims and their families. For too long, our criminal justice system has devoted significant attention and resources to the plight of criminals. As a result, crime victims have often suffered twice--first at the hands of the criminals, and then by an inadequate, insensitive, inattentive justice system. By requiring fair restitution, we will give victims of crime some of the ranking and legal status they deserve while they recover from their unwanted and unwelcome trauma. Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, this debate is not about who, or which political party, is more committed to fighting terrorism. I think we would all agree that keeping our Nation's cities and communities safe and secure is not a partisan issue. Rather, it is one of the fundamental duties and responsibilities of government. This conference report accomplishes the very difficult task of providing our citizens with an increased level of safety and security, without trampling on our rights in the process. These provisions represent necessary, but narrowly drafted tools that will go a long way toward assisting our law enforcement professionals in combating the genuine threat of international terrorism. So as we near the 1-year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, I urge the House to accept the work of the conferees and send a clear signal to would-be terrorists that their cowardly, destructive acts will not be tolerated by the American people or by this institution. For the victims of Oklahoma City and victims of other tragic events, and their brave families, I urge your support for this conference report. The Rules Committee reported this rule by unanimous voice vote yesterday, and I urge colleagues to give it their full support. Let's pass this fair rule, and let's pass the conference report without any further delay. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say in closing that the conferees have worked very hard to produce an agreement that I believe assigns the Federal Government a reasonable and legitimate role in the fight against terrorism. This legislation has not been developed hastily. In fact, it has been nearly a yearlong process to craft a bill that provides law enforcement with the tools they need to effectively deter and punish terrorism, but in a way that balances public safety and security with individual rights and liberties. It is vitally important that would-be terrorists understand our firm commitment to protecting our citizens from the threat of terrorist acts, especially here in these great United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.