[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-110
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international
relations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-746 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
Kristen Gilley, Professional Staff Member
Jill N. Quinn, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
WITNESSES
Page
The Honorable Tom Bliley, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.............................................. 7
The Honorable Mary A. Ryan, Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs, U.S. Department of State, accompanied by Jamison
Borick, Deputy Legal Adviser, Office of Legal Advisers, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 9
Ms. Patricia Montoya, Commissioner for Children, Youth, and
Families, Department of Health and Human Services.............. 11
Ms. Susan Freivalds, Hague Coordinator, Joint Council on
International Children's Services.............................. 32
Dr. Jerri Ann Jenista, American Academy of Pediatrics............ 34
Mr. David Liederman, President and CEO, Council on Accreditation
of Services for Families and Children.......................... 36
Mr. Sam Pitkowsky, Adoptive Parents Committee of New York........ 38
Ms. Kathleen Sacco, Adoptee...................................... 39
APPENDIX
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress
from New York and Chairman, Committee on International
Relations...................................................... 169
The Honorable Sam Gejdenson, a Representative in Congress from
Connecticut.................................................... 171
The Honorable William Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from
Massachusetts.................................................. 173
Representative Tom Bliley........................................ 103
Ambassador Mary Ryan............................................. 107
Ms. Patricia Montoya............................................. 115
Ms. Susan Freivalds.............................................. 122
Dr. Jerri Ann Jenista............................................ 130
Mr. David Liederman.............................................. 147
Mr. Sam Pitkowsky................................................ 158
Ms. Kathleen Sacco............................................... 164
Additional material submitted for the record:
Statement of the Honorable Mary Landrieu, a United States Senator
from Louisiana, submitted in lieu of appearance................ 176
Statement of the Honorable Dave Camp, a Representative in
Congress from Michigan......................................... 180
Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect
of Intercountry Adoption....................................... 44
H.R. 2909, The Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999................. 57
Statement of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys
concerning H.R. 2909, The Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999.... 182
Supplement to Statement of the American Academy of Adoption
Attorneys...................................................... 188
Statement of the National Council of Birthmothers concerning H.R.
2909, The Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999.................... 192
Statement of the Child Welfare League of America, Inc. concerning
H.R. 2909, The Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999............... 195
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION
----------
Wednesday, October 20, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in Room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order.
I want to welcome all of you here today for this hearing on
The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and co-operation
in respect of Intercountry Adoption. We greatly appreciate the
experts in the room who have made an effort to be here to share
their views with us.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
As an adoptive parent of two children, I can understand the
importance of developing policies that work for the best
interests of the child. I also understand that when parents are
seeking to adopt, they should expect the highest standards in
ethical behavior of the agencies or persons involved with an
adoption.
The fact is that there have been serious abuses in
intercountry adoptions, enough so that the international
community coalesced to produce The Hague Convention. The U.S.
signature to this convention affirmed a commitment to approving
the intercountry adoption process, and recognized that
international adoptions are increasingly part of establishing
families in the United States.
With the volume of foreign adoptions in this Nation, more
than 15,000 in 1998, it is important that international
standards be in place. These standards will provide parents
with the confidence that this emotional undertaking will not
leave them open to fraud or abuse. It will also protect the
children and the rights they inherently hold.
Ratification of the Convention by the Senate triggers a
need for implementing legislation. In September, I introduced a
bipartisan bill, H.R. 2909, the Intercountry Adoption Act, that
provides the Administration with the necessary authorities to
implement the Convention. This bill also reflects the extensive
work of key Members, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Camp, Mr. Delahunt, and
Mr. Bliley. I am grateful to them for their assistance. Today
we have 41 cosponsors on that measure.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. We have made an earnest attempt to craft a
bill that matches our Nation's obligations under the
Convention. We have followed the recommendation of the
Administration to designate the Department of State as a
central authority, and to assign responsibility for the
accreditation process, including oversight and enforcement, to
the Department of Health and Human Services.
The purpose of today's hearing is to encourage a discussion
of The Hague Convention and H.R. 2909 by those in the
international adoption sector, adoptive parents, adoptees, and
the Administration. The intent is to further our understanding
of the range of concerns, and, if necessary, to try to improve
the bill. This measure is designed to carry out our
international obligations and to institute consumer protections
in the adoption process.
There are issues within the adoption community that do
divide and polarize. One such issue is access to identifying
information and privacy concerns. I know there are strongly
held views on these issues. The moderate approach taken in our
measure, H.R. 2909, reflects an effort to try to accommodate
both of those interests. There is no consensus on the exact
formula for access to records, as evidenced by the variance in
the 50 State laws. In essence, the bill defers access to
identifying information and records to State law.
I believe our interests are best served by moving the
process along as promptly as possible. At this point, 36
countries have already ratified the convention. Our Nation
should be the 37th. We need to affirm to the international
community the U.S. commitment to ethical and expeditious
adoption practices.
For today's hearing we have three panels. First, if they
arrive on time, we will hear from two Members of Congress. If
they do not, we will proceed with the next panel.
We will hear from our representatives of the Administration
who will be responsible for administering the obligations of
the Convention. Last, we have a panel of experts in various
areas of adoption.
At this point, I yield to the Ranking Member, Mr.
Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very
brief. I want to commend you and Mr. Delahunt for all the work
you have done in this area.
In the last decade we have had 150 percent growth in the
number of international adoptions. As the globe continues to
shrink, we will see more and more of these international
adoptions. While we are at the beginning of this process--and
this bill will go through further changes trying to adjust to
what the consensus is or the general best approach is here--it
is important for us to come forward with clear rules that make
it easier for parents, that give them the best and most
accurate health care records available, and that make sure
America continues in its attempt to work within the
international community.
Clearly, international adoption solves problems. Children
living without loving families and in often terrible conditions
have an opportunity for a very bright and optimistic future
here in the United States or with adoptive parents in other
countries. We want to make sure that the families that get
involved in these adoptions are not tortured by a bureaucratic
process that often makes it difficult to make these children
citizens, makes it difficult to change their names, and
complicated in so many ways.
We want to make sure that some individuals who might be
inclined toward unethical behavior in this area, as in any
other, do not have an opportunity to victimize these people who
have such great intentions.
I commend the Chairman and Mr. Delahunt again for their
great work in this area, and I hope that we will learn from
these hearings and then expeditiously be able to move our
legislation forward.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last month I was very proud to join with you and Mr.
Gejdenson and over 30 of our colleagues in introducing the
Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999. I genuinely want to commend
you and Mr. Gejdenson for your many months of hard and diligent
work on this bill and for holding this hearing today.
Prompt U.S. ratification and implementation of The Hague
Convention is of enormous importance to many thousands of needy
children throughout the world and the American families who
adopt them. U.S. ratification will signal our desire to
encourage intercountry adoption and our commitment to creating
a legal framework that will better protect adoptive families
and their children.
As many of my colleagues are aware, my younger daughter
Kara was born in Vietnam and came to this country as part of
Operation Baby Lift during the mid-1970's, when Saigon was
falling to the Communists. So I am personally aware of how
important it is that we make it possible for children like my
daughter to find safe and loving homes through intercountry
adoption, when they cannot be placed in their country of
origin.
The bill we are considering today is a blueprint that will
enable the United States to carry out its obligations under the
Convention. It is, as you, Mr. Chairman, reviewed, the
culmination of many months of hard work, during which time we
consulted extensively with the Administration and many
interested parties within the United States adoption community.
Again, I want to thank you as well as Mr. Gejdenson, Mr.
Smith, Mr. Bliley, and Mr. Camp for what has been a thoughtful
and bipartisan effort.
From the outset of this project, we agreed that we should
adopt a minimalist approach, deferring wherever possible to the
State laws by which we have always regulated adoption in this
country. We tried to steer clear of extraneous and
controversial issues, and have resisted attempts to use this
bill to carry out changes to domestic adoption practices that
are not strictly required to bring our laws into compliance
with the Convention. I believe that process was fundamentally
sound, Mr. Chairman, and resulted in what is in most respects a
fine piece of legislation.
Having said that, I recognize that there are features of
the bill as introduced that can be improved. That is, after
all, why we have hearings. I want to assure those in the
adoption community who have concerns about the bill that we are
listening.
This is particularly important with regard to one provision
of the bill which I understand has caused considerable
consternation within the adoption community. I refer to the
provision related to disclosure of adoption records. To say
this is an emotionally charged issue would be a serious
understatement. As an adoptive parent myself, I share the
feelings of many thousands of parents about their children's
right to their birth records, whether for serious medical
reasons or simply to satisfy the need we all have to understand
who we are and where we came from.
The Convention requires that records be preserved and that
access be provided to the extent permitted by law. Most of the
countries that send children to the United States do permit
access. On the other hand, some sending countries do not. In
those countries, birth families have a reasonable expectation
that records would not be disclosed. So in drafting this bill,
we tried to balance the equities, to be sensitive to the
concerns of all segments of the adoption community, and to
craft language that would allow access in cases of genuine need
while permitting the laws that govern access to adoption
records, both here and abroad, to continue to evolve.
Now we have reached that part of the legislative process
when we hear reactions from the field. The early returns
suggest that we may not have achieved the balance we were
seeking. Some have read our provision as barring access to
records which today are freely available as part of the
preadoption process, as curtailing access even when permitted
by the laws of the sending country, and as subjecting those who
share information to criminal penalties even when this is done
with the full knowledge and consent of the birth family.
Without prejudging the merits of these concerns, I think we
need to listen to them and consider their ramifications for
children and for their families, and for the very goal we are
trying to advance, international adoption itself. I am sure
that none of us would want to create a situation in which
penalties and restrictions we impose on adoptees and their
families might cause other countries to stop sending children
to the United States.
I know my colleagues and I will remain open to all points
of view on these issues, Mr. Chairman. I want to assure all
segments of the adoption community that Members of Congress
will be listening carefully to what they have to say. That is
what this process is for. I have faith in the process, and I
believe that in the end we will get it right.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to
you for scheduling this hearing. I look forward to the
testimony.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
willingness to hold this hearing.
I also would like to take this opportunity to thank my
colleagues who have joined us to discuss the intercountry
adoptions. In particular, I would like to thank Senator Mary
Landrieu, who, along with Senator Helms, got the ball rolling
on this important process by introducing S. 682.
I would also like to thank my other Committee Chairman, Tom
Bliley, who will testify this morning, for his active interest
and participation in the process.
Mr. Chairman, in the last 10 years almost 100,000 children
have joined U.S. families through intercountry adoption. For
too long we have heard horror stories from our constituents
about the process of adopting children from overseas. While the
adoption process can run smoothly, it is all too often plagued
by unnecessary delay, fraud, duplicative court processes, and
exorbitant cost.
We are here today to discuss legislation that will make the
process more transparent, more orderly, and less stressful for
those who want to provide a child with nothing more than a
loving home.
On June 24, Representative Ballenger and I introduced H.R.
2342, the Intercountry Adoption Convention Implementation Act.
I am sure that it was not the Committee's intent to leave that
out of the briefing papers.
This legislation, which is a companion to that introduced
by Senator Helms and Senator Landrieu, would provide the
framework by which the United States will carry out its
obligations under The Hague Convention on Intercountry
Adoption, which the United States signed in 1995.
The single largest difference between S. 682, H.R. 2342,
and H.R. 2909 is the role of the Department of Health and Human
Services. One version of the legislation leaves HHS out. The
other gives the Department a major role.
It is a fundamental difference, though, Mr. Chairman. I am
concerned about adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to an
already unwieldy, inefficient, and bewildering structure of
HHS. Doing so, in my opinion, will do no one any good, let
alone the children and parents involved in intercountry
adoptions.
Second, I feel that opening the door of agency
accreditation to HHS, a domestic agency, will only encourage
the agency to pursue greater involvement in domestic adoptions,
where most regulations are left to the States, and the Federal
role is limited.
This hearing and this legislation is largely about
overseeing the activities of adoption providers overseas. If
further staffing and resources are needed to allow the State
Department Office of Children's Issues to meet its obligation
under S. 682 or 2342, so be it. But to say that State is not up
to dealing with the issue is disingenuous.
To quote from the State Department's Web site, ``The Office
of Children's Issues formulates, develops and coordinates
policies and programs and provides direction to Foreign Service
posts on intercountry adoption. The Office of Children's Issues
coordinates policy and provides information on international
adoption to the public. We offer general information and
assistance regarding the adoption process in over 60
countries.''
I fail to understand how State is suddenly incapable of
dealing with accreditation of agencies it works with on a daily
basis.
I am pleased to see that representatives of both State and
HHS are scheduled to be here today, and I hope that they can
address my concerns that I have raised this morning.
Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you for your willingness to
hold this hearing, and as one who has ventured through some 43
hearings on electricity restructuring, and we are still not
there, I am hopeful that you will not go for 43 on this. But I
am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that you will air this issue, because
I think there is a huge difference between the HHS and the
State Department.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you. We will try to short-circuit
the hearing.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I regret that after
giving this statement, I have to go to the Committee on the
Judiciary to present testimony.
Chairman Gilman. We understand those problems.
Mr. Pomeroy. I commend you for holding this hearing, and
commend the sponsors for introducing this important
legislation.
For years American families have reached across cultural
and national boundaries to embrace children through
international adoption. In 1998 alone, almost 16,000 children
are uniquely and forever enriching families into whom they were
accepted in this country.
By signing The Hague Convention on the Protection of
Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption,
the United States and over 60 other nations recognize the
importance of international adoption. The Hague Convention
creates a structure to strengthen cooperation among nations in
adoption, protects adoptive families from fraud and abuse.
Although this was signed in 1994, we have yet to ratify it.
The Intercountry Adoption Act provides the necessary changes to
implement The Hague Convention. It would strengthen the process
that builds thousands of international adoptive families every
year. Our legislation sends a strong signal that the United
States is committed to providing permanent homes for its
children and for children all across the world that need those
homes.
There are some individuals in the audience who I would just
like to recognize for their outstanding work in this area: Bill
Pierce, the head of the National Council on Adoption; and Susan
Cox of the Holt Agency, who herself was one of the very first
young children brought over from Korea and placed with a home,
which became a wonderful family in Oregon.
I just want to say, my interest in this legislation perhaps
exceeds in a very personal way any other legislative proposal
that not just this Committee will consider, but Congress will
consider, in light of the fact that since I have been a Member
of Congress my family has been changed with the adoption of two
children born in Korea. Kathryn and Scott have made such a
profound difference in our lives that I can only know too well
the beauty and the blessing and the miracle of intercountry
adoption, and also the absolute imperative of making certain
that adoptions across countries, across cultures, are free of
fraud and free of the kinds of issues addressed in The Hague
Convention.
So this is truly the Lord's work this Committee is
attending to this morning, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for your
leadership in it.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy.
Chairman Gilman. Now we are pleased to welcome our first
panel. We have testifying as part of the first panel Chairman
Tom Bliley, and we are still expecting Senator Mary Landrieu of
Louisiana, both on our first panel.
Chairman Bliley represents the Seventh Congressional
District in Virginia. In addition to his duties as Chairman of
the Committee on Commerce, he also Chairs the Adoption Caucus.
We welcome Chairman Bliley, and I invite you to summarize
your statement. Your full statement can be made part of the
record. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BLILEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Bliley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for allowing me to testify.
As an adoptive father, I have taken a great interest in the
subject of intercountry adoption. Over the last couple of
years, I have had the pleasure to meet with Russian Duma
Deputies, Russian judges and prosecutors, and the Director
General of the China Center on Adoption Affairs.
All of these officials raised concern about the lack of a
Federal Government authority they can turn to in case there is
a problem with an international adoption. Accordingly, I
cosponsored The Hague Intercountry Adoption Act because it
establishes a central authority in the State Department to
monitor intercountry adoptions.
Prior to my cosponsorship of The Hague Convention, I was
deeply alarmed by the terrible conditions of Russian
orphanages. Most orphanages lack sufficient funds to pay for
food, clothing, training, health care, and fuel. It pains my
heart to know that the majority of these children are never
adopted and are consequently in need of a loving family.
As a result of the dire news and the fact that Americans
have adopted more children from Russia than any other country,
Representative James Oberstar and I were able to secure $3
million in foreign aid for orphans and displaced children in
Russia in the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act last
October.
I believe helping disadvantaged children overseas is an
important investment that improves our relationships with other
countries and advances our foreign policy objectives.
Accordingly, Representative Oberstar and I set out to
significantly increase the foreign aid budget for orphans and
displaced children to $30 million for fiscal year 2000. We were
successful in securing these funds in the House-passed Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act this year. Unfortunately, we lost
out in conference, but as you know, the President's veto means
we will have another attempt to increase aid for orphans.
As a supporter of The Hague Intercountry Adoption Act, you
and I and many other Members of this Committee are answering
the cries of help of thousands of Russian orphans and abandoned
children worldwide in their search for a loving family to join
by working to keep intercountry adoption as a viable option.
I owe it to my constituents to view legislation with a wary
eye if it tramples the rights of the States. In particular to
The Hague Intercountry Adoption Act, there are some activist
groups with a political agenda of opening State adoption
records. It is their right to work in the States to advance
their legislative goal. It is my right to say that this matter
is best left to the States.
I also understand the Committee is getting pressure to open
adoption records. My response to you is to leave access to
adoption records for the States to decide. I can assure you
that you will always hear from people advocating support for
open adoption records. You will rarely hear from birth mothers
who desire to preserve the privacy guaranteed to them when they
placed their child up for adoption.
During the drafting process, we adhered to what is required
by The Hague Convention in the area of adoption records. If the
legislation is amended, and a precedent is established by the
Congress regarding access to identifying information to
adoption records for international adoptees, it will lead to
the Federalizing and disclosure of identifying information for
all domestic adoptions. In doing so, we will set a precedent
that ignores the laws of 50 States.
Access to identifying information is an issue that deeply
divides men and women of good character throughout the adoption
community. I speak from experience when I say that the Congress
should defer this issue to the 50 States.
Passage of The Hague Intercountry Adoption Act will rely on
two strong and simple principles. If there is a conflict
unrelated to The Hague Convention between the Federal
Government and the State government, the Congress should side
with the States. If there is a conflict unrelated to what is
required in The Hague Convention concerning access to adoption
records and the disclosure of identifying information between
foreign governments, our Federal Government and our 50 States,
the Congress should side with the States.
Thousands of children worldwide are waiting helplessly for
parents to read to them, to teach them how to tie shoelaces, to
say bedtime prayers with them, and to eat ice cream with them
on a summer night. It is in the best interests for a child to
be part of a loving family. The Hague Intercountry Adoption Act
gives the U.S. Congress an opportunity to stand up and reaffirm
our support for intercountry adoption. I am proud to support
this bill because I have been blessed by my own experiences
with adoption, so now I am doing what I can to help thousands
of innocent children find a home.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bliley appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Chairman Bliley. I want to
thank your staff as well for their assistance in helping to
draft this bill. We know you are in a markup, so we will not
detain you. Again, thank you for taking your time and for your
contribution today.
We will now proceed to panel No. 2, and we may have to
interrupt that panel if the Senator arrives, and give her an
opportunity to make her statement.
Our second panel consists of Ambassador Mary Ryan and
Commissioner Patricia Montoya.
Ambassador Ryan is currently the Assistant Secretary of
State for Consular Affairs. She has been in that job, much to
this Nation's benefit, since 1993. Secretary Ryan holds the
distinction of rank of Career Ambassador, reflecting an
outstanding career in the Foreign Service. She has served in
many nations in her more than 30 years in the Foreign Service
and holds degrees from St. John's University in New York.
Ms. Montoya is a Commissioner on Children, Youth, and
Families at the Department of Health and Human Services. In
that position she oversees the implementation of Federal
programs that assist vulnerable children and youth. She also
serves as the Administration's spokesperson on issues relating
to child and youth development, child protective services,
foster care, and adoption.
Prior to this position, she was Regional Director of Region
6 for HHS, where, among other duties, she was the liaison to
Federal, State, and local elected officials and businesses and
community leaders. She is a nurse by training, and throughout
her career she has worked to improve outcomes for children and
families, through her work in pediatrics, school health, and
community outreach. We welcome you to this panel.
Ambassador Ryan and Commissioner Montoya, you may summarize
your statements. Your full statements will be made part of the
record. The entire statements will be accepted by the
Committee, without objection.
Please proceed, Ambassador Ryan.
STATEMENTS OF MARY A. RYAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONSULAR
AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMISON
BOREK, DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER, OFFICE OF LEGAL ADVISER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Cairman and Members of the
Committee, I am delighted to be here today to have the
opportunity to discuss with you international adoption and the
1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, and the
proposed implementing legislation for that Convention.
I have with me today Jamison Borek, the Deputy Legal
Adviser from the State Department's Office of Legal Adviser, in
case you should have legal questions that are better answered
by an expert attorney.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other Members
of the Committee and the Congress who have shown such an
interest in the Convention and its implementation, as well as
the dedicated staff who have devoted long hours and worked so
diligently on H.R. 2909.
While there are some differences, we are pleased that the
legislation is very similar to the Administration's own
proposal. The protection and welfare of American citizens is
the State Department's highest priority. This includes American
parents building families through international adoption, and
American children finding families abroad through international
adoption.
We want to ensure that our children are protected once
overseas and that those brought to this country and their
adoptive parents are equally protected. These are concerns that
many Members of Congress and the Senate share.
The United States, particularly since World War II, has
opened its arms to orphaned and abandoned children around the
world, and many parents look to international adoption to build
American families and to provide a better life for these
children. These families are as diverse as America itself,
including extended families, married couples, multicultural
families, and single-parent households.
However, sadly, along with all the positive benefits of
international adoption, there have been some abuses. This fact
ultimately prompted 66 countries to convene in The Hague to
prepare The 1993 Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption,
which provided standards to protect children, their birth
parents, and their adoptive parents.
State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and
Health and Human Services have consulted with the private
adoption community, with parents, with lawyers, and with other
professionals on the general concepts of the proposed Federal
implementing legislation, which resulted in the
Administration's submission to the Congress in May 1999. Senate
bill 682 was introduced in March 1999, and H.R. 2909 in
September 1999.
Mr. Chairman, while there is some divergence of opinion
between H.R. 2909 and S. 682 as to which agency might be best
suited to establish and oversee the accreditation of
international adoption service providers, the Administration
strongly believes that the accrediting function should rest
with the Department of Health and Human Services, as proposed
in H.R. 2909. HHS, as the only Federal Government agency with
relevant experience in evaluating and working with domestic
adoption programs and social service providers, is better
suited to handle this function than the Department of State.
In our collaboration over the past two years with Health
and Human Services in working on the implementing legislation,
we have built a strong working relationship which has only
convinced us all the more that HHS is the appropriate agency to
handle the accreditation function. It has the experience, it
has the knowledge, and it is best for the children.
The world will watch how the United States implements this
Convention and how it protects children, birth parents, and
adoptive parents. Several of the largest source countries have
indicated to us that they are looking to us to ratify and
implement the Convention quickly, and that they plan to model
their own programs after ours. This latter point is
particularly important as it bears directly on the ability of
Americans to adopt abroad.
Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased that the Congress has
taken such an interest in this Convention's implementing
legislation. Americans adopt more children internationally than
any other country. Our citizens will benefit the most from the
safeguards in this important treaty. We are eager to work with
the Congress and the adoption community to safeguard and
facilitate intercountry adoptions for all those qualified, and
to bring children and parents together to bond as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Chairman, as I conclude my testimony today, I would
like to reiterate my thanks to you, to the Members of your
Committee, and to the Committee staff for the wonderful spirit
of collegiality and cooperation which we have enjoyed as this
important implementing legislation was developed.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ambassador Ryan.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ryan appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Commissioner Montoya, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA MONTOYA, COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN,
YOUTH, AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Ms. Montoya. Chairman Gilman and Members of the Committee,
I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the role that HHS
expects to play should we be given responsibility for
implementing the accreditation provision contained in the
Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999.
I would like to commend the approach that Members of the
House have taken in the bipartisan and cross-committee
development of H.R. 2909. Both the Administration's proposed
legislation and your bill represent sincere efforts to develop
consensus on the issues raised by the treaty and to implement
the Convention's provisions with the best interests of children
firmly at the forefront.
As you know, this treaty is an important step toward
protecting the interests of children, birth parents, and
adoptive parents in the rapidly expanding practice of
intercountry adoption. In my statement I will comment on the
purposes of accreditation under The Hague Adoption Convention,
address why we believe that HHS is the Federal agency best
suited to implement the accreditation provisions of the bill,
and discuss how we envision the accreditation process working
once legislation is enacted.
The purpose of accreditation is to measure an
organization's compliance with national standards of best
practice. The Hague Adoption Convention requires that adoptions
between party states be conducted only by organizations or
persons that meet certain standards. Intercountry adoption
services performed in the U.S. under the Convention would be
covered by accreditation and approval here, while those
performed in another country would be performed by providers
accredited by that nation.
Accreditation and approval are intended to assure that
agencies and persons operating under the Convention have the
organizational capacities to perform the functions for which
they are responsible.
Accreditation will not replace the process of State
licensure under which adoption agencies now operate, but rather
will supplement it where intercountry adoptions under the
Convention are concerned. It is not our intent to create an
excessive or burdensome set of rules, but only, as the
Convention specifies, to establish a sound standard of
practice.
The vast majority of States' licensing standards currently
relate only to domestic adoptions, and therefore, lack the
means to assure that agencies are knowledgeable about
intercountry adoptions or their responsibilities under The
Hague Adoption Convention. In addition, licensing standards
vary greatly among States, while accreditation standards must
be consistent in order to assure other nations that we have a
uniform standard of quality that they may rely on when they
entrust their children to a U.S. agency and the prospective
adoptive parents that they represent.
As you are aware, there has been some discussion as to
whether HHS or the State Department should be assigned
responsibility for implementing the accreditation provisions of
the legislation. While either HHS or the State Department would
carry out the accreditation function through one or more
private entities, the responsible Federal agency would need to
be involved in establishing the accreditation standards through
promulgation of regulations and in overseeing the accreditation
process. Because HHS has extensive experience in adoption and
child welfare issues, the Administration believes that HHS is
better positioned than the State Department to have
responsibility for this function.
As you may know, this Administration, along with Members of
Congress from both parties, has focused a great deal of
attention on the issue of adoption over the past several years.
Within the Federal Government, HHS has primary responsibility
for carrying out a wide range of programs and activities
related to adoption. HHS operates the Adoption Assistance
Program authorized under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act,
which provides nearly $1 billion to States to operate programs
of subsidized adoptions for special needs children leaving the
foster care system for loving homes.
We are also implementing very successfully the
Administration's Adoption 2002 Initiative, the goal of which is
to double by the year 2002 the annual number of children from
the public child welfare system placed in adoptive homes or
other permanent living arrangements.
Our Adoptions Opportunities Program provides $25 million
per year in grants to public and nonprofit agencies to
demonstrate a variety of adoption-related services to increase
the number of children with special needs adopted from the
foster care system.
HHS also operates a National Adoption Information Clearing
house, which, although it specializes in domestic adoption
issues, does provide information about intercountry adoption.
Approximately 30 percent of the requests received deal with
intercountry adoption.
We fund a National Resource Center on Special Needs
Adoption, which provides technical assistance and training to
States. HHS's institutional experience in working with State
and local agencies involved in adoption will be invaluable to
our national efforts to establish an accreditation process for
intercountry adoptions.
I would now like to address briefly how we anticipate the
accreditation process being implemented. Once legislation is
passed, HHS would designate one or more accrediting entities
and would work with them to develop accreditation standards to
be established by regulation. Agencies seeking accreditation
would apply to an accrediting entity which would, through
visits to the agency's site and examination of their
established procedures and policies, determine whether or not
the standards for accreditation are met.
The accrediting entity would collect fees from adoption
agencies applying for accreditation to cover the costs of the
accreditation process. We hope to keep these fees as low as
possible and to scale them to agency size so they will not
become burdensome.
As you are aware, the Convention requires that accredited
agencies be not-for-profit service providers. But in many
nations, including the U.S., adoption services are offered by a
variety of agencies, only some of which are nonprofit
organizations. Under the Convention, each nation may decide
whether for-profit entities or persons may participate in
intercountry work.
Both your bill and the Administration's proposal allow for
approved persons as well as accredited agencies to perform
adoption under The Hague Convention. The Administration
believes that the qualifications of the agency, not its IRS
status, should determine whether it is allowed to offer
intercountry adoption services. Provided a for-profit entity or
person is able to meet accreditation standards, we do not
believe it should be barred from operation under The Hague
Adoption Convention.
Let me conclude by assuring the Committee that in
implementing the accreditation provisions of the bill, we
envision full cooperation with the State Department and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to assure that each of
our activities enhances the process of intercountry adoption
for children and families.
Over the past 2 years, as our agencies have discussed
implementation of the Convention, we have developed a positive
working relationship. We have taken the time to learn about
each other's agencies, activities, and organizational culture,
and have learned about each agency's strengths. We developed
our proposal with these strengths in mind to best make use of
the strategic advantages of each agency. We fully expect that
this positive working relationship will continue as the
implementation phase of activity begins.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Montoya appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
We will be continuing right on through the votes. We intend
to vote and continue without a recess.
Let me start the questioning, and I am sure my colleagues
have some questions.
Secretary Ryan, regarding the new fee collection provisions
in the bill, I know you have experience with the use of fees
for consular services. There will be a lag between initiating
the new office and collecting fees to cover the cost of the
office.
Will appropriated funds need to be used to cover the gap?
Do you have an estimate of startup costs and what is included
in that cost assessment? Do you have an estimate of the amount
that will be collected in fees during the first year?
Ms. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, I will get those answers to you for
the record.
We are going to engage in a cost-of-service study which
will determine the fee, and I am not sure at this point whether
we will be able to operate just on the fees or whether we will
continue to need appropriated funds. I would have to get that
answer to you, sir.
Chairman Gilman. If you would supply it for us, and we will
make that part of the record.
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir. Thank you.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Does the Consular Affairs Bureau in the
fiscal year 2001 budget request to OMB reflect the increase in
the workload and the responsibilities the Department is going
to have to assume as the Central Authority?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir, it does. We have asked for an
additional five positions in 2000. If we should be given the
accreditation function, however, we would need additional
staff, and we believe that we would have to at least double
that number. But we have in both the fiscal year 2000 and the
2001 budget requested additional staff for the Office of
Children's Issues.
Chairman Gilman. Have you made that request?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir, we have.
Chairman Gilman. Will there be any new responsibilities or
instructions to consular officers working at the overseas posts
with regard to international adoptions? Who will act as the
State Department's liaison with foreign governments on the
convention issues?
Ms. Ryan. Sir, in anticipation of The Hague Convention, we
have asked each post that issues visas to identify an officer
who will be responsible for children's issues and who will be
responsible for dealing with these cases with us. We will also,
once the legislation is passed, should it be passed, instruct
posts as to the new procedures that will be required under The
Hague Convention. I do not anticipate any problems in doing
that at all, sir.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ambassador.
The American Bar Association has posed that there should be
a requirement for a nationwide criminal background check for
foreign persons adopting American children. Do you have any
thoughts with regard to that?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir. I certainly do understand the concern
of the American Bar Association. I frankly share it, because we
want to make sure that children adopted from the United States
are going to loving homes with people who really want them as
children and who are not engaged in any nefarious practices
like trafficking in children or anything like that.
I just do not know how it would be carried out. I think it
would be very difficult. I am not quite confident about the
criminal records in a lot of countries, and so it would be a
difficult process, but I do share the concern that the ABA has.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Commissioner Montoya, one last question. Concerns have been
raised that the cost of accreditation, meeting the requirements
of the regulations, would unduly hurt smaller adoption
agencies.
Has there been any consideration of that problem? Is it
something which HHS will work with the accrediting entity on?
Does HHS anticipate some form of subsidy for agencies to
encourage other organizations to enter the accreditation field?
Ms. Montoya. Mr. Chairman, as mentioned in my testimony, we
have looked at this issue regarding the smaller adoption
agencies and have said that we would scale the accreditation
fee to the agency size.
HHS will work in partnership with an accrediting entity to
ensure that fees do not become a barrier. But we are not
considering any type of subsidy at this time.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have one
question. I understand the rationale for conferring the
accreditation process on HHS. You are correct, Commissioner,
when you stated that it falls within the gambit of the
experience and knowledge of your agency.
But in response to the concern that others have expressed
in terms of creating an additional bureaucracy, and I would
pose this question to both the Ambassador and you,
Commissioner, it is my understanding that HHS in effect
contracts out the accreditation process to the private sector,
presumably nonprofit operations, to do the evaluation and the
assessment.
Ms. Montoya. Right.
Mr. Delahunt. Whether it was the Department of State or
HHS, that process would be exactly the same, so I have reached
the conclusion that, in fact, there is no additional
bureaucracy here. In effect, it is just expanding what you do
domestically into the realm of intercountry adoption.
Is that a fair statement on my part?
Ms. Montoya. Yes, it is, sir.
Mr. Delahunt. Ambassador Ryan?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Delahunt. In other words, if there is an additional
bureaucracy that would be created, it would presumably be
created within the Department of State by the addition of more
personnel within a separate division within the Department of
State to do exactly what the mission or the purpose of the
accreditation process is.
Ms. Ryan. That is precisely right, sir. There would be
great opportunity costs to our doing it, because we have no
experience. We would have to learn how to do it. We would have
to have additional staff, whereas HHS already has the staff to
do it. That is one of the reasons why we are concerned about
that.
Mr. Delahunt. Presumably, in terms of tax dollars, the
expenditure of public moneys would be considerably more if the
Senate bill were enacted as opposed to the House bill that we
are presently considering?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir. That is what we think, too.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.
Just a few more questions before we have to break for the
vote.
Commissioner Montoya, an important issue that is going to
have to be addressed is the matter of privacy or openness of
adoption records, as you have already indicated in your
testimony. What is the position of HHS with regard to full
access to these records?
Ms. Montoya. Mr. Chairman, I would actually have to defer
for a fuller response on that to my colleague from the
Department of State. The Department of Health and Human
Services expects only general information, not identifying
information about individual adoptions, and therefore privacy
issues would not apply.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
I understand that the consortium, The Hague Alliance, has
prepared standards based on the requirements of The Hague
Convention. Has HHS started to review these standards? Since
HHS will be involved with drafting regulations for the
accreditation process, can you give us an idea of how complete
these standards are?
I'm looking for some estimate of how much work is left to
be done in drafting regulations with respect to the
accreditation process: 6 months, 2 weeks? What is your
estimate?
Ms. Montoya. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that we have not
fully focused on the pieces that have already been pulled
together. We are aware of them, and they definitely would
provide a base from which we would start, which would
definitely increase our efficiency in being able to move along
in moving through the process.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey will take over.
Mr. Smith. [Presiding.] Good morning.
First of all, I want to thank you for your testimony. I
think this is, again, one of those issues where we can all join
together and work on what will be a mutually satisfying
outcome.
I have read The Hague Convention and was very touched by
its repeated insistence of the best interests of the child
language, and I think it clearly does that, and hopefully it
will be implemented faithfully by the many countries.
I do have a couple of questions I would just like to pose,
the first being that the American Bar Association proposes that
there should be a requirement for a nationwide criminal
background check for foreign persons adopting American
children.
I was wondering if you could tell us what your thoughts
were on that.
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Congressman. Thank you.
I said earlier that I share the ABA's concern. We certainly
want to make sure that American children who are adopted by
foreign couples or foreign people are protected and are not
being taken abroad for criminal purposes.
I just do not know how we could do it, because a lot of
countries' criminal records are not as complete or perhaps not
as honest as ours. I do not know how we would do it. I share
the concern. I understand the concern, and it is something that
we are worried about as well. But making it work is something
that I think will need a lot of time and consideration, and
also I am not so sure that we will get honest answers, perhaps,
from criminal records checks in some countries.
Mr. Smith. Do you have a sense as to how it might be----
Ms. Ryan. No, sir, Congressman.
Mr. Smith. Is it something under review by yourselves----
Ms. Ryan. We will certainly look at it. We will talk to the
American Bar Association to see what ideas they might have. But
we are talking about people from any number of countries, not
just Hague countries or countries that have signed onto The
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, but any number of
countries where people may wish to adopt children and may wish
to adopt American children.
It is a concern. It is certainly a very legitimate concern
and one that we share. We would just have to figure out how we
might do the criminal checks.
Mr. Smith. I look forward, as that evolves, to have a
dialogue with you. I think criminal checks, whether it be for
teachers or for those who are in proximity to children,
certainly have been in ascendancy with the explosion of
pedophilia and other kinds of misdeeds.
Ms. Ryan. Absolutely. It is the same worry that we have.
Mr. Smith. Let me just flip that. Do you think that
background checks ought to be applied to American parents who
are adopting overseas children?
Ms. Ryan. As I understand it, the American parents go
through a very thorough home study and review by the adoption
agencies, so I think that children who are being adopted by
American parents are protected well by the mechanisms that are
in place currently.
Mr. Smith. Is that something that you could at least take a
look at, because it has been my observation that some home
studies are extraordinarily well done. Others are less than
adequate. It all depends on the agency, and it depends on how
aggressive the individual might be.
It would seem to me, just like we do, and I fully support
it, it may seem like a stretch, but like background checks for
handguns just to make sure that there is no record, there is no
criminality involved with the person or any kind of mental
problems, it seems to me when you are thinking of the best
interests of the child, it would be in the best interests of
that child that we go the extra mile to ensure, because there
have been problems, as we all know, with adoption.
I take second place to no one in supporting adoption. I
believe it is one of the greatest ways of building a family on
the face of the Earth, and for helping the child and parent, as
well as birth mother complete something that is very good.
Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you, do international adoptions
compete with adoptions out of foster care?
Ms. Ryan. What we have seen with international adoptions,
Congressman, is that people who are adopting internationally
are looking for infants or very, very young children. Somewhere
over 89 percent of the children who are adopted from overseas
are under the age of three or four or something like that,
whereas children in the United States are older. Also, American
children who are in foster care often have special needs, and
parents seeking children from abroad are seeking children who
have only, perhaps if they have any special needs, very minor
special needs. So I don't think that there is a real
competition between American children in foster care and
children from abroad.
Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you, in terms of when there is a
disruption in the adoption case, I know I have worked on a
number in Russia with my own constituents. We have also, my
staff and I, and I have actually gone to Romania when Ceaucescu
failed to work on a number of adoption cases that were pending,
and very often those kids get lost in the bureaucratic tangle.
What is your sense as to what happens when there is a
disruption? Do you think The Hague Convention will help
mitigate those disruptions?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, I think The Hague Convention will mitigate
the disruption. First, it will assure that the child is really
adoptable before the case can go forward. Second, there is a
provision for very stringent release of medical information,
and we will have a panel of physicians on contract, as we do
now, to us for the medical exams, and those doctors will sit
down with the parents and go over any medical problems that the
child might have to make the parents aware and understand what
they may be confronting in the future with a child who may
have, separation anxiety or any of the problems that we see in
children who have been in orphanages in Eastern Europe
certainly for any length of time.
So I think that the protections are enhanced even by The
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption over and above what
we are trying to do now with the way we do it currently.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. Ballenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ambassador, if I may, let me throw out a personal
experience that has occurred in an adoption situation in
Vietnam because of a cousin of mine who happens to be on TV and
the lady who is the producer of Seventh Heaven, that TV
program, you may or may not have seen it, but anyhow she was
having all this trouble. There was a young girl--she went to
Vietnam with the intent of adopting a young lady. I think she
was 6 years old. She met the young lady. She did everything,
filled out all the paperwork, came back to this country, and
nothing happened. So she went back to Vietnam and she ran into
a stone wall. She didn't know what it was that was causing all
the difficulty, but there was nothing she could do. She somehow
would not be allowed to adopt this child.
So by this time the child had gotten to be 8 years old and
she was still trying--she spent close to a hundred thousand
dollars in an effort to somehow make the arrangements to bring
this child back to this country. She went to the star of the
program. He happened to be my cousin. He said why don't you get
in touch with Cass Ballenger in Congress.
So this lady got in touch with me and my wife, and we got
to work on the thing and I would say in a period of 6 months
with an effort on our part to somehow ease this whole
difficulty that was going on, eventually we got an Ambassador
there. It turns out the embassy itself, without an Ambassador,
was one of the reasons--there were people actually in the
embassy somehow not wanting children to be adopted and brought
to the United States. Anyhow, the Ambassador worked out and
straightened the whole thing out and we got her to this
country.
But the difficulty--here is a lady that was perfectly
qualified as far as I could tell. She now has the daughter.
They are all getting along fine, and we get pictures and all
this other stuff about the child, but my understanding is in
this situation now for adopting children, is anybody in our
government overseas responsible for the adoption of children?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir. In every consular section in every
embassy and consulate, that is one of the things that we do is
to assist parents to adopt foreign children. There is, however,
a considerable amount of fraud involved in this. There is in
some countries the buying and selling of children, and I don't
know the particular case that refers to. It sounds as if that
woman went through more than she really should have had to
experience, and so I apologize to you and to her for that. But
it is possible that there was some suspicion on the part of the
consular officer that there was something wrong with the
adoption proceeding, that the child was not really an orphan,
that the child might have been taken from a birth mother
against the birth mother's will. I don't know, but those are
the kinds of considerations that come into play sometimes in
some countries on adoption, and I think that The Hague
Convention will ameliorate those problems because the child
will be identified early on as being adoptable and also being
able to come into this country, and so there shouldn't be any
further problem like that.
It is one of the most satisfying things that we do as
consular officers, is to issue an immigrant visa to a child who
is being adopted by American parents. I find that frankly, sir,
one of the most moving and one of the most rewarding things
that we do as consular officers, and so I apologize for the
delay and the problem that that woman had.
Mr. Ballenger. I haven't had the same difficulty in
Honduras, where it turns out the Honduran government is well
organized as far as helping friends, that we just happen to be
very involved in Honduras.
But let me ask you a question. If the State Department and
the embassy and the consular people are the ones that are doing
the job now, what changes would our bill do to that? Since they
are the ones on the ground, how could somebody else do it?
Ms. Ryan. It wouldn't change that. They would still
continue to do it, but what it would do is to ensure that the
child is in fact adoptable as the process begins instead of
having a couple or a parent, would-be parent going to a
country, finding a child that they bond with and that they want
and then coming in to us and finding that there is some problem
with the fact that the child is not really an orphan or that
the child has been taken from a birth mother. Those kinds of
things are what happens. That is what we are trying to get at
with this Hague Convention, to eliminate that, to ease that
terrible sorrow that people have if they have found a child
that they think of as their own, that they desperately want,
and then we are the ones to tell them that, no, the child is
not adoptable because the child is really not an orphan or the
surviving parent has not agreed to allow the child to be taken
abroad.
All of those kinds of considerations come into play, and
that is what we don't want.
Mr. Ballenger. Who would then be responsible to get that
information?
Ms. Ryan. That would be done under The Hague Convention and
part of the whole process as the agencies are accredited, as
the American parents come to those agencies and want to adopt
in a Hague country, then the whole process begins way in
advance of their going to the country and finding a child on
their own.
Mr. Ballenger. But would we have to build a whole new
system?
Ms. Ryan. No, sir. It would be all part of it. We can do it
with what we have in place now.
Mr. Ballenger. I sure hope--like I say, I had excellent
working relations in Honduras as far as helping people get to
the right people and get the adoptions done, but I have never
had any problem as great as the one we had in Vietnam, and I
think if we had not had--the Ambassador finally came and he
used to be a Congressman, so I knew him. If it hadn't been that
situation, I don't think we would have ever been able to do it,
namely, because somebody in our embassy there was against
having this child adopted. I don't understand it.
Ms. Ryan. I don't understand that, and I will be happy to
look into it.
Mr. Ballenger. Just pose that problem to that embassy and
say, the Congressman asked why did we have so much trouble.
Ms. Ryan. I will.
Mr. Ballenger. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to use this
opportunity to ask the Ambassador about a situation in Costa
Rica where both American and Costa Rican courts have awarded
custody to the American father, and yet the law enforcement
authorities in Costa Rica seem not to be following the dictates
of either court. Have you had similar problems in Costa Rica? I
realize this relates more to the custody issue, which you face,
but it is not the exact purpose of these hearings here today,
but I would like you to address that.
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir, we have had difficulty with Costa Rica
over the return of children. Even when the courts have
determined that the custody should go to the American parent,
we have not been able to get the legal mechanism to kick in
that will deliver the child to the American parent. It is one
of the problems that we are dealing with with The Hague
Convention on International Child Abduction. It indicates to us
that that convention is not working the way we believe that it
should work, and we are going around to all these countries
where this kind of thing happens to try to get them to
understand what their obligations are under The Hague
Convention on International Child Abduction and working
particularly with Costa Rica because Costa Rica I think is on
the verge of signing that Convention, if they have not already
done so. But Costa Rica has been one of the more difficult
countries.
There are any number of cases like that. I don't know the
one particularly you are speaking of, but we have had very
great difficulty. We are going to hold a conference in this
country next year with countries like Costa Rica that are not,
in our minds, fulfilling their obligations under the treaty,
first for us to try to understand what the problems that that
country confronts are, and also to get them to understand how
we see and how we believe The Hague Convention actually is and
to get them to fulfill their obligations under the law.
Mr. Sherman. Ambassador, my concern is that while you would
be working very hard on these issues, and I admire your
efforts, that this is somehow a stepchild literally in the
State Department. We have had the Administration recommend that
Costa Rica be eligible for special treatment under CBI, the
Caribbean Basin Initiative. Before that decision was reached,
was there any consultation with you as to whether Costa Rica or
any of the other countries were adhering to international
standards with regard to child abduction or do we just not care
about child abduction when we pass out tremendous economic
benefits?
Ms. Ryan. Sir, child abduction, at least as far as my
bureau is concerned, the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the
Office of Children's Issues within that bureau, that issue is
not a stepchild for us. That is center.
Mr. Sherman. I know it is very important for your
Department, but is your whole Department a stepchild when it
comes to things that are important to Costa Rica's economy,
such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative? Were you consulted
before the Administration proposed including Costa Rica in the
Caribbean Basin Initiative?
Ms. Ryan. No, sir, I don't believe we were directly
consulted.
Mr. Sherman. I don't think children are going to be
protected until your Department is consulted before we award
important benefits in the diplomatic and economic sphere, and I
look forward to you being consulted on more of the big headline
trade and international agreements.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Dr. Cooksey.
Mr. Cooksey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your
being here to testify today, Ms. Ryan. Let me ask you, what are
the major obstacles to implementing this Hague Convention as
you see them today?
Ms. Ryan. I don't see any real obstacles. If the Congress
ratifies the treaty, I don't see any problems with our ability
to carry out the provisions of the Convention, sir.
Mr. Cooksey. Do you feel comfortable with the way it is
written? Do you feel that most of the potential problem areas
are anticipated and solved with the Convention as it is written
today?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Cooksey. Let me ask you this, in this country I know
Americans that have tried to adopt American children, and they
end up putting a lot of money into the system and spending a
lot of time and going through a lot of frustration, and quite
frankly, it seems that a lot of it goes to lawyers and legal
fees and so forth. How much of the problem with adopting
children from other countries, international children, is
related to problems with the, say, the legal profession, or
people that are involved in the process on this end of the
adoption process? Some of the obstacles that are involved in
adopting American children by Americans, do they exist with
Americans adopting international children?
Ms. Ryan. The process is a very, I think a very trying one
for the parents who want to adopt a child, because they have
gone through so much perhaps trying to have their own children
and not being able to and perhaps trying other adoptions that
might have failed, and so it is a very time consuming and very
emotional process. I am quite sure that nobody is trying to
make it more difficult for people who want to adopt children,
but there are certain things that they must, the parents, that
is, some certain standards that they must meet, the home study,
finding a reputable adoption agency, working with perhaps a
lawyer in the foreign country to ensure that the child is
legally adoptable. In some cases, unfortunately, and in some
countries, some of these lawyers are not reputable and are
actually trading in children, which makes it that much more
difficult for the parents who go into this in all good faith.
I am not sure that I really understand your question, but I
don't think that it is any more difficult for parents adopting
abroad except getting and understanding the culture and some of
the problems that the child may have faced in the early part of
his or her life. We have seen all of these stories about
children in Eastern Europe, some perhaps even in China, where
they are institutionalized and where the staff is not
sufficiently large enough to give them the attention that they
need as small children, as babies, and so what difficulties
they may have as a result of that as they are growing up, all
of those kinds of considerations come into play I think more so
overseas than in the United States.
Mr. Cooksey. Good. Thank you. Another quick question, has
the INS been able to work in a relatively efficient manner,
expeditious manner in accomplishing these? Are they a problem
and obstacle in this area?
Ms. Ryan. No, sir. We work very closely with the INS on
adoption issues, and I think that they have been very
responsive and very responsible.
Mr. Cooksey. Good. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brady. [Presiding.] The Chair recognizes Mr. Burr.
Mr. Burr. I thank the Chairman. The great thing about this
is that even with competing bills, we are all headed to the
same end.
It is unfortunate that, in my particular case, I look at it
one way, many on the Committee and in the House look at it a
little bit differently, but I also try to take into
consideration the scope of my involvement with HHS on the
Commerce Committee and a better understanding of the scope in
total of what is before HHS.
Let me ask you, Commissioner Montoya, you highlighted in
your statement under the accreditation experience because HHS
has extensive experience in adoption. Tell me what extensive--
or experience HHS has in international adoption today.
Ms. Montoya. Congressman, that is not an area that HHS has
been involved in per se because what happens is parents decide
to adopt and will usually go either directly or through an a
private agency to adopt a child internationally. So, at this
point in time, we have not had involvement with international
adoption.
Mr. Burr. International child smuggling?
Ms. Montoya. No, sir.
Mr. Burr. Any experience there? International child
abduction?
Ms. Montoya. No, sir.
Mr. Burr. How about the State Department, Ambassador Ryan,
experience?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Congressman, we do have experience in
international adoption, and we do unfortunately have experience
with international child abduction.
Mr. Burr. If, take for a minute that the bill were passed
and HHS were given the responsibility for accreditation, State
Department would continue to facilitate their role on the
ground of helping the adoption process work smoothly. Who would
be responsible for oversight of the accredited companies?
Ms. Montoya. Congressman, that would fall to HHS.
Mr. Burr. So HHS would accredit these agencies, they would
have oversight of the agencies, and the State would be the one
that worked intensely on the movement of children from
countries to families?
Ms. Ryan. Right.
Mr. Burr. So given that you would have the oversight
responsibilities then, how would you know whether it is
working? Would you be relying on what information State
supplied for you?
Ms. Montoya. No, Congressman. What would happen under this
accreditation process is that we would designate one or more
accreditation entities that have the experience and have been
working in this area of accreditation in the area of adoptions.
Mr. Burr. But wouldn't you have oversight responsibility
over that agency that you accredit?
Ms. Montoya. Right.
Mr. Burr. How would you know if they are doing their job?
How would you know if they are doing a good job?
Ms. Montoya. What we would do to support our oversight
responsibility is to have things put into our contracts with
them that indicate reporting mechanisms, so that they would let
us know what they are doing. There might also be an on-site
visit and frequent discussion with them, those types of things.
It is not something we could contract out and then just forget
about.
Mr. Burr. No, but I think it is real important to determine
up front as we talk about what the appropriate agency is to
look at who ultimately has oversight responsibilities on the
function of adoption, and I would contend to you that we will
be relying on the State Department to facilitate these
intercountry adoptions, and in fact, there is no one better to
know how the process is working than the State Department
officials who are on the ground. Given that I believe both of
you would go through the same process of choosing an agency for
accreditation, when we look further down the line and look at
oversight, clearly I think the State Department is in a better
position to determine whether the functions are happening like
they were designed to, whether we have a problem with
accredited agencies. HHS is going to be relying on the reports
that the accredited agencies are going to turn back in to HHS,
the same reports that I question often whether anybody reads in
other parts of HHS.
Ms. Montoya. Congressman, the other piece, though, is that,
as was mentioned, that currently the State Department is
involved with the international adoptions, but HHS has the
experience and has the responsibility for child welfare and
adoption. So from that perspective we have been working in this
area and have the expertise already in place as we move ahead
to start working on pooling together the information of the
standards for accreditation and in moving ahead with the
regulation that would have to be promulgated.
Mr. Burr. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for
two additional minutes.
Chairman Gilman. [Presiding.] Without objection.
Mr. Burr. So HHS has a wealth of knowledge about how to set
up the criteria for accreditation, is that what you are saying?
Ms. Montoya. We have the experience having that
responsibility in this country, yes, sir.
Mr. Burr. Is there any reason that that wealth of knowledge
couldn't be shared with the State Department and let them still
be the accrediting agency and department and be responsible for
oversight?
Ms. Montoya. Sir, what would then have to happen is that
there would have to be an additional step, actually, because
then they would have to be coming to us for that experience and
expertise.
Ms. Ryan. If I might, Congressman, that is the opportunity
cost, because we would have to learn how to do it, and it would
take us a while to learn how to do it, whereas HHS already
knows how to do this, and they have the network in place
already because they are already accrediting, and we have never
had a domestic responsibility because we are a foreign affairs
agency, and so, yes, certainly we can do it, we will be able to
do it, but it will take us much longer to get started doing it
and getting it up and running the way it would work in HHS from
the start. So I think that we conceivably are disadvantaging
American citizens who are anxious to adopt children
internationally.
Mr. Burr. Let me suggest to you, Ambassador, that in fact
we are not here talking about domestic adoption, that we are
here talking about international adoption, and when you weigh
it, the experience for international experiences lies in the
State Department. Yes, I believe that HHS has some statistical
information that might lead one to set up the guidelines for
accreditation. I don't think that is too tough to share, too
long to learn, too tough to work hand in hand with, but the
question is who ultimately is responsible to make sure that the
program runs correctly, the person closest to it, the agency
closest to it, the one who actually has individuals around the
world who face those real people who are trying to place
children in homes or the individuals in Washington who have all
the statistics but aren't there to see the real life.
This is clearly a fundamental difference. I shared it with
the Chairman at the beginning, and I shared it with my good
friend Mr. Delahunt, even though he and I are on totally
different ends. If everything worked perfect at HHS, I might be
one that looked at it and said, gosh, here is a great way to
expand. My fear is that with the experience, we are 3 years
away from HHS running the adoption process domestically. I
think that is a very dangerous thing that I want to make sure
stays in the hands of the States for the most part where they
have that jurisdiction today.
I want to thank the Committee and the witnesses for their
willingness, and I would yield back.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Burr.
Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just
take a minute, and I am pleased to hear that my friend and
colleague from North Carolina has implicitly endorsed the high
quality of the Department of State. I hope you have taken note
of that.
Ms. Ryan. I did take notice.
Mr. Delahunt. Please convey it to the Secretary. She will
be very happy to hear that. But my question seriously is to the
Commissioner. I think it is important for Members of the
Committee to hear how you currently go about the accreditation
process. If you could just give us a minute overview in terms
of what the process is that you currently execute of
accreditation and how that would carry over into the
international area.
Ms. Montoya. Yes, Congressman. What we look at when we are
looking at the whole accreditation process is that we are
setting the standards or the bar for good social work practice,
and that there is good ethical practice in what is being done,
and so what has happened is we have set up the guidelines for
that and then contract with agencies out there that have
actually had the experience of doing accreditation, and then
they are the ones that are actually pursuing it.
Mr. Delahunt. In other words, you set the standards and
then you contract out and the agencies that you contract with
ensure that there is compliance with the standards that have
been promulgated by HHS?
Ms. Montoya. Yes.
Mr. Delahunt. Presumably your oversight and your monitoring
is in continuing consultation with the contractees.
Ms. Montoya. Congressman, excuse me, let me actually
backtrack on that. Actually, we are not doing current actual
accreditation in the adoption area right now. The Department
has experience in other arenas with accreditation, but we are
not actually accrediting adoption agencies. So, excuse me, I
misspoke in that area.
Mr. Burr. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Delahunt. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Burr. Let me go back to an area you and I just
discussed then. What experience, as stated in your opening
statement, do you then bring to the accreditation of adoptions?
Ms. Montoya. Congressman, what ACF and what HHS brings to
this is that we have had the responsibility for child welfare
and adoption and the experience in dealing with the child's
well-being in this country. So, again, all the experience that
we have had in working with issues of children and families,
particularly those involving children in the child welfare
system, is the experience that we bring. It is that
understanding and then also then having had the experience of
dealing with accreditation through other parts of our
Department.
Mr. Burr. I think Ambassador Ryan was concerned with the
State's curve up in education of learning this, and in fact,
with the exception of accrediting other areas, HHS doesn't have
experience with accreditation currently of adoption, do they?
You start at the same point, am I correct?
Ms. Ryan. Sir, we have no experience whatsoever with
accrediting anyone in any way. I don't think we are really
starting at the same point. HHS does have accrediting
responsibilities, if not in the adoption field, in the health
field, and so they have the experience. They know how to do it.
We don't. We would have to learn how to do this.
Mr. Burr. But you do know how to facilitate children being
adopted and actually moving through the process, which I would
tell you is a much greater experience that I would look for in
the process. I want to go back, and then, Mr. Chairman, I will
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Delahunt hit on a very important thing and that is the
process, that you are going to rely on an agency to do the
accreditation, to be responsible, to make sure that everything
is done like it is supposed to meet the standards, the
guidelines that HHS has set. Who is responsible to know whether
adoptions are taking place? There is a big difference between
does the system work and are we adhering to the rules and the
regulations that we design. Who is responsible for that under
the HHS model?
Ms. Montoya. Under the HHS model you are talking about for
U.S. adoptions or international--you are talking about U.S.?
Mr. Burr. I am talking about intercountry. You are going to
find a company that you are going to license with a credit, you
are going to give them the standards, the rules, the
regulations. You are going to say, it is your job to make this
happen and to make sure that everybody is compliant, right?
That is what you said to Mr. Delahunt.
Ms. Montoya. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burr. Whose concern is it as to whether adoptions are
taking place?
Ms. Montoya. I would believe that the way the bill is
currently written, HHS only has the role of the accreditation
and not actually dealing with the individual adoption process.
Mr. Burr. The answer is nobody?
Ms. Montoya. I would defer to the State Department.
Ms. Ryan. We have an analogy I think, Congressman, on
refugees and refugee programs, where we do the international
part of that refugee work and HHS does the domestic services
for refugees who come to this country. So I think that the
sharing of responsibilities already exists, and we have over
the past 2 years of working on The Hague Convention and the
implementing legislation, developed a very effective working
relationship with HHS, and I think that they are better
equipped to do this work.
We would continue, obviously, to do the work that we do on
actually issuing the visas to the adopted children and having
the children come to the United States, but the accrediting of
the agencies, I think, is better in the hands of a domestic
agency than an international agency.
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Brady.
Mr. Burr. Don't understate your experience and your good
work. I thank the Chair.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
leadership on this issue. I appreciate the hard work that has
been done to try to meet our commitments and implement The
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, and I want to be a
help in this process.
I have a couple of concerns that I hope can be addressed,
and it comes from the standpoint that I want to encourage more
of these intercountry adoptions. I want to make sure that
parents get it done right, that the adoption is permanent, and
that it is strengthened through the process. My own experience
is very limited, serving on the state legislative committee
dealing with adoptions, being an adoptive parent myself. My
wife and I also chose to begin an international adoption. So we
have done the homework and met with about 50 couples that have
adopted internationally.
So my concerns are these. Anytime we certify in the effort
to illuminate abuses, it is tempting to create a process that
tends to set a barrier to access, where only some agencies can
meet certification. While small practitioners, faith-based
organizations who do it as part of their missionary work, for
example, are driven out of the process, and I know at the State
level in almost every instance where we have really taken a
hard look at adoption, we found that the number of the drivers
of the cost have been ourselves. In our efforts to try to make
sure every adoption is perfect, we find we also have driven a
lot of very good families out of the adoption process.
So here are some thoughts. First, I think State Department
has far too much on its plate as it is. We need more resources
for you in other areas. I have not had as much experience with
HHS, but it makes sense that you play the key role here. I am
concerned that we don't have enough accrediting entities in
this legislation. There were some 15,000 adoptions last year. I
am sure it is rising. Five does not seem adequate, because the
worst thing in the world would be to have a date certain for
the implementation of this to have agencies who have good track
records and parents who have been waiting 2 or 3 years who have
children they are ready to adopt and because we don't have
enough accrediting agencies out there and working, that that
adoption might be held off for that family or an agency just
may not be able to get through the funnel in time. I think we
need to have as many accrediting agencies as needed to
implement by the date certain the time this goes into effect.
I am concerned that the paperwork and the standards are
either redundant or will drive up the costs in different ways,
and again, choosing an international adoption process
ourselves, we found a good agency after a long search. It cost
about $20,000 to start the process, but since then we have also
met couples who have had success through smaller, private
practitioners or faith-based organizations where a local
church, as part of their missionary work, once or twice a year
have a child who needs adoption, and they arrange it and they
are much more affordable because, obviously, it is ancillary to
their work. But they have good relationships and make it work
at a much smaller fee, and my concern is we will drive them out
of doing good work because of the burdensome paperwork and
accreditation process.
The registry to me does not seem to be necessary. I think
while it is important to know--back to accreditation, as we
know from licensing doctors, attorneys and other professionals,
accreditation and licensing itself doesn't guarantee a quality
practitioner. What is more needed I think for families looking
to adopt is, in effect, a credit bureau for international
adoption agencies where we can look at the experience of those
agencies, where we can find out from real people who have been
part of it, rather than a registry that, even though it starts
out confidential, we know ultimately will be public. I think we
would do better to focus on providing more information, more
knowledge to potential parents rather than creating a higher
bar or more costly bar that doesn't provide us with the type of
quality information the parents need when choosing that
adoptive agency.
My other concern, is on those who were looking to adopt
outside of America, it seems to me that the requirements of the
12-month waiting period are absolutely unnecessary. I think
requiring a married couple to be the ones adopting on the other
end misses a whole group of people. After my dad died, my mom
raised five of us by herself. Now, if she moved to Ireland,
agreed to adopt a child from here, a friend of somewhere, I
can't imagine someone saying she is not a qualified parent, and
I think there are a lot of very good families out there that
don't happen, in this case, widowed or single or whatever the
situation is, I think would be very good--I think best interest
of the child ought to be the standard we use. I don't know what
problem we are really trying to solve there from my standpoint.
So I will stop at this point to just say I am concerned
that we are going to drive up costs, drive out opportunities
and people, especially the small practitioners, and we are
going to discourage rather than encourage adoptions, and
because I know, knowing Chairman Gilman and the approach he
takes, this is so important. We want to do it right. I would
like to be part of the process to make sure whatever we do
implement ultimately helps rather than harms.
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Congressman, that is exactly what we want,
too. We share your concern on the 12-month waiting period,
because if we instituted it here for American children to be
adopted abroad, other countries will do that and that will
disadvantage American parents who want to adopt a child, and on
the other point that you made, which was----
Mr. Brady. Accreditation.
Ms. Ryan. On the accreditation, I can't speak to. The
Commissioner can speak to that, but there was one other point.
Mr. Brady. Cost.
Ms. Ryan. The whole purpose of The Hague Convention is not
to make it more difficult for people, single parents. That is
what you were talking about. We also think that all the 50
States allow a single person to adopt children, and we would
not want to see any change in that. We think that the States
should be able to determine who adopts, and we also think that
single parents should be able to adopt if they pass all the
background investigations and all of that.
Mr. Brady. Do we have anything in this legislation dealing
with age, because I have found that some countries are real
restrictive on age, and being an old father myself, we
discovered that we weren't eligible for a number of countries
in looking at adopting, and while at times I feel old, I think
we provide a pretty good family for children. The concern is
not to get into a reciprocity, but is there a way, and again,
to encourage more adoptions here, is there a way to encourage
more countries to lift what may be old fashioned or outdated
age limits on adoption?
Ms. Ryan. We have tried, and we continue to try to do that
by discussing with those countries our concerns about age
limits, and many countries tell us that they are looking to see
what we do with The Hague Convention, and so they will follow
our lead, and that will be one of the points that we will use
with them to see if they really are sincere in following our
lead because we don't have any restrictions like that in your
legislation, or in the Administration's proposal. So if that
passes as written, that is what we will be talking with them
about, trying to get them to do exactly what we have done.
Chairman Gilman. Gentleman's time has expired. Thank you,
Mr. Brady.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you very much. Just a few brief
questions. I met some constituents yesterday, or the day before
yesterday. One of the things they said was important was to
have a mandatory disclosure of all fees involved in the
adoption process so that those fees were made public. They
worried obviously that we were creating additional layers of
bureaucracy. They worried that the present process, oftentimes
after you adopt there is a nightmare to get the visa for the
child you just adopted into the country. Beyond that, they said
that, in some States, they have had--obviously this is not your
issue--trouble changing their child's name to the parent's
name. They also said that it is a complicated system to make
them citizens. What they were suggesting is that there ought to
be a process by which, once you adopt a child, if you are an
American citizen, they ought to become citizens automatically.
One of the things they said is that some people in the
State Department were worried that parents could change their
mind and then leave the child and then there would be an
American child behind. I thought that the easy fix there would
be that you could simply say that within 6 months of returning
to the United States with an adopted child the process be
automatic. So parents don't forget and Congress passes some
crazy laws that say if you end up on welfare for a weekend we
throw you out of the country, and 30 years later somebody is
getting energy assistance and being deported because their
parents forgot to make them citizens.
So do you have any problem with having some provision in
the legislation--we may have to do this through another
Committee--that would make citizenship automatic over, say, a
short period of time?
Ms. Ryan. Congressman, no, but it is the Immigration and
Naturalization Service that does citizenship. There is a
gentleman here, Mr. Cuddihy, who is prepared to talk on that if
you so wish. I think that State Department would like to see
that, as long as it doesn't disadvantage American citizen
parents with natural children, as long as it doesn't make a
distinction between kind of an automatic naturalization for an
adopted child, but that if you were an American citizen
recently naturalized, have a child abroad and can transmit,
that your child also--it would be those kinds of considerations
that we would want to see in any bill that might be developed,
but I think Mr. Cuddihy is here if you would like to hear from
him.
Mr. Gejdenson. Love to hear from him.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Cuddihy, would you please identify
yourself and your title.
Mr. Cuddihy. My name is Joseph Cuddihy. I am with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and I am currently
working in Washington, D.C., on a temporary assignment in the
Office of Immigration Services Division, which has
responsibility for the processing of numerous immigration
applications, including applications for adoption.
We, too, share the panelists' concerns and interests in
this entire process. We are very willing to work with members
of the staff, Members of the Committee, to look at the process
of naturalization as it occurs now, and to see where some
activities can occur that would make the process more
transparent. We know some of the concerns that are inherent in
this, and anything that we can do along the line to assist in
the naturalization and the citizenship process, we are very
willing to meet and try to discuss and work out.
Mr. Gejdenson. Do you have any problem with saying if you
have two American citizens, they adopt a child from whatever
country you pick, they come back to the United States, the
adoption has gone through, the child is living with them now
for 6 months, that it should be automatic that the child
becomes a citizen, and if the parents fail to register or
whatever they are still citizens?
Mr. Cuddihy. We want to be careful to make sure that we
look at all sides of the issues, particularly with the rights
of the children and the parents' desires. I would be a little
concerned with something of that nature that a parent might
want, for whatever reason in his or her own mind, that child to
keep the citizenship of their adoptive country, whether it be
for cultural reasons or natural reasons, and for that reason, I
think we would want to take those kinds of considerations.
Mr. Gejdenson. Fine. So you could easily provide an option
so they could choose whether to be binational, but I think the
fear here is that parents come back very excited, they are
focused on this child, not on the bureaucracy. They are
American citizens. This child has been adopted. You wouldn't
have any problem if, within the options that are presented to
make sure that there is no legal hassle later, there is an
automatic process that makes them a citizen?
Mr. Cuddihy. We would have no objection to a process----
Mr. Gejdenson. Providing they were given guarantees that
they could keep binational citizenship and everything else?
Mr. Cuddihy. That is correct, and we recognize the issues
and the concerns that you have, that through some lack of an
administrative process that has taken place someone ends up in
a position where, in fact, they are subject to deportation laws
of the United States.
Mr. Gejdenson. Great. I think one of the examples was that
a kid gets caught with some drug or something in college, and
next thing you know they are being deported because somebody
didn't file the right papers. It is a terrible thing, they
ought to pay the penalty, but they should pay the penalty as
any other American citizen would.
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Gejdenson, may I just make a comment that
when I adopted my daughter I think it was a 3-year wait before
she could become a citizen, and I found that personally
offensive, and there ought to be an option. I can appreciate
these circumstances that you describe where it might be a
choice by the parent to delay, for whatever reason, I can't
really imagine, but it is my belief that once an adoption is
finalized in this country, that that child should be a citizen.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Gejdenson,
and I want to thank our panelists for their patience, and for
providing valuable input on this issue. We will now proceed to
the next panel.
We welcome the five panelists who are here today from all
over our Nation. First, Dr. Jerri Ann Jenista is testifying on
behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, where she is the
adoption representative of the Academy's Committee on Early
Childhood Adoption and Dependent Care. She is also the
Chairperson of the same committee for the Michigan state
chapter, the Academy of Pediatrics. A practicing pediatrician
in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Dr. Jenista specializes in infectious
diseases, emergency medicine and in the medical care of adopted
and immigrant children. She is the Editor of Adoption Medical
News, a monthly newsletter for adoption and health care
professionals on the medical issues of adopted children. Dr.
Jenista is also one of the organizers of the Adoptmed Group, a
coalition of 200 health care practitioners who are involved in
the medical care of adopted children. Her current research is
in the pre-adoption evaluation of medical records and the
education of parents on the issues of children adopted from
institutional care. Dr. Jenista is a single parent of five
adopted children, three of whom have special needs, and she
still has time to come to Washington to give us the benefit of
her thinking. We thank you for being here.
Ms. Susan Freivalds is the Coordinator of The Hague
Convention policy for the Joint Council on International
Children Services, the oldest and largest affiliation of state-
licensed not-for-profit child welfare agencies servicing
children through intercountry adoptions. As the Coordinator,
Ms. Freivalds has led the effort to assure workable
implementation of The Hague Convention on Intercountry
Adoption, including defining standards and procedures to
accredit agencies to work in intercountry adoption. She was a
Member of the U.S. delegation to the treaty negotiations at The
Hague that produced The Hague Convention of interest to us
today. She holds degrees from the University of California--
Davis, and Georgetown University. She is also an adoptive
parent.
The Committee also welcomes David Liederman, the President
and CEO of the Council on Accreditation of Services for
Families and Children. Founded in March 1977, COA is an
international, not-for-profit standard setting accrediting
agency. Mr. Liederman has a long career in child welfare. He
most recently was the Executive Director of the Child Welfare
League of America. He has been recognized for his years of
service by numerous awards, such as the 1999 Award for
Excellence in National Executive Leadership for the National
Assembly and the 1997 National Lifetime Achievement Award for
the National Association of Social Workers. He holds degrees
from the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and the
University of Pittsburgh. He has also served on the faculty of
the Yeshiva University in New York and in Boston. We welcome
Mr. Liederman.
I am pleased to welcome from New York, Mr. Sam Pitkowsky, a
Vice President of the Adoptive Parents Committee. The Adoptive
Parents Committee is a parent support group that provides
education information to prospective adoptive parents and
adoptive parents and has over 2,500 member families in the tri-
state area. Mr. Pitkowsky is an adoptive parent of two
children, and has been involved in the Adoptive Parents
Committee for many years. We welcome your comments, Mr.
Pitkowsky, on behalf of your membership and your personal
experience. We welcome you to the panel.
We also welcome Ms. Kathleen Sacco of Connecticut. Ms.
Sacco is an adoptee from Korea and has been good enough to join
us today to provide her views as an adoptee and also from her
professional experience as an adoption social worker for the
Family and Children'S Agency. Her work has involved assisting
and educating families adopting both domestically and
internationally.
So we thank all of our experts who are part of this panel
for taking time out of your busy schedules to be able to
provide us and share with us your experiences.
Please proceed, Ms. Freivalds, and if you would summarize
your statements. We will make your full statement part of the
record since we are running out of time. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN FREIVALDS, HAGUE COORDINATOR, JOINT COUNCIL
ON INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Ms. Freivalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. We want to thank you for holding these hearings to
explore how the United States might best implement The Hague
Convention, and for giving me the opportunity to address you. I
have submitted a prepared statement for the record and will be
summarizing it in this oral presentation.
As you mentioned, I am the Hague Convention Policy
Coordinator for the Joint Council on International Children
Services. That is the Nation's oldest and largest affiliation
of state-licensed, not-for-profit child welfare agencies that
provide services to children through intercountry adoption. The
Joint Council has 130 member agencies and provides services in
an estimated three-quarters of all intercountry adoptions to
the United States.
I was a Member of the U.S. delegation to the meetings at
The Hague that prepared the Convention in 1992 and 1993, and I
am also the lucky mother of a daughter adopted from Korea as an
infant 24 years ago.
The Joint Council calls for U.S. ratification of The Hague
Convention. We believe that the Convention provides many
benefits and that its goals of cooperation and safeguards are
not only laudable but also necessary to the continuation of
intercountry adoption as a means to provide homeless children
overseas with new, permanent, loving families.
The Joint Council supports enactment of legislation that
will enable the United States to implement the Convention in a
manner that will allow intercountry adoptions to proceed
ethically and expeditiously. We feel that H.R. 2909 is such
legislation, and we endorse its passage. We salute the authors
for their hard work and spirit of compromise that has produced
this bipartisan bill that the adoption community can embrace.
H.R. 2909 has been written with a minimalist approach to
implementation of The Hague Convention. It rightfully addresses
only the implementation of the Convention and does not attempt
to impose any conditions or corrections of adoption law or
practice that are not required by the Convention.
While Joint Council endorses H.R. 2909, I would like to
comment on several of its provisions. First, it is always in
the best interest of children that there be a large pool of
prospective parents from which to choose the most appropriate
ones for any child. H.R. 2909 rightfully does not place
restrictions on appropriate adoptive parents. Specifically,
single persons are a very important resource for children
without families and Joint Council would oppose any legislation
that limits their participation in intercountry adoption.
Additionally, H.R. 2909 appropriately exempts from
accreditation or approval agencies or persons providing home
study services only. This exemption will allow continued
convenient access by prospective adoptive parents to home study
services throughout the country. Quality control will be
assured in most cases by the fact that an accredited body or an
approved person will provide the balance of the adoption
services.
Countries of origin are counting on those of us in the
receiving countries to appropriately screen and prepare
intercountry adoptive families. If we allow adoptions with no
input from accredited bodies or approved persons then the
Convention will have failed in its goal to protect children.
The mandate becomes clear when we remember that
intercountry adoptions should be about finding families for
children, not children for families.
Regarding accreditation and approval, some may argue that
State licensure of agencies or persons would be sufficient.
H.R. 2909 has rightfully determined that State licensure is not
sufficient to assure compliance with the Convention, and to
secure its protections.
The thoroughness of State licensing varies from State to
State too much for it to be a meaningful national standard.
Although it would be convenient and easier for Joint Council
agencies to rely only on State licensure, after 6 years of
deliberation we have determined that State licensure does not
rise to the level of quality standard that is needed for high
quality intercountry adoption services.
As part of its minimalist construct, H.R. 2909 has deferred
to State law determinations concerning access to identifying
information. In light of the evolving child welfare practices,
Joint Council supports, at a minimum, access to identifying
information that takes into account the needs of all parties.
Joint Council historically has supported access to adoption
records and provision to parents of all available information
at time of placement.
A caution regarding these provisions in H.R. 2909 is that
they not have the unintended consequence of restricting the
provision to prospective adoptive parents of information for
which no guarantee of privacy has been either sought or
intended.
In a number of countries identifying information is
routinely provided to adoptive parents, either because it is
required for completion of the adoption or because the adoption
authorities prefer that families have this information.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Freivalds appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Dr. Jenista.
STATEMENT OF DR. JERRI ANN JENISTA, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
PEDIATRICS
Dr. Jenista. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Today I am representing the American Academy of Pediatrics,
an organization of 55,000 primary care pediatricians and
specialists dedicated to the health and safety of children.
I have submitted separate testimony from the Adopted group
which is a coalition of adoption practitioners in the United
States.
[The referenced material may be found in the appendix]
I have been involved in intercountry adoption since 1982,
performing research, providing education to parents and other
persons involved in adoption, and providing direct care for
patients. In the last 3 years alone, I have provided
preadoption medical review on more than 6,000 cases, and
ongoing consultative medical care for approximately 300 to 500
new patients each year.
The Academy is concerned about the numbers of children
being adopted from overseas who have significant medical and
behavioral problems that are poorly understood before arrival
in this country.
Over the past 10 years there has been a dramatic shift in
the demographics of international adoption. In 1989, there were
8,000 adoptions with over half of the children coming from
excellent foster care in Korea and Latin America. In 1998, the
number of adoptions doubled, but only 20 percent of children
came from foster care, with the remainder coming from
orphanages of variable quality.
Fifteen years ago, the typical adopted child was from
Korea, adequate information was provided to the family, the
child was kept in experienced foster care, and after arrival in
the adoptive home, most Korean children have done remarkably
well, with only a few problems specific to intercountry
adoption.
Today, however, the typical child comes from one of two
regions. The first child is one from China. She is invariably
abandoned by her birth family because of the one-child policy.
There is no available medical information about the family or
the child's care. The child will wait for an adoption in an
orphanage. The family will receive little or no useful
information about her health, and much of the written
documentation will be unreliable or inadequate. She will arrive
in the United States as a toddler with a more difficult
adjustment.
After arrival, that child and her adoptive family
immediately face issues of malnutrition, growth retardation,
nutritional deficiencies, inadequate immunizations, and a
markedly increased risk of many infectious diseases. For some
children there are long-term challenges, including undiagnosed
congenital defects and medical conditions, global developmental
delays, and behavioral problems.
The second child is one from one of the nations formerly
under Soviet control such as Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, or
Romania. An orphan from one of these countries may be
relinquished by the birth family because of economic hardship,
but more than 25 percent of the children offered for adoption
are available because of an involuntary termination of parental
rights because of significant abuse or neglect in the birth
family.
The rates of prematurity, low birth weight, prenatal
exposure to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, to sexually
transmitted diseases, such as HIV, hepatitis B and C, and
syphilis, are at unprecedented high levels. The incidence of
previous physical or sexual abuse, physical or mental
disabilities, chronic medical conditions, are exactly the same
in Russia as in children entering into foster care in
California.
These children will live in regimented orphanage settings
with inadequate stimulation. Medical care is practiced on a
model unintelligible to Western practitioners, with unusual
medical diagnoses and widespread use of potentially dangerous
drugs. Scanty medical information provides bizarre terminology
and may be falsified.
The child will not arrive into a home until he is a toddler
or an older child. About 10 percent of these children will
arrive to new adoptive families with a biologic or other
unrelated sibling. The high-risk medical and social background,
prolonged institutional living, and added stress of competing
with another adopted child set up a situation fraught with
difficult transitions.
After adoption, this child faces all the problems of the
Chinese child and more. All studies of these previously
institutionalized children have shown long-term developmental,
cognitive, and behavioral issues that persist well into the
school years and perhaps beyond. The degree of impairment is
clearly related to the length of institutionalization. The
longer the time the child is in an orphanage, the worse off he
is.
In my own research, approximately 50 percent of children
coming from orphanages referred to families today are
considered at high or moderate risk of an irreparable medical,
developmental, or emotional condition.
In summary, all children coming from institutional settings
to the United States today should be considered to have special
needs. Because of that, the American Academy of Pediatrics has
four concerns about adoption practice today.
Our first concern is about the adequacy and availability of
information released to prospective adoptive families.
Currently, approximately 40 percent of records submitted to my
office fall in the category of ``unable to assess'' because of
inadequate information. Family expectations based on inadequate
information and an unrealistic idea of who their child might
become are reflected in a significant increase in the number of
wrongful adoption suits against agencies and facilitators. The
basis of these suits has been undiagnosed or should-have-been-
foreseen medical and behavioral problems that were not
disclosed to the family.
Second, we have concerns about the education and
preparation of families about potential or medical or
behavioral issues. Currently there is no requirement that
families receive any information or education, or when no
information is available, at least about the circumstances of
the child that they would be adopting. The extraordinarily high
cost of intercountry adoption instills in families a high
expectation for the health of the child.
The current new ``entreperurial'' types of agencies, some
of whom are not the philanthropic or missionary institutions
referred to by Mr. Brady, may not practice using accepted child
welfare standards.
Third, we have concerns that agencies and adoption
facilitators are not providing adequate services after the
child arrives in the United States. An extreme example of an
unprepared family would be the death of the Russian child in
the hands of an adoptive mother in Colorado. If that family had
received appropriate services, perhaps that situation would not
have occurred.
Finally, we have concern about inadequate data on the
outcomes of intercountry adoptions, since there is no mandated
followup.
Our summary recommendations are in our written testimony,
but in essence, we are most concerned that Health and Human
Services should require accreditation standards for agencies
and adoption facilitators that would require that appropriate
information is obtained from orphanages about individual
children and their conditions, that facilitators and agencies
are not allowed to have families sign waivers absolving the
agency of responsibility, that agencies should provide
education for families, and that they should provide adequate
time after referred information for families to consider those
children; that agencies should be required to give families
sufficient time after that information is received to process
``who'' this child is, that they should provide post-adoption
services to families and make efforts to determine the well-
being of the child after adoption.
A method of collection about the numbers and progress of
international adoptees also should be founded.
In conclusion, it is important to reemphasize that we
strongly believe that such adoptions are positive and desirable
solutions for the placement of orphaned or abandoned children.
The vast majority of intercountry adoptions are successful.
However, our goal is to advocate for these children by trying
to ensure that the adoption process is medically ethical and
reasonable.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jenista appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Thank you very much, Doctor. Thank you for
your recommendations.
Mr. Liederman.
STATEMENT OF DAVID LIEDERMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, COUNCIL ON
ACCREDITATION OF SERVICES FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
Mr. Liederman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for all
of your leadership over the years. We are appreciative of both
your sponsorship and Mr. Gejdenson's sponsorship of this
important legislation. Thank you.
To my friend from Massachusetts, Bill Delahunt, thank you
for all your great work on this. We appreciate it. Bill and I
were in the legislature together in Massachusetts. We thought
that was the highest political calling, but then he decided
Congress was a higher political calling.
Mr. Delahunt. It was, believe me, the highest political
calling.
Mr. Liederman. I wanted to use my few minutes to talk about
the accreditation provisions of the legislation and speak to
that issue.
Let me first say a word about the Council on Accreditation,
which I head. COA has been in business for 22 years. We
accredit, or are in the process of accrediting 1,200
organizations in the United States that serve children and
families. It is a well-developed system. It is a terrific
system that accredits both public and private agencies.
For example, we are in the final stages of accrediting the
Department of Children and Families in Illinois, the largest
department serving children and families in our country.
Illinois is also requiring that all of the private agencies
that they contract with have to be accredited by the Council on
Accreditation.
We are accrediting all of the 37 community mental health
agencies in North Carolina. The entire mental health system in
North Carolina is being accredited by the Council on
Accreditation. The State of Kentucky is in the final stages of
accrediting their system. Missouri has just applied to accredit
their entire child welfare system. Ohio is accrediting their
counties. Maryland is accrediting their counties.
So we believe accreditation is the way to go, and I think
in the future every agency serving children and families in the
United States, public and private, will have to be accredited.
It will be the minimum requirement for serving vulnerable kids
and families in the United States, as it should be. It is the
bar that needs to be set if agencies are going to provide
quality services to kids and families.
The question that I always ask people is, would anyone go
to a hospital that was not accredited? No, of course not. Would
anyone send their child to a university that was not
accredited? No, of course not. Those are minimum standards.
As Mr. Brady pointed out, and I agree with him, there is no
foolproof system in the United States. We have not come up with
one yet. But the fact is that accreditation is the single best
system that I know, having spent 35 years in this business. To
ensure that there will be quality services for children and
families who need our help.
The Council is sponsored and supported by 23 national
organizations, including the Alliance for Children and
Families, the Association of Jewish Family and Children's
Agencies, Catholic Charities of the United States, the Child
Welfare League of America, Lutheran Services of America, the
Joint Council for International Children's Services, and the
National Council for Adoption.
They are all national sponsors or supporters of the Council
on Accreditation, which is an independent not-for-profit
accrediting body with an independent board of directors. So the
accreditation process has integrity to it.
It is a well-thought-through process which includes a self-
study that is conducted by the agency themselves. Following the
self-study, there is a site visit where we have trained 1,000
peer reviewers across the country who visit agencies to review
their materials, to look at some of the issues that they have
identified in their self-study, and to score the agency
according to the standards that we have developed.
The Council developed standards for international adoption
in 1992. We revised those standards in 1997. Of the 1,200
agencies that we accredit, 226 are adoption agencies and 11
provide international adoption services. So we already have
standards in place that speak to the issue of international
adoption, and these standards are supported by the 20
organizations who make up The Hague Alliance, who participated
in their development.
The standards speak to issues like legal regulatory
compliance and service delivery. They also speak to human
resource requirements and outcomes as well as quality
assurance, all of the things that we would expect that an
agency providing the highest quality services to kids and
families.
We always have to ask ourselves the bottom line question:
Are the services being provided by the agency services that we
would want for ourselves, our own kids, our own families? I
believe the way you get a yes to that question is through
accreditation. I am very pleased that you have included the
accreditation provision in this bill, and we look forward to
working with you to implement it. We look forward to working
with HHS and the Department of State to make sure that we have
a terrific program that does well for our kids and families.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Liederman appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Liederman.
I see we have a series of votes. That would mean a lengthy
delay. What I am going to suggest, if Mr. Pitkowsky and Ms.
Sacco would be very brief in their testimony, and we will
submit written questions to the panelists, rather than have
them have to stay around waiting for the votes to be concluded.
Mr. Pitkowsky.
STATEMENT OF SAM PITKOWSKY, ADOPTIVE PARENTS COMMITTEE OF NEW
YORK
Mr. Pitkowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sam
Pitkowsky. I am the adoptive father of two internationally born
daughters, Helen and Irene. I am Vice President of the Adoptive
Parents Committee.
The Adoptive Parents Committee is a volunteer organization
dedicated to promoting and improving all areas of adoption. APC
is a non-profit, non-sectarian parents support group run solely
by unpaid volunteers. APC is dedicated to a belief that every
child deserves a secure, permanent, loving home.
APC was organized in 1955 by a group of people united by
their adoption experience. APC currently has over 2,500 member
families of married and single persuasion who are involved in
intercountry adoption as well as independent adoption.
The Adoptive Parents Committee views The Hague Convention
on Intercountry Adoption as a progressive step toward promoting
adoption and protecting children, birth parents, and adoptive
parents from unscrupulous adoption practices. The Convention
acknowledges adoption as a positive alternative for children
whose biological parents are unable to care for them.
Fortunately, the Convention gives adoptees the same legal
status as those who are born into families, confirming adoption
as a legal process of merit.
APC supports these underlying principles that led to the
drafting of the Convention. We support the ratification of the
treaty, providing appropriate implementing language is enacted.
Such implementing legislation should fully support the
Convention in both spirit and practice, without placing undue
burdens or obstructions on the adoption process.
Provisions that may result in delays to the adoption
process or may prohibit qualified individuals from adopting
would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Convention,
and have no place in U.S.-implementing legislation.
We appreciate the efforts of this Committee and other
Members of Congress to ensure that the legislation will benefit
children and families.
In reviewing H.R. 2909, we saw several items that were in
implementation that continues to support all avenues of
adoption. S. 682 imposes an additional 12-month wait for U.S.
citizens to be eligible for international adoptions, and limits
adoption of U.S. children to married men and women. Not only
would this be an obstruction to placement for U.S. children,
but also may force reciprocal regulation by other countries
which would inhibit certain U.S. citizens from adopting.
In contrast, H.R. 2909 promotes adoption by allowing
children who are available for adoption to be eligible for
international adoption. It also provides for both single and
married persons to adopt, thus providing a larger pool of
prospective adoptive parents for children who are waiting to be
adopted.
We also applaud section 202 of H.R. 2909, which allows for
the role of approved persons in providing adoption services. By
making provisions for approval of persons as well as
accreditation of agencies we would provide a broad base of
adoption services for use by U.S. citizens to adopt.
Chairman Gilman. If you would summarize your statement, we
will put your full statement into the record.
Mr. Pitkowsky. Yes, I will.
The main issues we would like to comment on are about
consumer protections, that we would like to make sure that
consumer protections are an issue that is here, and that the
issues of wrongful adoptions are addressed; also, that the
accreditation process allows small agencies to participate. We
feel that this is a progressive step, and hope that these
changes will allow for it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitkowsky appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Sacco. Please summarize your statement. We may want to
ask you a couple of questions before we leave.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN SACCO, ADOPTEE
Ms. Sacco. Sure.
I am an adoption social worker for Family and Children's
Agency in Connecticut. My work includes assisting and educating
families adopting internationally. However, my first experience
in adoption occurred on Christmas Eve, 1976, when my sister
Kristy and I arrived in this country from Korea to meet my
awaiting parents. So I come before you today not only as a
professional, but also as an international adoptee.
In my personal experience and as a professional social
worker, I have come to know adoption as a process rife with
paradoxes. Birth parents must grieve the loss of a child which,
for a variety of reasons, they choose to relinquish. Adoptive
parents choose to experience the abundant joy and uncertainty
of building their families through adoption. The adopted child
goes through life often experiencing bittersweet feelings of
loss and abandonment, mixed with the security and comfort
within their ``forever families.'' As birth parents, adoptive
parents, adoption agencies, and governments make life-
transforming choices, the child is at the fate of these
monumental decisions.
My career is based on a two-tiered set of values. The first
value focuses on the needs of the adopted child and their need
to have a voice in the adoption. Adoption agencies can often
vary in their commitment to education and child advocacy.
Mechanisms of accreditation will help ensure high uniform
adoption standards to prevent abuse and exploitation of
children.
The second value focuses on birth parents and adoptive
parents who make difficult life decisions about adoption. Both
birth families and adoptive families require more preparation
and support. Education needs to begin as soon as families
consider adopting. While adoptees must accept their lack of
choices in their early life, there is no reason why families
should enter adoption blindly. Areas of education should
include loss issues, a child's identity questions, and medical
concerns.
Post-placement support is also integral to a smooth
adoption process. The story of my adoption did not end when my
plane landed. Adoption is a life-long process that impacts both
the adoptee and the adoptive parents. Agencies can serve as
lifelong resources for families, offering such services as
cultural information, counseling, and reunion support.
I sit before you as one example of both the successes and
the lessons to be learned about intercountry adoption. The
adult adoptee community can be a new voice for both adoptees
and for ethical adoption practice. International adoptees can
provide a unique perspective on what is truly a transcultural
experience. We can learn immensely from listening to these
pioneers in adoption.
An area of great importance to the adoptee community is the
necessity to preserve our records and other information related
to our adoptions. Adoptees have a need to better understand
their beginnings. The choice to search and to have access to
records is a powerful one for the community. In the paradox of
adoption, the destiny of the child is changed irrevocably by
the choices of others. Including a provision to access records
in H.R. 2909 would respect the rights of adult adoptees to make
decisions in regard to their birth histories. By having access
to records, we as adoptees can provide a connection to our
families past, as well as our own.
My husband Paul and I are expecting our first child this
December. Once again, I see my life through the lens of
adoption. I wonder about my medical history and how my adoption
will affect my child. In our society, with its knowledge of the
role of genetic history, adoptees and their families live in
ignorance of their genetic legacies. I also know that my child
will ask, as I have, about his or her own ethnic connection to
Korea.
On our return trip from Korea, Paul and I escorted two
babies to join their new families. Twenty-three years ago my
sister and I were also carried off a plane into the waiting
arms of my parents. As I was entrusted into the care of others,
I was now helping to guide these two children through their
journey of adoption. My life had truly come full circle. As an
adoptee and an adoption professional, I have come to know the
profound impact of the choices made by agencies and
individuals. Ratification of The Hague Convention can serve as
a vital framework in ensuring that these decisions are made
prudently and that the needs of adoptees, birth parents, and
adoptive parents can remain paramount.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sacco appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. Thank you very much. I regret that we are
being cut short by the voting time.
Just one question, and then I am sure Mr. Delahunt has a
question. How can we improve the medical information for
adoptive parents? Who would like to speak?
Mr. Pitkowsky. I would like to just say that we believe
that it is the process that the agency should be responsible
for providing medical information, because they are the ones
that are more experienced and have the translators right there,
rather than the adoptive parents going to try and find it.
Chairman Gilman. Anyone else have a comment?
Mr. Liederman. One of the requirements in our standards
requires that full disclosure of appropriate medical
information be made, and that is a standard that has to be met
by the agency.
Chairman Gilman. Dr. Jenista.
Dr. Jenista. It is not just disclosure of the information
you already have, it is also an active effort to obtain
information which exists, which is what is not being done
currently.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you very much.
Did you have a comment?
Ms. Freivalds. We agree with Dr. Jenista that there needs
to be an active effort to get information, not just what is
provided.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. The Chairman posed a question which I had
intended to ask. I also want to apologize, we have less than 5
minutes for a vote. But your testimony was very important. We
look forward to submitting questions.
In response to the testimony by Ms. Sacco, I have those
same concerns that you articulated for my daughter in terms of
her medical history and her desire at some point in her life to
connect with her birth parents.
Chairman Gilman. I regret that we only have 3 minutes to
get to the Floor to vote. I want to thank our panelists for
their time and input. We may have some written questions that
we will forward to you following this hearing.
[The prepared statement of American Academy of Adoption
Attorneys appears in the appendix.]
[The prepared statement of the National Council of
Birthmothers appears in the appendix.]
[The prepared statement of the Child Welfare League of
America, Inc., appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Gilman. The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
October 20, 1999
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4746.155