[Senate Hearing 109-831]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-831
ASIAN ADOPTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN
AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 8, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-102 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN
AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Atwood, Thomas, president and CEO, National Council for Adoption,
Alexandria, VA................................................. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Letter to Senator Landrieu................................... 30
Barry, Catherine, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas
Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of
State, Washington, DC.......................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Cox, Susan Soon-Keum, vice president of public policy and
advocacy, Holt International Children's Services, Eugene, OR... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho....................... 2
Divine, Robert, Acting Deputy Director, Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC................................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Landrieu, Hon. Mary, U.S. Senator from Louisiana................. 22
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska, opening statement 1
(iii)
ASIAN ADOPTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Murkowski, Craig, and Landrieu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Good afternoon and welcome to the
Foreign Relations subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific
Affairs. Today we are going to be taking a look at the United
States policy on international adoption, and in particular,
adoptions from Asian nations.
I am particularly pleased to have Senator Larry Craig with
us this afternoon. Senator Mary Landrieu will be joining us
shortly. They are here this afternoon to provide us with their
insights and their perspectives on the issue of adoption. I
think it's fair to say that there are probably no greater
advocates of adoption in the United States Senate than these
two and they are certainly a tremendous credit to this body for
their hard work in this area. Senator Craig, I want to
personally thank you, and I will do the same to Senator
Landrieu, for your efforts.
Here in the United States, U.S. citizens adopt more
children from abroad than the citizens of all other countries
combined. Last year over 22,000 foreign children were adopted
by U.S. citizens. And we recognize that that does create a
burden on the Departments of State and Homeland Security to
meet the demands and expectations of prospective parents who
are anxious to bring new family members into their lives. Yet
much of the burden lies with the foreign governments who must
permit adoptions by foreign nationals and provide a smooth and
transparent process for intercountry adoption.
The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, which
entered into force in 1995, is designed to facilitate the
process of intercountry adoption. Congress passed the
International Adoption Act of 2000 to provide the domestic
legislation to implement the Hague Convention. And yet, the
United States has not yet ratified that Convention. I hope that
our witnesses from the administration today will be able to
provide us with an update on where we are in implementing the
Convention and what Congress can do to help facilitate that
process.
During the course of the hearing, I would also like to
bring up the status of adoptions from both Cambodia and China.
In December 2001, the United States placed a moratorium on
adoptions from Cambodia due to concerns about baby trafficking,
certainly a concern that must be addressed. At the time of the
moratorium we had two families in the state of Alaska who were
left in limbo. Their adoption petitions had been approved, they
had already visited the children, but they were unable to
finalize the process.
Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of many interested
organizations and families, and the cooperation of the
administration, many of those that were stuck in the pipeline,
including those families from Alaska, were able to complete
their adoptions. But still, that moratorium remains in place.
In a similar vein, in 2001 and again in 2004, Romania
changed its adoption laws to essentially prohibit international
adoption. After the 2001 moratorium was first implemented, we
again had an Alaska family who was in the pipeline to adopt a
Romanian child. And they were one of the few families who the
Romanian Government eventually allowed to proceed with their
adoption.
Since then, the State Department has worked aggressively
with Romania to help reform their adoption laws. And in this
past May, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a
resolution introduced by Senator Landrieu urging Romania to
reduce their barriers to intercountry adoption. I am hopeful
that similar efforts are being made with Cambodia.
And with regard to China, the No. 1 source of adopted
foreign children by United States citizens, the issue is
probably one of timing more than transparency. It often takes
more than the allocated 18 months to process an adoption
petition in China, requiring prospective parents to incur
additional costs in renewing their petition and submitting new
fingerprints.
Although the time frame may be a problem only for adoptions
from China, it is a problem for thousands of Americans each
year--nearly 8,000 last year. And as more and more families
look to adopt from overseas, and particularly from China, it
seems that we should be able to find an acceptable solution to
this growing problem.
With that, I would like to begin with our first panel,
Senator Craig. I do understand that Senator Landrieu is in a
meeting, and will join us, hopefully, after you have had an
opportunity to make your comments, Senator Craig. If not, we
will work her into the panels when she arrives. But if you
would please provide your statement here this afternoon. And
again, thank you for your efforts to make a difference to so
many families.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Well, Madame Chairman, thank you for that
kind introduction, and thank you for convening this important
hearing on adoption from primarily the Asian region, the source
of the largest number of children adopted internationally in
the United States, as you have just previously stated.
I wish my schedule permitted me to stay and listen to all
of your witnesses today. I am sure they will be providing the
subcommittee with some additional valuable information. This
hearing is particularly noteworthy because I believe it is the
first congressional hearing on international adoption issues to
be held since the publication of the final rule on accelerating
agencies in accrediting agencies in intercountry adoption, one
of the last steps necessary for this country to fully implement
the Hague treaty on intercountry adoption, that was signed more
than a decade ago, and ratified by the Senate 6 years ago.
In other words, we are fully entering a new era of
international adoption by Americans, an era in which the
Federal Government has a critical role in the adoption process.
There should be an ongoing dialog between Capitol Hill and the
executive branch of Government as we move ahead. For example,
we will surely find the need to adjust our system and law. In
fact, during the immigration debate, the Senate passed the
``ICARE'' amendment offered by Senator Landrieu, Senator
DeMint, myself, and others, to make some important changes that
will help Americans involved in international adoption.
I know we still have to convince some people on the details
of this amendment, and I believe we will be able to address
those concerns. But my point is that there is an ongoing need
for focus by Congress and other Federal agencies on the issue
of international adoption, and I am very pleased you are
kicking it off with this discussion today. It is tremendously
important.
As you know, Madame Chairman, I am an adoptive parent. As a
freshman Senator, I became involved with the congressional
coalition on adoption, and several years later Senator Landrieu
joined me as a Senate cochair. That coalition today numbers
nearly 200 members of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, for whom adoption is a priority issue. Senator Landrieu
and I have also helped to establish a nonprofit institute
called CCAI, Congressional Coalition Adoption Institute, which
helps to educate Members of Congress and the public about
adoption.
On the international front, CCAI has played a key role with
foreign delegations involved in adoption issues who are
traveling in our country, and we have organized trips for
Members of Congress to visit the source countries for U.S.
adoption, and discuss adoption matters with their government.
Although I am a strong advocate for adoption, it wasn't my
passion for this issue that drove all of these developments. It
is important to note that we were responding to a demand for
congressional assistance that has been growing steadily from
adopting families in the United States, and you have spoken in
your opening statement about the concerns of some of your
constituents in Alaska. When there was no specific point of
contact in either Congress or the Federal Government on
handling adoption issues, our coalition and the institute began
to help fill that very gap. Today, that situation is changing
in regard to international adoption, with the Departments of
State and of Homeland Security stepping into some of the
central authority roles described under the Hague treaty.
However, one thing that probably will not change is the
demand coming from adopting families. Americans pursue
international adoptions for various reasons. Some have personal
roots in another country that they want to renew through
adoption. Others just feel a cultural kinship with a foreign
country. Some adopt internationally for humanitarian reasons.
And frankly, some choose international adoption as a last
resort out of frustration with United States law that hinders
them from adopting domestically. They want to form a family
through adoption, and when they can't do it here they reach out
around the world.
Whatever the motivation, U.S. families have been adopting
overseas in ever-increasing numbers, and you mentioned those.
More than 20,000 annually, for the last couple of years. That's
a lot of people who potentially need assistance from our
Government in dealing with foreign countries. The greatest
number of United States international adoptions, as you've
spoken to, comes from China. China is much improved, even
though there are still difficulties. There's a greater
transparency and efficiency and predictability. And yet still,
it is timely and it is costly. And we ought to work to improve
that with the Chinese Government.
I wish I could say as much about the experiences Americans
have adopting elsewhere in Asia. It is not true. There are
enormous difficulties in sending countries that comprise the
Asian region, including their unique culture, their
characteristics, and their governments. All of these unique
traits affect how these countries deal with adoption. This past
year, I was in India. There, it is nearly impossible, and yet
there are more Indian children in need of a home than almost in
any other continent of the world.
Beyond those difficulties, obstacles have arisen in
international adoption from Asia because of the concerns about
the horrible crimes of human trafficking, and you have
mentioned some of that--in Cambodia and Vietnam, in particular.
Even legitimate adoptions have been disrupted in a fight
against corruption. You mentioned Cambodia. We were involved in
Cambodia for some citizens from my State of Idaho. It was also
true. You mentioned Romania. The same thing happened with
Idahoans in Romania.
Let me stress, I do not know of anybody in the adoption
community who would countenance trafficking in children. As
much as we want to facilitate adoptions, these adoptions must
be ethical, and they must be transparent. Having said that,
however, we should help these nations find ways to fight
corruption while allowing legitimate adoptions to proceed.
Otherwise, it is the orphan who will be paying the price for
somebody else's criminal behavior, the orphan who cannot be
adopted domestically, and may be deprived of a permanent,
loving home from an adoptive family of another country.
I have only scratched the surface here, and I am sure you
will hear much, much more of the challenges and the
opportunities for adoption in the Asian region from the
panelists that you have assembled here today. In closing, again
Madame Chairman, let me thank you for beginning a very critical
dialog, a new role to be played between the Congress and the
executive branch of Government. There are literally thousands
of Americans waiting to form families, and you and I and others
can play a critical role in facilitating their dream. Thank you
very much.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Craig. And again,
thank you for your leadership on this. We had an opportunity to
speak just a few moments ago and talked about the competing
priorities that we, as a Government, face--that the agencies
face. State Department has a great deal of important issues on
their plate, as does Homeland Security. We have got the war,
we've got other issues, but we know that when it comes to
caring for our children, this is the true marker of good people
and of great nations--it is those that are able to find a way
to help the children. So thank you for your efforts in doing
just that.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Lisa.
Senator Murkowski. And we appreciate your schedule, and we
will look forward to Senator Landrieu's comments when she is
able to join us. With that, let us call up the second panel.
Catherine Barry, the Deputy Secretary Assistant for Overseas
Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs here in
Washington DC, as well as Robert Divine who is the acting
deputy director of the Citizen and Immigration Services for the
Department of Homeland Security.
Welcome to the committee this afternoon. And again, we
thank you for joining us this afternoon to share comments from
both the State Department and the Department of Homeland
Security. With that, Ms. Barry, if you want to start off,
please.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE BARRY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
OVERSEAS CITIZENS SERVICES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Barry. Thank you very much. Chairman Murkowski, thank
you very much for this opportunity to discuss the status of
intercountry adoptions from Asia, as well as the Department of
State's efforts on behalf of American families who have decided
to open their hearts and their homes to Asian children in need
of permanent, loving families. The departments of State and
Homeland Security are deeply committed to working with these
families, as well as with the children's countries of origin to
ensure that intercountry adoptions occur under transparent
conditions, and with appropriate safeguards to protect the
interests of birth parents, adoptive parents, and most
importantly, the children themselves.
Last year alone, Americans adopted nearly 23,000 children
from countries around the world. Over 10,000 of those children
came from Asia. We encourage Asian nations to allow
intercountry adoption as an option for children who otherwise
would spend their childhoods in orphanages and other
nonpermanent care. Our work encouraging intercountry adoptions
is inspired by the 1993 Convention on protection of children
and cooperation and respect of intercountry adoption, which I
will further refer to as the Hague Convention. The Convention
recognizes that the full and harmonious development of a child
needs a family environment, quote, ``an atmosphere of
happiness, love, and understanding,'' end quote.
It also recognizes that intercountry adoption may offer the
advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable
family cannot be found in his or her state of origin. As of
today, 68 countries have ratified or acceded to the Hague
Convention. Asia is well represented in this group. China,
India, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand are all Hague
countries.
Through discussions in cooperation with Asian governments,
particularly those that have not ratified the Hague Convention,
we seek to implement and enforce standards and protections to
ensure that the childrens' best interests are always the
primary consideration, and to combat baby buying and selling.
Consular officers and other State Department officials abroad,
as well as those of us here in Washington, meet regularly with
country of origin officials to identify potential problems and
coordinate solutions.
The past years have several milestones that I believe
portend good things for the use of intercountry adoptions in
Asia to help children in need. On June 21, 2005, Assistant
Secretary for Consular Affairs, Maura Harty, and Vietnamese
Justice Minister Uong Chu Luu, signed a bilateral adoption
agreement that reaffirmed both countries' commitment to high
standards and safeguards, and allowed for the recommencement of
adoptions from Vietnam.
The Vietnamese Department of International Adoptions has
licensed nearly 20 United States adoption agencies to work in
Vietnam. And on January 25 of this year, the United States
Embassy in Hanoi issued the first orphan immigrant visa to a
Vietnamese child since our Embassy took over the responsibility
for orphan visa cases from our Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh
City, and the bilateral agreement entered into practical
effect.
Over two dozen Vietnamese children have found permanent
families with American citizen parents since January, and we
believe that many more children will follow them in the coming
months. In another important and extremely positive
development, the People's Republic of China, the largest
country of origin of children adopted by Americans
internationally, ratified the Hague Intercountry Adoption
Convention on September 16, 2005. The Department of State and
the American adoption community have long viewed China as a
country of origin with clear, uniform procedures that are
transparent to adoptive parents and their representatives. We
also know that the Chinese Government has strict measures to
verify the identity and status of children available for
adoption. China's Hague Convention ratification bolsters even
further our level of confidence in China's commitment to
equitable, legal, and transparent adoption procedures that meet
the best interest of children, nearly 8,000 of whom came to the
United States last year.
At the other end of the confidence spectrum, unfortunately,
is Cambodia, the only country for which the United States
currently has an adoption suspension in effect. The then-
Immigration and Naturalization Service suspended adoptions from
Cambodia in December 2001, due to very serious concerns about
baby selling and rampant document fraud, some of which led to
criminal convictions in the United States. Although a small
number of so-called pipeline cases were allowed to continue to
conclusion, the U.S. Government suspension has, at present,
essentially stopped adoptions from Cambodia to the United
States.
The U.S. Government remains engaged on this issue. U.S.
Ambassador to Cambodia, Joseph Mussomeli, met in March with
UNICEF officials to coordinate efforts to assist the Cambodian
Government in building its capacity to establish and/or
regulate child welfare institutions. A draft child welfare law,
which UNICEF wrote and the United States supports, is under
consideration and we are hopeful that the critical legislation
might be enacted by the end of the year. The draft legislation
would permit intercountry adoptions. The U.S. Government, in
partnership with UNICEF, stands ready to provide guidance to
the Cambodian Government in both establishing a child welfare
system, and enacting and implementing the pending legislation.
Let me briefly summarize our efforts to ratify the Hague
Convention on intercountry adoption in 2007. We plan to
complete our regulatory work this calendar year. In February,
we published the final rule regarding the standards of
accreditation for adoption service providers and approved
persons. This summer we will publish, for public comment,
regulations modifying the consular role in immigrant visa
processing in Hague cases, regulations governing the
certification process for Hague adoptions that take place in
the United States, and regulations establishing reporting
duties for adoption services providers handling emigrating
adoption cases. In this matter we are working closely with the
Department of Homeland Security.
In the near term, we hope to sign agreements with our
potential accrediting entities. Once these agreements are
ready, we can announce the application period for those
interested in becoming accredited adoption services providers,
or approved persons. Once we know the total number of
applications, we will be able to provide a more accurate
estimate of when we will be able to complete ratification of
the treaty in 2007. It is our goal, now and in the future, as a
central authority for the operation of the Hague Convention, to
support the generosity of American families to provide
permanent homes to children in need throughout Asia and the
rest of the world. Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catherine Barry, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Overseas Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of
State, Washington, DC
Chairman Murkowski, ranking member Kerry, distinguished members of
the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the status of
intercountry adoptions from Asia, as well as the Department of State's
efforts on behalf of American families who have decided to open their
hearts and their homes to Asian children in need of permanent, loving
families. The Department of State is deeply committed to working with
these families, as well as with the children's countries of origin, to
ensure that intercountry adoptions occur under transparent conditions,
and with appropriate safeguards to protect the interests of birth
parents, adoptive parents and, most importantly, the children
themselves.
It was exactly 50 years ago, in 1956, that the first large wave of
internationally adopted children came to the United States, and they
came from Asia. In the aftermath of the Korean War, Harry and Bertha
Holt learned of the plight of Amerasian children in Korean orphanages
and decided to help. Although a small number of children had come to
the United States as adoptees before that time, it was an extremely new
concept. The Holts adopted eight Korean children, and they and other
pioneers like them were on the forefront of a movement that has grown
and expanded to the point that last year alone, Americans adopted
nearly 23,000 children from countries around the world. Over 10,000 of
those children came from Asia.
From Korea and Cambodia, Mongolia and Vietnam, China and many other
Asian countries, children have come to the United States to join
permanent and loving families, and the Department of State has been,
and continues to be, by their side. [A statistical chart is attached to
show the number of adopted children brought to the United States over
the past 5 years as well as the source countries.]
We encourage Asian nations to allow intercountry adoption as an
option for children who otherwise would spend their childhoods in
orphanages and other nonpermanent care. Our work encouraging
intercountry adoptions is inspired by the 1993 Convention on Protection
of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which
I will further refer to as the Hague Convention. The Convention
recognizes that the full and harmonious development of a child needs a
family environment, ``an atmosphere of happiness, love, and
understanding.'' It also recognizes that intercountry adoption ``may
offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a
suitable family cannot be found in his or her state of origin.'' The
principles and goals of the Hague Convention have broad international
support. As of today, 68 countries have ratified or acceded to the
Hague Convention. Asia is well represented in this group: China, India,
the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand are all Hague countries. In
addition, UNICEF strongly supports the Convention as a means to protect
children around the world and to ensure that their best interests are
met.
Through discussions and cooperation with Asian governments,
particularly those that have not ratified the Hague Convention, we seek
to implement and enforce standards and protections to ensure that the
children's best interests are always the primary consideration, and to
combat child buying and selling. In all countries, finding local,
community-supported family settings to support orphaned or abandoned
children is the preferred arrangement. When these options are not
feasible, however, domestic and intercountry adoptions may be
appropriate and in the best interests of the child. Consular officers
and other State Department officials abroad, as well as those of us
here in Washington, meet regularly with country-of-origin officials to
identify potential problems and coordinate solutions.
The past year saw several milestones that I believe portend good
things for the use of intercountry adoptions in Asia to help children
in need.
On June 21, 2005, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Maura
Harty, and Vietnamese Justice Minister Uong Chu Luu signed a bilateral
adoption agreement that reaffirmed both countries' commitment to high
standards and safeguards and allowed for the recommencement of
adoptions from Vietnam. The bilateral agreement is consistent with
several key principles of the Hague Convention such as having
government authorities determine that:
A proposed adoption is in the best interests of the child;
The consent to the adoption was given by the persons or
institutions authorized to do so;
Adoptive parents had received counseling;
There were no improper requests for compensation; and
Prospective adoptive parents paid reasonable fees for
necessary administrative, medical, and court matters.
The Vietnamese Department of International Adoptions has licensed
nearly 20 United States adoption agencies to work in Vietnam, and on
January 25 of this year, the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi issued the first
orphan immigrant visa to a Vietnamese child since our Embassy took over
the responsibility for orphan visa cases from our Consulate General in
Ho Chi Minh City and the bilateral agreement entered into practical
effect. Over two dozen Vietnamese children have found permanent
families with American citizen parents since January, and we believe
that many more children will follow them in the coming months. We have
centralized adoption visa processing at our Embassy in Hanoi, and
assigned an additional consular officer on temporary duty there, in
order to facilitate ongoing dialogue with Vietnamese authorities and to
ensure an efficient process for prospective adoptive parents.
In another important and extremely positive development, the
People's Republic of China--not only the world's most populous nation,
but also the largest country of origin of children adopted by Americans
internationally--ratified the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention on
September 16, 2005. The Department of State and the American adoption
community have long viewed China as a country of origin with clear,
uniform procedures that are transparent to adoptive parents and their
representatives. We also know that the Chinese Government has strict
measures to verify the identity and status of children available for
adoption. In February 2006, the Chinese Government realized that some
measures had been compromised by rural officials in Hunan province. A
number of these officials were sent to jail pursuant to criminal
convictions. The Chinese Government subsequently assured United States
officials that none of the children erroneously put forward for
adoption had been adopted by American families. The Chinese Government
also assured us that they have reinvigorated their internal controls.
China's Hague Convention ratification bolsters even further our level
of confidence in China's commitment to equitable, legal, and
transparent adoption procedures that meet the best interests of
children, nearly 8,000 of whom came to the United States last year.
As I mentioned earlier in my statement, we also have a long and
cooperative history with Korea regarding intercountry adoptions. As in
China, transparent procedures and strong safeguards for the welfare of
children are a hallmark of the Korean adoption system. In fiscal year
2005, over 1,600 Korean orphans found loving, permanent homes in the
United States through intercountry adoption.
At the other end of the confidence spectrum, unfortunately, is
Cambodia, the only country for which the United States currently has an
adoption suspension in effect. The then-Immigration and Naturalization
Service suspended adoptions from Cambodia in December 2001, due to very
serious concerns about baby selling and rampant document fraud, some of
which led to criminal convictions in the United States. Although a
small number of so-called ``pipeline'' cases were allowed to continue
to conclusion, the U.S. Government suspension has, at present,
essentially stopped adoptions from Cambodia to the United States.
The U.S. Government remains engaged. Last summer, the U.S.
Government funded a survey by the international child welfare
organization, Holt International--the same organization founded by
Harry and Bertha Holt 50 years ago--to count and identify all of the
children living in Cambodian institutions. The purpose of this survey
was to develop baseline data about the numbers of Cambodian children in
institutional care and the nature of their needs, a first important
step toward designing an appropriate child welfare system. During this
same period, UNICEF was also conducting a separate survey focused on
the provision of child care services and facilities in Cambodia. Both
we and UNICEF have turned over the results of our studies to the
Government of Cambodia with the expectation that the data would help
Cambodian officials design programs to meet the needs of children
requiring care. U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia, Joseph Mussomeli, met in
March with UNICEF officials to coordinate efforts to assist the
Cambodian Government in building its capacity to establish and/or
regulate child welfare institutions. UNICEF has indicated its intention
to assist the Cambodian Government in training Cambodian nationals in
achieving this goal through workshops and seminars. A draft child
welfare law, which UNICEF wrote and the United States supports, is
under consideration, and we are hopeful that this critical legislation
might be enacted by the end of the year. The draft legislation would
permit intercountry adoptions. The U.S. Government, in partnership with
UNICEF, stands ready to provide guidance to the Cambodian Government in
both establishing a child welfare system and enacting and implementing
the pending legislation.
Let me take this opportunity to briefly summarize the Department's
efforts to ratify the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. Our
goal is to do so in 2007. Specifically, the Department intends to
complete our regulatory work this calendar year. In February, we
published the final rule regarding the standards of accreditation for
adoption service providers and approved persons. This summer, we will
publish for public comment regulations modifying the consular role in
immigrant visa processing in Hague cases, regulations governing the
certification process for Hague adoptions that take place in the United
States, and regulations establishing reporting duties for adoption
service providers handling emigrating adoption cases. In this endeavor,
we are working closely with the Department of Homeland Security.
In the very near term, we hope to sign agreements with our
potential accrediting entities. Once these agreements are ready, we can
announce the application period for those interested in becoming
accredited adoption service providers or approved persons. Once we know
the total number of applications, we will be able to provide a more
accurate estimate of when we will be able to complete ratification of
the treaty.
The Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security
both participated in the special commission on the practical operation
of the Hague Convention, September 17-23, 2005. It was evident, as
numerous national delegations and NGO experts commented on the
operation of the Convention, that U.S. support for the Convention is
broadly appreciated. More importantly, the U.S. delegation was
gratified to learn that many governments appreciate the willingness of
American families to provide loving homes to children, including
children with special needs. Statistics presented at the meeting
indicated that worldwide adoptions amounted to approximately 40,791 in
2003. Of that number, approximately 21,616 had been adopted by American
families. It is the goal of the Department of State, now and in the
near future as the central authority for the operation of the Hague
Convention, to support the generosity of American families to provide
permanent homes to children in need throughout Asia and the rest of the
world.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Ms. Barry.
Mr. Divine, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT DIVINE, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Divine. Thank you. Senator, my written remarks are in
the record, and you either read them or can read them, and I
won't repeat them, and I'll speak a little bit from the heart.
As a lawyer, and as an immigration lawyer for 17 years
before coming to the Government, I represented a number of
families who were adopting children internationally, and I know
the frustration with the process and I have experienced, with
them, some of the difficulties. Two of my very best friends
have adopted three different Chinese children in the last 2
years. My wife and I have adopted three children ourselves, and
I know what it's like to eagerly await your child.
I have happily accepted invitations of child-placing
agencies to speak with prospective adoptive parents. And when I
have done that speaking, I have tended to find myself saying
the same thing that my wife and I were preaching to ourselves
as we were going through the process, and that is that it is
not about us, it is about the children. This is about the best
interest of the child.
And I know that among the prospective adoptive parents,
some were hurting, most were anxious, all were eager, and God
bless them. But it is about the children. Adoption is a
beautiful example of grace and restoration in an otherwise
sometimes disappointed world, and children who need a home and
parents who want a child can come together and make a family.
But most good things are subject to perversion and abuse,
and this is no exception. Some people would want to adopt for
wrong reasons that would not be the best for the child. Others
may have great homes and great intentions, but whether known or
unknown to them, their eagerness to parent can create a market
for children that works against the best interests of children
in our country. U.S. law, I think, is well conceived to protect
the children and everyone else in the process in international
adoptions, and the Hague Convention and the Intercountry
Adoption Act will provide more protection. USCIS, the agency
where I work in the Department of Homeland Security, works to
ensure several things. First, that at least one of the parents
is a U.S. citizen, according to the law; also, through an FBI
fingerprint check, we make sure that the adults in the home are
not dangerous. Next, through a home study, we ensure that the
adoptive home is appropriate for a child. Then we make sure
that the child to be adopted is truly a child without a home,
and is not being sold. If there is an inadmissibility issue,
maybe a disease issue, then we adjudicate the admissibility
through a waiver. And finally, we issue permanent resident
cards and citizenship certificates to children who immigrate in
the United States.
As in so many areas of the law, the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of State share responsibilities and
processes in international adoption, and since coming to the
Government, I have really been impressed with the dedication of
people in both Departments who are working well, and better all
the time in their own agencies, and with each other. But we can
do better.
We need to give a clearer picture--in my view, in my
personal view--we need to give a clearer picture to adoptive
families about how the process will work, and where they are in
the process at any given time in it. The process needs to flow
more naturally and more efficiently. There needs to be a more
seamless connection between the government offices involved,
both within and between the departments. An example of how
things ought to work, and what we ought to be shooting for is
one of our processing successes. The Child Citizenship Act
amended section 320 of the INA, to provide automatic
citizenship when basically everything has come together to
result in permit residence conferred on the child, with a full
and final adoption.
So beginning on January 1, 2004, USCIS, before I got there,
made the process as automatic as the legal effect for these
children. So as the adopted child enters the United States port
with an IR-3 visa, the visa file is routed to the USCIS office
in Buffalo, who instead of issuing a permanent resident card,
goes ahead and issues a certificate of citizenship, without the
family even having to apply separately for that document. That
is the kind of thing that we ought to be shooting for: Less
complexity for the families, better ultimate result.
At the beginning of this year, I had become aware of some
concerns. Friends of mine dealing with the process, other
people--got some folks together, and it became clear that our
adoption process at USCIS needed improvement, especially in
streamlining and clarifying the process for those families. I
set up an ``intercountry adoption working group,'' and it
involves people both at USCIS and at the Department of State.
They are taking a fresh perspective to improve what we are
already doing, and to get ready to implement the Hague
Convention, according to the Department of State's schedule
that was mentioned.
We expect to have a draft of our rule next month. It has to
make its way up through the Department and OMB, but we are
doing everything we can to get that done. It is part of a
bigger scheme, and the goal is to have it all converge so that
nobody is holding anybody else up.
This working group is a marvelous group under fantastic
leadership. Anne Palmer is leading it, and by all accounts, she
is incredibly dedicated to this task. And she has really
solicited ideas from stakeholders and I think they would all, I
think--people in the stakeholder community--would applaud what
she has been doing. On June 12, that group will give the first
of, I'm sure, many quarterly reports to the Congressional
Coalition on Adoption Institute, and we look forward to that,
and I am sure that your staff will be interested in that.
So in closing, I would like to just mention the ICARE Act.
I really applaud the willingness of the Senate to consider a
new perspective, a new approach, and not be completely hampered
by however things have gone before, and we are certainly trying
to approach things that way in our agency. But the Department
of Homeland Security has concerns about the ICARE Act, and
particularly, the provision that allows foreign governments to
designate U.S. citizenship through the foreign adoption
process. That citizenship provision in our view is too
automatic, and we urge you not to eliminate the critical U.S.
Government control over citizenship determinations. I guess
otherwise I would say, as we have described, we are trying to
make the very best out of the process that we have and out of
the framework that we have, and we look forward to the
opportunity to make that as effective as anything else could
be.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Divine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Divine, Acting Deputy Director,
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC
Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Robert Divine and I am the Acting Deputy Director of U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS). I am honored to have this opportunity
to address the subcommittee on intercountry adoptions. The employees of
USCIS are proud of the important role they play in assisting U.S.
citizens seeking to adopt children from other countries. As a result of
their collective efforts, more than 200,000 foreign-born children over
the past decade are living with their adoptive families in the United
States.
I also want to take this opportunity to publicly thank our
colleagues at the Department of State for their ongoing partnership
with USCIS as we assist U.S. citizens in opening their hearts and homes
to children from other countries. Today my colleagues from the
Department of State and I will share with you the many achievements and
challenges we have faced in the past year. I will also address
particular issues concerning intercountry adoption in China, Indonesia,
Vietnam, Cambodia, and the implementation of the Convention on
Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry
Adoption (Hague Convention).
OVERVIEW
In recent years, the United States has seen a steady increase in
the number of children from other countries adopted by U.S citizens--
from 19,087 children in fiscal year 2001 to more than 22,700 children
in fiscal year 2005. USCIS remains committed to improving and
streamlining its processes, while strengthening the protection of
children in the system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrants-orphans
Fiscal year (Oct.1-Sept. 30) adopted by U.S.
citizens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005................................................ 22,710
2004................................................ 22,911
2003................................................ 21,320
2002................................................ 21,100
2001................................................ 19,087
2000................................................ 18,120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration
Statistics data includes (1) orphans adopted abroad, admitted to the
United States (IR3s), (2) orphans adopted abroad, adjustments in the
United States (IR8s), (3) orphans to be adopted, admitted to the
United States (IR4s), and (4) orphans to be adopted, adjustments in
the United States (IR9s).
RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS IN INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION
USCIS understands the critical role it plays in the process of
intercountry adoptions. There are several vehicles USCIS uses in its
efforts to assist prospective adoptive parents and children through the
intercountry adoption process. One such vehicle is the Child
Citizenship Act (CCA).
Child Citizenship Act Program
The Child Citizenship Act (CCA), which became effective on February
27, 2001, amended section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) by providing U.S. citizenship to certain foreign-born children.
Under the CCA, children with a full and final adoption abroad who
immigrate to the United States with a U.S. citizen parent automatically
acquire U.S. citizenship upon entry. Children who emigrate and have
their adoption finalized in the United States become citizens at the
time of the final U.S. adoption. A ``full and final adoption'' exists,
for immigration purposes, if (1) the adoptive parents completed the
adoption abroad according to the laws of the child's country, so that
the adoptive parents are now the child's legal parents for all
purposes, and (2) BOTH parents saw the child either before or during
the adoption proceeding abroad. The child receives an ``IR-3''
immigrant visa, if both of these requirements are met. If not, then the
child receives an ``IR-4'' immigrant visa. For example, if only one
parent saw the child, but the foreign proceeding was an actual adoption
proceeding, an IR-4 visa would be the proper visa. An IR-4 visa would
also be the proper visa if both parents saw the child, but the foreign
proceeding was a guardianship or custody proceeding, rather than an
actual adoption proceeding. For a child who enters with an IR-4 visa,
the parents must then adopt the child in the United States, if there
was no adoption abroad. If there was an adoption abroad, but the
parents did not both meet the child before or during the adoption, then
the parents must establish that the foreign adoption is recognized
under the law of their home State. This recognition may be established
either by obtaining a formal court order recognizing the adoption
(sometimes called ``readoption'') or by establishing that the home
State's law recognized the foreign adoption without the need for a
formal court proceeding.
If a citizen believes that his or her adopted child acquired
citizenship under the CCA, the parent may file an application for a
certificate of citizenship. In addition to this standard practice,
however, USCIS also implemented the requirements of the CCA by creating
a special program that processes citizenship for children adopted in
other countries. The program began on January 1, 2004, and is located
in the USCIS Buffalo, NY District Office. Through the program, USCIS-
Buffalo receives and reviews all immigrant visas for children admitted
to the United States who were adopted abroad (that is, those issued IR-
3 visas), and issues a certificate of citizenship to those children who
meet the requirements under section 320 for automatic acquisition of
citizenship. No formal application for a certificate of citizenship is
required, under this special program, if the child meets these
requirements.
To date, the CCA Program has been a success. From its inception on
January 1, 2004 to May 30, 2006 the program has:
Received and reviewed 37,617 visas for children admitted
with IR-3 visas; and
Produced 37,185 certificates of citizenship for adopted
children who were found to have acquired citizenship under
section 320.
It is important to note that just 34 days, on average, elapse from
the time the child enters the United States with an IR-3 immigrant visa
to the time a certificate of citizenship is produced for the adopted
child. While proud of this accomplishment, USCIS continues to work hard
to maintain and improve the timeliness of this program.
Intercountry Adoptions Working Group
In March 2006, I established and chartered the Intercountry
Adoptions Working Group consisting of representatives of various
components within USCIS that play a role in intercountry adoption, as
well as representatives from the Department of State's Office of
Children's Issues and Consular Affairs. The working group is
responsible for addressing three issues:
Near-term improvements and streamlining of USCIS' current
intercountry adoption process;
Long-term redesign of USCIS' intercountry adoption process
to strengthen customer service and integrity; and
Promulgation of USCIS regulations, and potential other
changes, necessary to implement the Hague Convention.
I believe we are already beginning to see progress from the efforts
of this working group, particularly in the area of coordination with
the Department of State. For example, as a result of increased
communication, USCIS and the Department of State have agreed to provide
joint quarterly updates to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption
Institute concerning implementation of the Hague Convention, and on
other pressing issues facing intercountry adoption. The first of these
updates is scheduled for June 12.
COUNTRY UPDATES
Because of this committee's and the public's interest in
intercountry adoption in China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Cambodia, it is
important to highlight the various processes and issues with
intercountry adoption in these countries.
China
Of the countries that currently participate with us in intercountry
adoptions, China generally is viewed as the most efficient,
predictable, and transparent of all countries. In terms of U.S.
involvement in this process, much of the credit for this positive
reputation goes to the Adopted Children's Immigrant Visa Unit (ACIVU),
a subunit of Department of State's consular section in Guangzhou, which
is supported by USCIS overseas personnel. ACIVU works closely with the
China Center of Adoption Affairs (CCAA), the Chinese Government
authority that oversees foreign adoptions to ensure an effective
intercountry adoption process.
The Guangzhou consulate adjudicates orphan petitions and conducts
orphan investigations for all children adopted by United States
citizens in China. More immigrant visas for adopted children are
processed in Guangzhou than in any other post in the world. In fiscal
year (FY) 2005, Guangzhou issued 7,906 visas to adopted children
immigrating to the United States.
According to information posted on CCAA's Web site, the current
wait time for the referral of a child for adoption is about 11 months--
up from about 8 months only several months ago. CCAA has attributed
this increase in wait time to three factors: (1) An increase in
intercountry applications; (2) a finite number of children; and (3) an
increase in domestic adoptions. CCAA has not speculated about whether
wait times will continue to rise in the future. Rather, they stress
that their policies are transparent, and that they do not impose quotas
on intercountry adoptions. Given this situation, the Intercountry
Adoptions Working Group, in conjunction with partners at Department of
State, has begun to examine the adoption processes to identify
opportunities for streamlining that will reduce the impact on U.S.
citizens of longer CCAA processing times.
Indonesia
Indonesia has strict guidelines and laws that prospective adoptive
parents must meet, including such requirements as being a resident in
Indonesia for at least 2 years with a permit issued by the local
authorities and a letter from the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta (a statement
of domicile). Indonesian law stipulates that an adoptive child must be
of the same religion as the adoptive parents; where the religion of the
child's natural parents is not known, the child will be deemed to be
Muslim. These are only some of the many requirements that prospective
adoptive parents must fulfill and follow, but I will defer to my
colleague from the Department of State to address more fully the
current situation in Indonesia.
Vietnam
On June 21, 2005, the United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral
agreement to resume intercountry adoptions--ending a 2\1/2\-year
moratorium. Under the agreement, which entered into force on September
1, 2005, the United States and Vietnam recognized:
Intercountry adoption is an appropriate measure to provide
children with a permanent family when an appropriate family
cannot be found in their country of origin;
Both countries needed to take appropriate measures under
their respective laws to prevent and deal with actions of
adoption abuse; and
Both countries share responsibility for implementing
measures to prevent improper financial or other gain as a
result of working for and receiving orphans, and to penalize
such practices.
The Vietnamese Department of International Adoptions (DIA), within
the Department of Justice, is the Vietnamese Government entity
responsible for overseeing and authorizing all adoptions by United
States citizens. The goal is to eliminate the possibility of contact
between the adopting and biological parents, which could allow for the
possibility of child selling.
Since the agreement took force on September 1, 2005, the U.S.
Government has received 22 requests for immigrant visas in adoption
cases from U.S. citizens. On January 25, 2006, the U.S. Embassy in
Hanoi issued the first immigrant visa to a Vietnamese child adopted by
a United States family under the agreement. USCIS is extremely pleased
with these developments and, with Department of State, will continue to
monitor the progress of safe and well-maintained intercountry adoption
in Vietnam.
Cambodia
On December 15, 2001, the then-Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) imposed a suspension on intercountry adoptions from
Cambodia due to evidence of baby selling and corruption in the adoption
process. A joint State Department-INS task force was then formed to
process all cases of American citizens whose Form I-600A (Application
for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition) to adopt an orphan from
Cambodia had been approved prior to December 31, 2001. Over the next 3
years, this joint task force, working with the Royal Government of
Cambodia, processed over 400 cases. The task force completed its
mission and was disbanded on August 31, 2004.
Currently, with the dissolution of the joint task force, no further
cases involving orphans from Cambodia will be processed by either the
Department of State or by USCIS. This means that there will be no
processing of orphan petitions (Form I-600) and/or immigrant visa
applications for Cambodian orphans until the suspension on intercountry
adoptions from Cambodia is lifted.
The U.S. Government stands ready to provide guidance to the
Cambodian Government in both establishing an improved child welfare
system and enacting and implementing Cambodia's pending adoption
legislation. We believe that this plan will yield positive results,
once the Cambodian Government begins to move forward on this issue. To
that end, the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh will continue to remain
engaged with both the Cambodian Government and UNICEF. In addition,
USCIS has offered to provide technical assistance in any way that might
be helpful as Cambodia looks to move forward on these issues. I defer
to my colleagues from Department of State to discuss in more detail the
current situation with Cambodia.
THE CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND COOPERATION IN RESPECT OF
INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (HAGUE CONVENTION)
In reviewing intercountry adoptions, it is necessary to discuss the
Hague Convention. The Hague Convention is a multilateral treaty that
was adopted on May 29, 1993. The Convention covers the adoption of a
child who habitually resides in one Convention country by adoptive
parents who habitually reside in another Convention country, when the
child is going to immigrate to the adoptive parents' country as a
result of, or for the purpose of, the adoption. The Convention
establishes certain internationally agreed-upon minimum norms and
procedures. The goal of the Hague Convention is to protect the
children, birth parents, and adoptive parents involved in intercountry
adoptions and to prevent abuses.
The United States signed the Hague Convention on March 31, 1994,
signaling its intent to proceed with efforts to ratify the Convention.
In September 2000, the Senate consented to the President's ratification
of the Convention, but the Senate conditioned this consent on the
adoption of the laws and regulations necessary to carry out the
principles of the Convention.
On October 6, 2000, President Clinton signed the Intercountry
Adoption Act to, among other things, establish the domestic legal
framework for implementing the requirements of the Hague Convention.
Since that time, efforts have been under way to issue Federal
regulations to set forth:
The requirements entities must meet to qualify for
designation to accredit or approve adoption service providers;
The standards agencies and individuals must meet to become
Hague Convention accredited or approved as adoption service
providers; and
The procedures for adoptions to and from the United States.
I will address the third point--the procedures for U.S. citizens to
adopt children from ``Hague'' countries, as this is where USCIS has
responsibility. Under the Intercountry Adoption Act, USCIS is
responsible for regulations addressing:
Determination of the suitability of a prospective adoptive
parent to adopt a child from another Hague country; and
Adjudication of a petition to classify a child as a ``Hague
child.''
USCIS is currently working to implement these two responsibilities,
and is consulting closely with the Department of State on the overall
implementation framework and timeline.
That said, I would like to take this opportunity to address the
addition of the ICARE Act to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act of 2006, recently passed by the Senate. While DHS shares the
goals of the drafters to improve and streamline the intercountry
adoption process for U.S. citizens, while protecting the best interest
of the children, we are concerned that introduction of such dramatic
changes into the intercountry adoption process while the U.S.
Government is in the midst of implementing the Intercountry Adoption
Act could significantly delay ratification of the Hague Convention. In
addition, the citizenship provision of the ICARE Act, which provides
for automatic acquisition of citizenship by adopted children upon a
full and final adoption in a foreign country, is particularly
troubling. It eliminates an important ``check'' from the U.S.
Government process for recognizing acquisition of citizenship by
adopted children--the admission of children to the United States for
permanent residence. This important step in the process allows the U.S.
Government to review foreign adoptions and refuse to recognize them for
immigration purposes when fraud, public welfare, or other particular
issues are present. Without this step, foreign governments would have a
larger role in the decisions about which adopted children automatically
acquire U.S. citizenship.
Rather than risk a delay to ratification of the Hague Convention,
the ICARE Act, particularly the U.S. citizenship portion, should be
reconsidered at this time. By waiting until after implementation of the
Intercountry Adoption Act and ratification of the Hague Convention, we
will have an opportunity to fully assess the reforms necessary to
strengthen the intercountry adoption process in the United States.
CONCLUSION
As the committee can see, intercountry adoptions require a
multifaceted and complex process. USCIS, in partnership with the
Department of State, is working first and foremost to protect children,
birth parents, and adoptive parents involved in the intercountry
adoptions and to make the process as well-maintained and efficient as
possible. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you on this
important subject. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Divine. Appreciate your
testimony here this afternoon, and your personal perspective.
Couple questions here this afternoon. Ms. Barry, I had
mentioned the situation in Cambodia, and the moratorium that is
in place. You have spoken to that--indicated that the
ambassador has been involved in working with UNICEF. What
specifically, in terms of the Government agencies, have been
involved in any form of negotiations with the efforts with
Cambodia? And from the Cambodian perspective, on their side,
what agencies within Cambodia have been responsive to the
discussions that have been going on, whether it is law
enforcement, the police, judiciary? If you can just give me a
little more detail into the status of where we are with
Cambodia?
Ms. Barry. Yes, of course I would be happy to give you some
more background on Cambodia. The United States Embassy in
Cambodia does have several agencies represented there for this
particular issue. The main players have been the State
Department officers. Under the direction primarily of the
ambassador. The various ambassadors we've had there have all
taken a very personal role on this particular issue. And USAID.
As we step back from the suspension and the processing of the
pipeline cases, and took a look at what we thought needed to be
done, we decided not to focus on the legal framework, because
UNICEF had taken a very proactive role in working on that
problem. And so we got together with UNICEF and we agreed that
we would support them, but allow them to take the lead on that,
working with the legislature of Cambodia on that particular
issue.
Then we thought it was a good idea to sort of define the
problem. Just how many children in need are there, what is the
nature of their needs, and where are they? And so that was the
idea for what turned out to be the USAID-funded survey of
children in need. And so we started that. And, in fact, it was
Holt that was asked to actually do the work, to go out and
about through the countryside and do that survey. We turned the
survey over to the Government of Cambodia, hoping that would
then allow them to start to define the type of executive agency
that would be needed to step up and do child welfare.
They have an agency, which we call by its acronym, MOSALVY,
which does social welfare and children, and which was the
agency involved in adoptions earlier. But it was not acting in
a professional manner, had no internal controls that we could
see, and that was what, in part, led to the baby buying and
selling.
The other player that we would look to would be law
enforcement, because if you are talking about document fraud,
if you are talking about facilitators who are engaged in
criminal activity, the only one who can shut them down is an
effective law-enforcement arm. Although on our side, the U.S.
Government stepped up, primarily through the work of then-INS,
and got criminal convictions on our side for those who had
abused the adoption process, no one in the law enforcement
community in Cambodia has stood up to shut down anybody who was
abusing the process in Cambodia.
So to this day, we do have interest in the legislature to
get the legal framework in place, and UNICEF continues to take
the lead on that. We continue to work very closely with the
executive branch of Government to work on the social welfare
structure that needs to be put in place. There hasn't been as
much activity as we would like to see on the part of the
Cambodian Government. We are looking for more demonstration of
political will to actually put some real effort into this, but
we will keep trying. We will keep trying. And in part, we think
that the legislation is important because it will define who,
at the executive level, will have the oversight responsibility.
But we are trying to keep several efforts going simultaneously.
Senator Murkowski. What thresholds does the State
Department or Homeland Security use in determining when a
country is no longer suitable for adoptions? What do you
specifically look to? We have mentioned the baby trafficking in
Cambodia, obviously, but is there a threshold where you say
``We are cutting it off, and there is now a moratorium in
place''?
Mr. Divine. Cutting off all adoptions for a country is
obviously an extraordinary measure, and it is very rarely used.
There is not a set criteria or a checklist. I think it's an
overall determination. Every country is unique, and you know,
that sounds like an agency to say that, but I think
transparency is probably the key. If you cannot see into what
is going on, you cannot trust what is going on, and especially
when you also know that there were a lot of bad things going
on. Until you can see better systems that will prevent bad
things, then it is hard to open it up, because you have got a
serious possibility of encouraging the very market that you
don't want to foster.
Senator Murkowski. Back to you, Ms. Barry, with the
ratification of the Hague Convention. You have mentioned the
expectation that 2007, sometime during that period, recognizing
as Senator Craig has mentioned that it has been 10 years in the
making--are we certain as to that timetable, or the timeframe
of 2007?
Ms. Barry. Yes, I will say I am confident that we will make
that deadline. And the reason I say that is because the
regulations that I mentioned that we are going to publish this
summer are much less complex than what we've been through in
setting standards for the adoption service providers. The first
regulation that you will see is modifying the visa process, and
we are really not so much modifying the process, as simply
recognizing the definition of ``orphan'' from the Hague
Convention into the regulatory framework for visas. So that's a
very short regulation, will not be controversial, and we will
be able to finalize that, I'm certain, this calendar year.
The other one concerns children leaving the United States
who will be adopted elsewhere. And the Convention, as you may
know, requires a certification process between the two
governments before the adoption is finalized. So we will be
proposing in that regulation to the American public, how we
propose to do that. We think we are going to propose something
fairly straightforward, and again I don't think see that it
will be a controversial issue.
And then the third one goes to a requirement of the
intercountry adoption act, that we have a mechanism to track
cases, both incoming and outgoing cases. Since we use
automation extensively now for the immigration of adopted
children into the United States, that is not a difficult step
for us. But we will explain again in a short regulation how we
intend, in general terms, to do that. So I am confident that
that regulatory framework will be wrapped up by the end of the
calendar year. As I said, the wildcard, so to speak, for when
we can actually ratify is the accreditation process--how many
adoption agencies will step forward to seek accreditation,
because they will all have to be inspected by the accrediting
entities.
So is it 50, is it 100, is it 150? We will know that number
by the end of summer, and then we can come back and tell you
and others much more specifically, based on the professional
evaluation of the accrediting entities, how long that process
is likely to take.
Senator Murkowski. And then one final question. This was
after the tsunami, you know, in Indonesia, the adoptions coming
out of Indonesia and Thailand were suspended. Can you tell me
what the current state of affairs is on that? And I have to
assume that from the State Department's perspective, there were
a fair amount of lessons learned with that process. If you can,
do speak very briefly to that?
Ms. Barry. The suspension on adoptions from the countries
hit by the tsunami was a suspension by the governments of those
countries, not by the U.S. government. So if I could just make
that clear for the record. Adoptions are now available, in
principle, in all countries that were hit by the tsunami, but
American citizens, in looking at the State Department
information that we have on each country and the adoption
process in place in each country, will find that the process in
those countries is very different.
Senator Murkowski. Different post-tsunami than it was pre-
tsunami?
Ms. Barry. No, it did not change. Indonesia, for example,
has always had a residency requirement for adoptive parents,
and it is a fairly strict residency requirement, and so it is
not attractive to American families to move to Indonesia for a
significant period of time. But it is available. It is an
option.
Senator Murkowski. What about Thailand?
Ms. Barry. Thailand is--we have our statistics that we
submitted for the record, if you would give me a second to look
them up. I don't believe we have seen any significant change in
Thailand over the years. They actually relatively quickly were
able to identify the children in need because of the tsunami
and they responded very quickly. So for example, in 2004,
American families adopted 69 children from Thailand, and in
2005, 72. So you will see there was almost no change
whatsoever. As I said, Thailand responded very effectively to
the tsunami, and helped their affected populations.
And the other thing about Thailand is that the tsunami
actually harmed a relatively small part of the country, as
opposed to Indonesia, where much larger populations were
harmed, and badly harmed, obviously, by the tsunami.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Divine, I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for
the personal side of it, as well. It is one thing to be working
within a department, within an agency and recognizing that you
are part of a bureaucracy, but also to wear another hat--the
hat of a parent, of an adoptive parent--to recognize that you
may be part of the problem, and how can you fix it, and to know
that you have been proactive in forming a working group to try
to figure out how you do make for a more streamlined process,
provide for the questions, and to try to meet the needs of
those that are trying to fulfill their dreams by having a child
and having the family.
Can you give me a little bit of insight, then, either from
your bureaucratic side or from your adoptive parent side, in
terms of the average timeframe that it takes for an application
for an international adoption to be processed? And I am just
looking for averages. It probably differs from country to
country.
Mr. Divine. And part of the problem is that there are
several steps in the one process, and things have to coalesce
before we can approve that first part, where we bless the
family as able to participate on the other end and in the
country--to say ``You are fine to be an adoptive family.''
Because they have to have their papers to say who they are. We
send them to a local fingerprint station--we call it an
application support center--and they have to have their home
study completed and sent to them.
And I know in my home State of Tennessee, I was forever
receiving calls from families who were complaining that the
immigration service was not doing anything on their case, and
why were they not doing it. And it turned out that what was
happening is that the home study which had been done by the
child placement agency--and the family knew it--had been sent
to Nashville, to the interstate compact office, that had to
then be the one to send it to the immigration office, and those
people had not forwarded it on. So the immigration office had
not received it, but the customer did not know that they had
not received it.
And so one of the things that is pretty obvious to do is
just to put in a few little customer service steps to say, ``We
got your home study.'' So that they know that all of the pieces
are in. Another piece is just to figure out where we should
suggest to people, where in the process we should send people
to get their fingerprints done. Because, you know, there is a
tension there. We want to go ahead and get the fingerprints
done so that when their home study comes in, it is all done and
we can approve it and send them on their way. But at the same
time, if it is going to be a long time before, say China, makes
the child available for them, the fingerprints could expire.
And we need to balance that, and we need to figure out what is
optimal. And also, I want us to give people options so that
they can be part of the process of gauging for themselves,
because each country is different, and the parents may be a lot
more attuned to the situation. Those are little examples, but
it is surprising how much they can matter.
Senator Murkowski. That is one of the issues that we have
learned with the China situation--where we are seeing the
process take longer than that 18 months to be approved by the
Chinese Government--and so you have got, I guess, an
expectation through the process here but you have got a process
over in China that is taking longer.
Mr. Divine. It's tough for everybody to predict how to pull
it all together at the right time so that everything is current
and valid at the time it needs to be, and people can go.
Senator Murkowski. Is China the exception, then, in terms
of the length of time that it is taking them to go through the
approval process, as compared to some of the other countries
that we are seeing so many of our foreign adoptions come from?
Mr. Divine. Well, I can't claim to have a comprehensive
country-by-country perception of this, but my sense is that
China is the one country that has been sending the most
children--that has had a significant slippage in the period of
time that it takes for a family to be able to go and meet their
child. And that has been a function as I understand it of
conditions in China, not a function of anything the U.S.
Government is doing.
Senator Murkowski. Can you tell me, give me a for instance,
which countries are perhaps more cooperative in DHS
investigations, which ones are really difficult to deal with,
and perhaps the reasons why?
Mr. Divine. Well, let me be positive first, anyway. I think
China is a good example of a country that has been very
involved, and while there has been one incident, their reaction
to it demonstrated their commitment to the integrity of the
process, and so that's on the positive side, and I think that
my understanding is that--and I am not a Hague Convention
expert yet--but my basic big picture understanding is that the
Hague Convention is going to make adoptions for participating
countries look more like Chinese adoptions in a sense, because
the country of the child is going to be more involved,
centrally ensuring that the conditions out of which the child
is coming are appropriate for adoption. But my colleague may
have more useful things to say on this.
Ms. Barry. If I may comment on China. One of the issues is
that we do not have the full picture, because we are one of
several receiving countries. So we know how many United States
files have gone to the Chinese authority for adoptions. We have
no idea how many files they have received from Western Europe,
the Nordic countries, Australia, New Zealand. In other words,
the other receiving countries.
And so that is unknown to us so we cannot predict exactly
how long China will take. As you said, the timelines have
changed a bit, and I think that is a reflection that China is
receiving files, probably more files from American families,
and more files from other receiving countries as well.
Senator Murkowski. Do you think that we can expect that the
timeframe in which China is able to approve will be reduced?
Are things getting better or are things getting worse, in terms
of the timeframe?
Ms. Barry. It has gotten somewhat worse, and I think we
will simply know that over time by maintaining good
communication with the Chinese central authority. Our goal is
to have the best information available to the prospective
families, so that whether it is 15 months or 18 months, I think
it is most important that families know that. We will continue
to talk about how we can improve the process with the Chinese
to, you know, to keep it at the lower end, but I think we do
have to be mindful of the fact that there is a larger process
going on. It is not simply a United States-Chinese
relationship.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Mr. Divine. One final
question for you. This relates to the October 2005 GAO report
that found that USCIS didn't have a formal quality assurance
program in place to review the quality of the adoption process.
Has this aspect been addressed, or is it being addressed?
Mr. Divine. I have to confess that apparently that is one
of the things that the working group is definitely onto. And
let me say about the working group--it is not one of these
things where, you know, we have to look like we are doing
something, so let us round up some people, you know, put them
in a room and act like we are doing something. We have pulled
in the people who care about this, full-time, for months and
months--the person in Buffalo who really spearheaded this
process of giving citizenship certificates to people, and she
is riding herd on this regulation, full-time. I mean, this is
several people. This is not just a tangential effort. I really
want this done, I want it done right, and I want our agency to
be a more centralized and coordinated effort, of the type that
I think the ICARE envisions this other organization in the
State Department would be.
And my view is, if we can just get that working, you
wouldn't be able to be able to tell the difference between that
and whatever else you might try to come up with. Doesn't matter
so much which agency it's done in----
Senator Murkowski. As long as it's done?
Mr. Divine [continuing]. As long as is done, and done
right. One of the problems, and this is part of our bigger
picture, that, you know, our systems have not been great, and
this is one of the few types of cases that have been filed
locally, and are not on any database, except whatever local
database the little office has. We have a lot of opportunity to
put order into this and systematize it, because of how
decentralized it has been. You know, we have got a lot that we
can do, and we are going to do it.
Senator Murkowski. Senator, thank you. Thank you to both of
you for coming this afternoon, and providing your testimony--
your efforts.
With that, I would like to invite Senator Mary Landrieu. As
I mentioned earlier, the Senator has been a leader on adoption
issues here in the Senate. We greatly appreciate her work.
Senator Landrieu, Senator Craig was able to join us at the
beginning of the hearing, and certainly lauded you for your
efforts, as I certainly concur--certainly agree with. Thank you
so much for joining us this afternoon. I know we have had to
adjust schedules a little bit so I appreciate you working us
into yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Landrieu. Well, thank you, Madame Chair. And I
really appreciate you taking the initiative to have this very
important hearing today. It is a subject that I am sure that
Senator Craig shared with you, that we think is so important,
and doesn't get the attention that it really deserves and needs
here in Congress. Of course there are many important issues,
but for families that have built their families through
adoption, for many child welfare advocates here in America and
around the world, and any number of other agencies, entities,
nonprofits, and individuals, this is the most important issue,
because they really believe that adoption is such a positive
outcome for so many children and families of the world--that
the uniting of the families is so beneficial for the parents
and the children, and the need is so great, as you know.
Here in the United States, today, we have 500,000 children
in foster care, ages 0 to 18. About half of them are waiting
for families to come adopt them. Orphans--their parental rights
have been terminated. They don't have parents, and they are
waiting to be adopted.
And so Senator Craig and I, and 190 Members of Congress
have spent a great deal of time trying to educate ourselves
about adoption, and trying to educate the country about the
benefits of trying to connect children with families, because
we think governments here in the United States and around the
world do a lot of things well, but raising children isn't one
of them. That parents or parent, preferably responsible,
loving, nurturing adults, should raise children--should raise a
child or children.
In addition, the new policy around the world appears to be
to keep sibling groups together. That can be quite a challenge
if the sibling group is 8, or 6, or 10. But we are making a
great effort to not only have children adopted, but keeping
sibling groups together. And China, I have to say, has been
really extraordinary as countries go in the world, in being
willing and able to participate in this process.
As you know, 120,000 children are adopted every year in the
country. Twenty thousand of those come from other countries to
the United States. Approximately 100,000 children are adopted
within our own country. And about 20,000--and that number has
increased dramatically over the last 15 years--but in our view,
as adoption advocates, we do not think that number is nearly
high enough. We have not set, as a coalition, a target, but our
stated and unstated goal and just, you know, focus, is to find
a home for every orphan in the world. So we have a long way to
go.
And that is why I get so frustrated, and so does Senator
Craig and members of our coalition, when bureaucracies slow
this process down for no good reason. Sometimes there are good
reasons to slow the process down. You want to eliminate fraud,
you want to eliminate crime, criminal behavior. But if we have
a process that is so full of red tape, bureaucracy and
paperwork, et cetera, and if we stop the process every time
there is one violation, we will never create a system in this
country or the world that gives a chance for kids who are
desperate for parents, and parents who are desperate for
children, to find each other.
And so I'm here, and I have a written statement, but I
really would rather just focus on two specific things about
China, because our delegation has been to China, and I have
been in touch annually with Chinese officials, since 10 years
ago, and trying to work closely with them and encourage them to
keep this very mutually beneficial relationship going.
And what do I mean by that? China, as you know, has a
population challenge, and they also have a one-child policy,
which has been somewhat liberalized, thank goodness, these
days, but they just have millions of children that need homes.
And we have millions of Americans that are able and willing and
want to adopt children.
Number two, besides the obvious need, that of connecting
parents that want kids and kids that need parents, I have
explained internationally that these children become the most
effective ambassadors for these countries when they come to the
United States, without saying or doing anything. The childrens'
presence softens and opens up America's eyes to China, and to
Korea, and to Vietnam, and to Guatemala--which is not the
subject here, you know. It is Asia--more than I can tell you.
And I will share one story for the record. I was in
Louisiana, as you know. You are always in Alaska. But 3 years
ago, I was in a tiny town called Bawcomville, that you will
never hear or see anywhere, and it is right outside of Monroe,
and a city council member from Bawcomville came up to me and,
you know--just a good old boy from Louisiana--he threw his arms
around me and he says, ``Senator, I voted for you, I will
support you. I am appreciative of everything you've done. I
want you see a picture of my grandchild.''
So I am sort of half paying attention and I look at this
picture. And this is a baby, clearly, I can see, from China.
And I looked at him, and he looked at me, and I said, ``And so
we went to China for this baby?'' And he said ``Oh, yes. And,
you know, my daughter went, and this baby is the apple of our
eye. And this baby is the special child in Bawcomville.'' And I
am thinking that this is something, Bawcomville to Beijing,
Beijing to Bawcomville, and how they are now celebrating, you
know, this child in this town that you wouldn't necessarily
think was on the cutting edge of international adoption.
But I am telling you, America, little towns to big cities,
parents are adopting children domestically and internationally.
China asked me when I was over there if our State Department
could help them--if we could move the center from Guangzhou to
Beijing, so our parents do not have to travel back and forth.
It is our decision, not China's decision. Our State Department
has not done that yet, so I want to go on the record urging our
State Department to do that, if possible.
Also, they said that because China deals with this in a
very centralized way, and our system is very decentralized with
our 50 States, we respect that. We need to keep it that way.
These agencies are licensed by the State. But we have worked
now for many years to try to encourage the State Department
here to assume a more centralized role with respecting the 50
States, not trying to step on the toes of our 50 States, but
they have got to come up with a streamlined, central State
Department, and not three different departments, and not three
different entities, but one. We think the State Department
knows what the treaty says--what is in the Hague
implementation--and really now the President. We just have to
get this implemented. This bill that we have been trying to
pass for 5 years called the ICARE bill. It is broadly supported
by Democrats and Republicans, and yet our State Department
continues to push back.
So I am sorry I was not here for questioning of the State
Department, but I am going to pursue the lines of questioning
and writing to them as we work through this, because the
countries that we work with all over the world are creating
these more centralized systems, and they have to work with a
national, centralized agency, and they cannot work with 50
States. China cannot work with California one day, then New
York another day, and then North Dakota another day, and then
Louisiana. They are just not organized that way.
So I understood that we cannot do everything these other
countries ask, and we have to respect our own country, but as a
Senator who believes in this, I have had to figure out a way to
get countries to a common ground. And so I am asking our State
Department to move a little more quickly to help China to
continue to be the largest sending country to the United
States. The last I looked, China sent 8,000 children for us to,
you know, to become American citizens. We are so grateful that
parents have adopted these children.
I was literally stopped today, 2 hours ago, but this
happens to me every day. I went to give a speech to a Des
Moines, IA group. Before I could even walk in the door, a woman
running the association said ``Thank you, Senator. My 3-year-
old is from China,'' and we had to talk for a little bit--how
parents do about their kids--and she was telling me how tiny
she is and how little she is, but how beautiful she is, and how
smart she is.
And she's got a 10-year-old--and I can tell you this whole
story which I won't--but this happens to me every day. And then
she said, ``Please, Senator, please continue to fight for
shorter times, less paperwork, less finances. These children
need us and we need them.''
So I just want to encourage you, Madame Chair, in your role
on this committee, to please continue to focus on South Korea,
and Vietnam, and China, and East Asian countries. But I promise
you that we want to focus on all the countries of the world,
because we believe that many countries need to find places for
children, and we need to do a better job in our country of
finding homes for the 250,000 children who are now available
for adoption, and we believe we have an obligation to provide a
family for them, and a future for them.
So I want to continue to help. I will be happy to answer
any questions that you might have, and our whole 190 Members of
Congress are committed--and it is amazing in this caucus. It is
the only one I belong to that does not argue. And we have
Democrats and Republicans, and everybody just is happy, and we
all get along because we just literally do not argue about it.
We are all together trying to make this work, and it is a happy
caucus, and we are happy to testify any time that we can help
on the subject.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Again, I want to thank you for your
leadership in this area--so very, very vitally important. Just
very quickly, I would like you to comment on a statement that
was made by Mr. Divine from Homeland Security. He commented on
the ICARE legislation, and he indicated that from Homeland
Security's perspective, that one of the concerns was the
automatic citizenship determination.
Senator Landrieu. Absolutely. Why we feel very strongly
about this is because, you know, if you went overseas as an
American citizen and you were pregnant and had the baby in a
country, that child might not be born in the United States, but
he's an automatic citizen of the United States because that is
the law. When an adoptive parent goes to adopt a child in China
and that adoption is finalized in China, that child is at that
moment, as an adoptive parent, at that moment--under most laws,
not all--is the child of that parent right away. There is no
waiting period.
Now, domestically, when we do an adoption, some States
require a 3-month wait until it is completely finalized by the
law. You can understand why that might be the case for domestic
adoption, but in international adoption, that is a final and
forever and ever and ever. That is your baby, that is your
child, and we think he/she should be an automatic citizen.
Right now parents have to go through the court process, or
whatever the process of the country of option, then they had to
file additional paperwork for their child to become a citizen.
It does not make any sense.
So we wanted to reduce paperwork and the time and make that
automatic. And so that's my answer--it's the same way a
biological child would be brought back. You don't need a visa
for your newborn coming back from wherever you were overseas--
you do not need a visa. That child has a special visa. You
might need a passport to get the child back. I think that you
don't need a special visa application. It is just another step
that adoptive parents go through for no real good reason.
But I want at least to say one other thing. I have tried to
explain this to the State Department. It is not just this
current State Department, it has been a problem with all the
State Departments I have worked with. And I understand the need
to focus against fraud.
Believe me, nobody wants to eliminate fraud more than our
delegation, our whole caucus, but I want to say this for the
record: When a bank is robbed in Chicago, we do not shut down
the banking system. We go find the bank robber, and we put them
in jail. Every time there is one stealing of a baby, or you
know, one violation of a crime, everybody starts shutting down
international adoption. And we don't realize, when they do
that, they literally sentence children to death, literally. And
they disrupt the lives of thousands of good tax-paying church-
going American citizens, who are just to the end of their
process, and then somebody steps up and says ``Oh, we have a
suspicion that 10 babies were taken illegally, so we are
shutting the system down.''
It is the worst shock to the system, and we do not do it
anywhere else. And I'm going to fight against these closures
that we keep going through, and we need to keep the system
open, transparent, and it is a literal lifeline to children,
and a happiness line for parents.
The second thing I wanted to say is all of this negative,
that this--every time we have an incident, one adopted child,
you know, was hurt in America--I hate to say this because it's
a hard thing to say, but I tell international people that come
into my office all the time--they tell me ``Senator, how do we
know our children will be safe, how do we know that you will
take care of our children? How do we know that you all do not
just adopt the children''--they think for body parts sometimes.
I try to calm them down, saying that we have a free press, ``If
we were taking body parts from children, you would know about
it--our press would write about it. It doesn't happen,'' I
said, ``but every now and then, of course, a parent will do the
wrong thing and hurt a child. Sometimes they hurt adopted
children.''
But I hate to tell you all this, and it is hard for me to
say it, but Americans kill their own children. Seventeen
hundred children are murdered every year in the United States
at the hands of their own parents. I mean their biological
parents. So I hope the State Department understands that if you
are looking for a perfect system where children are never hurt
we will never get there. We just have to have a system that
works 95 percent of the time, does everything it can, because
if we are trying get this adoptive system to be perfect when
the normal world is so imperfect, then all we will have is
millions of orphans sitting around in orphanages, literally
wasting away, and millions of parents that would love to adopt
them, and we cannot get them together because we have got
bureaucrats running around wanting a perfect system. So I am
sorry I went on about that, but any other questions?
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate your passion. I think we do
see this ripple effect, if you will, from allegations, or
reports of baby trafficking in one country, that do threaten to
undermine international adoptions, not necessarily just from
that country, but from other countries as well. All of a
sudden, all the flags go up and everyone is ultracautious, and
of course we do need to be cautious--we do need to be making
sure that everything we do is in the best interest of the
child.
But we need to make sure that it is not an overreaction to
hopefully very, very isolated instances, and in an effort to
make sure that we do not ever have that problem again, that as
you point out, we seal it off, and the ones that really do
suffer are the children and prospective adopted families that
wanted to adopt these children. So I appreciate your passion on
this, and all your good work. Thank you so much for spending
the time here before the committee.
Let us next go to--I guess it is our last panel here this
afternoon. We have Mr. Thomas Atwood, who is the president and
CEO for the National Council for Adoption, as well as Susan
Soon-Keum Cox, the vice president of public policy and advocacy
for Holt International Children's Services. Welcome to the
committee this afternoon. Thank you for time. Mr. Atwood, why
don't you go ahead and present your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ATWOOD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL COUNCIL
FOR ADOPTION, ALEXANDRIA, VA
Mr. Atwood. Thank you, Madame Chairman Murkowski. My name
is Thomas Atwood. I am president and chief executive officer of
the National Council for Adoption, NCFA. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify. NCFA applauds the subcommittee's
interest in the compassionate practice of intercountry
adoption. An adoption research, education, and advocacy
organization founded in 1980, NCFA has been involved in
improving the intercountry adoption system since the early
stages of the drafting of the Hague Convention, and right on
through the enactment of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000.
Since last September, we have continued the work. We have
traveled to China, Vietnam, Russia, and The Hague, serving as a
global advocate and expert on adoption and child welfare.
Adoptions from Asian countries have increased 10 of the 12
years. At the 2000 census, 12.6 percent of America's adopted
children living with their parents had been adopted
internationally, 6.2 percent were born in Asian countries, and
nearly half of them from South Korea. China and South Korea
have been the top four countries of origin for America adoptive
parents since 1994. In the first half of the 1990s, South Korea
was the leading country of origin with 25 percent of all
American international adoptions during that period. With the
increase in adoption from China, Russia, and Guatemala since
then, and with South Korea's recent decline in adoption, Korean
adoptions stood at 7 percent in 2005--China has been the No. 1
country of origin for each of the last 6 years, and either the
No. 1 or No. 2 position every year since 1995, with annual
adoptions by Americans ranging from 4,800 to 7,900.
Much of the overall increase in intercountry adoptions in
recent years has been due to increases in adoptions from China,
with most other Asian countries either remaining steady or
declining slightly, such as India and the Philippines, and
others declining dramatically due to suspensions--namely,
Cambodia and Vietnam.
The basic tenet of intercountry adoption is that national
boundaries and national pride should not prevent children from
having families. This truth seems self-evident. Given the
choice between growing up with a loving, permanent family of
one's own through international adoption versus growing up
without a family in the country in which one happens to have
been born, most people would choose a family through
intercountry adoption. To varying degrees, intercountry
adoption encounters a streak of nationalism in every country of
origin. To some extent, this nationalistic reaction is
understandable. Any self-respecting nation would like to be
able to take care of its children in need itself. Our
intercountry adoption advocacy should be careful not to feed
into this nationalistic caricature, that rich, presumptuous
Americans are coming to take the mother-country's children.
This potential pitfall argues for our Government's current
advocacy approach, whereby the Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs manages intercountry adoption as part of a broader
portfolio. And it argues against a single-focused Ambassador-
at-Large for intercountry adoption position. It is difficult to
see how political leaders in countries of origin would want to
associate publicly with the American representative whose sole
purpose is to enable Americans to adopt the native country's
children.
NCFA, instead, recommends a holistic approach which
respects intercountry options as part of a country of origin's
overall adoption and child welfare program. This approach
presents intercountry adoption as a positive option for
orphans, second in preference to timely domestic adoption, but
to be preferred over domestic foster care, and group or
institutional care. However, when a domestic adoption is not
occurring for children within a certain timeframe, orphans
should become eligible for intercountry adoption.
As they implement the Hague Convention, many countries of
origin are taking a holistic approach at their adoption and
child welfare programs. Thus, because of our country's many
decades of experience with child welfare policies, America's
opportunities here go beyond promoting our own citizens'
ability to adopt internationally. By sponsoring educational
seminars and exchanges with our Hague central authorities, for
example, we can promote and inform the global proliferation of
adoption and child welfare policies.
And Madame Chairman, here is my most important point this
afternoon: Now that the State Department has published the
implementing relations for the Intercountry Introduction Act,
the top international adoption priority for the American
Government and the adoption community should be to make a
smooth transition to the implementation and ratification of the
Hague Convention through these regulations.
This will not be easily accomplished. The regulations are
sound and will promote child protection and international
adoption, but they are also complex and demanding. Over the
next 18 months, the entire international adoption community in
America will be relearning its ways of processing adoptions.
The very complicated steps involved in making this transition
are described in my written testimony. Further reforms may be
appropriate once we are further along in the transition to the
Hague Convention. But there is no compelling reason to
implement other major reforms at this time, such as
transferring to the State Department all of the DHS's work
currently housed in the Citizenship and Integration Services,
as contemplated by the ICARE amendment pending, referred to by
Senators Craig and Landrieu. Forcing such a transition at this
already demanding time would disrupt intercountry adoptions,
and confuse our central authority partners around the world.
After many frustrations with CIS, formerly INS, and the
State Department in previous years, the adoption community now
reports significant improvements in performance of both
agencies. There has been greater cooperation between the two
agencies, increased communications and more responsiveness to
families and adoption service providers, increased
standardization of processes across branch offices, and more
proactive advocacy of adoption. There has been a positive
corporate culture shift in both agencies.
The pivotal moment of implementation of the Hague
Convention and the IAA is here. The American international
adoption community believes we should not jeopardize this long-
awaited transition by introducing other major bureaucratic and
organizational reforms at this time.
I further submit for the record, Madame Chairman, NCFA's
letter to Senator Landrieu regarding the ICARE amendment
expressing our concerns.
Senator Murkowski. We will put it in as part of the record.
Mr. Atwood. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
National Council for Adoption,
Alexandria, VA, May 17, 2006.
Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu: Your staff has graciously allowed the
National Council for Adoption (NCFA) several opportunities in recent
weeks to discuss NCFA's position on the Intercountry Adoption Reform
Act (ICARE). As staff suggested, I am writing to summarize and explain
this position for you.
NCFA finds many of the tenets of ICARE to be of interest and
potentially worth pursuing, and we sincerely respect the excellent
intentions contained in this initiative. However, we believe that now
is not the time to consider such dramatic changes to the intercountry
adoption system, just as that system is in the midst of transitioning
to the recently released implementing regulations for the Intercountry
Adoption Act and Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. We believe
that attempting to manage two enormous bureaucratic transitions at the
same time would create confusion, reduce predictability and
transparency, and complicate workloads to unmanageable levels for all
responsible parties--U.S. Government agencies, adoption service
providers, foreign central authorities, and prospective adoptive
parents--and thereby compromise adoption and child protection.
Another advantage of waiting to consider ICARE is that other reform
needs may become apparent during the transition to the Hague
regulations, reforms that could be incorporated into ICARE. I think you
will agree that since the first draft of ICARE, the Department of State
and Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) have taken significant
steps toward addressing concerns that you and the adoption community
share. Your introduction of ICARE has helped to produce the results of
fewer unnecessary delays, more adoption advocacy, and a more
constructive partnership between the two agencies.
Senator Landrieu, we greatly admire and appreciate your adoption
leadership and the spirit with which you offer this proposal. We know
firsthand of your desire to provide solutions to bureaucratic
challenges to intercountry adoption and to keep adoption high on
America's agenda. We respectfully recommend revisiting ICARE after the
Hague implementation is further along and its impact better understood.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Atwood,
President and CEO.
Mr. Atwood. In conclusion, if I may, I have three two-
sentence points about--my written testimony discusses salient
issues regarding specific Asian countries in more detail. But
first, China's and South Korea's increased emphases on domestic
adoption and child welfare programs should be applauded, but
America should continue to advocate in these countries that a
family through intercountry adoption is better for children
than domestic foster or institutional care, especially for
younger children.
There is a specific proposed amendment in the South Korean
legislature at this time that would end intercountry adoption,
end this trailblazing country for intercountry adoption, and
this requires our urgent attention.
Second, America's imminent ratification of the Hague
Convention creates opportunities to increase adoption with
countries that have said they would be interested in doing so
when America ratifies, such as India. The American Government
and adoption community should begin to discuss moving forward
on this plan with the Indian central authority. And third, the
recent progress in restarting adoptions from Vietnam is very
encouraging. We hope that similar progress can be made in
Cambodia, while ensuring child and birth-parent protection, and
a legal, ethical, transparent process in both countries.
In conclusion, Madame Chairman, the National Council for
Adoption greatly appreciates the American Government's and the
subcommittee's advocacy of intercountry adoption, and we offer
our continued assistance in advancing this crucial mission.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Atwood follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Atwood, President and CEO, National
Council for Adoption, Washington, DC
Chairman Murkowski and members of the subcommittee, my name is
Thomas Atwood, president and chief executive officer of the National
Council for Adoption. On behalf of the National Council for Adoption
(NCFA), I thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of
Asian adoptions to the United States. NCFA applauds the subcommittee's
interest in the compassionate practice of intercountry adoption, which
has found loving, permanent families in America for some 108,000 Asian
orphans since 1989.
The National Council for Adoption is an adoption research,
education, and advocacy nonprofit whose mission is to promote the well-
being of children, birth parents, and adoptive families by advocating
for the positive option of adoption. Since its founding in 1980, NCFA
has been a leader in serving the best interests of children through
policies that promote a global culture of adoption and child welfare,
increase intercountry adoptions with appropriate child protections,
present adoption as a positive option for women with unplanned
pregnancies, further adoption of children out of foster care, and make
adoption more affordable through the adoption tax credit.
NCFA advocates the positive option of adoption, both domestic and
intercountry, for children and families in the United States and around
the world. NCFA has been involved in improving the intercountry
adoption system since the early stages of drafting the Hague Convention
on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry
Adoption (1993) and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000. Since last
September, we have been to China, Vietnam, Russia, and The Hague,
serving as a global advocate and expert on adoption and child welfare.
We are planning trips to countries of origin in Asia, eastern Europe,
and Central and South America in the coming year.
ASIAN ADOPTIONS AND THE GROWTH IN INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS
The number of intercountry adoptions continues to grow in the
United States, having increased 13 out of the last 15 years. In 2005,
the number of intercountry adoptions by Americans, 22,710, actually
exceeded the number of infants adopted domestically by Americans,
22,291, in 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are
available.\1\ Increases in adoptions from Asian countries account for a
large part of that growth, having increased in 10 out of the last 12
years, with China leading the way with 7,939 children adopted by
Americans in 2005. At the time of the 2000 census, 12.6 percent of
American adopted children under the age of 18 and living with their
parents were adopted internationally; 6.2 percent of America's adopted
children were born in Asian countries, nearly half of them from South
Korea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adoption Factbook IV, National Council for Adoption,
publication pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China and South Korea have been in the top four countries of origin
for American adoptive parents since 1994. In the first half of the
1990s, South Korea was the leading country from which United States
citizens adopted, representing 25 percent of American international
adoptions during that period. With the increase in adoptions from
China, Russia, and Guatemala since then, and with the decline in
adoptions from South Korea from an average of 1,800 per year since 1990
to 1,604 in 2005, South Korean adoptions stood at 7 percent of the
total international adoptions by Americans in 2005.
China has been the No. 1 country of origin for each of the last 6
years and in either the No. 1 or No. 2 position each year since 1995,
with annual adoptions by Americans ranging from 4,843 to 7,939. Much of
the overall increase in the numbers of intercountry adoptions in recent
years has been due to increases in adoptions from China, with most
other Asian countries either remaining steady or declining slightly,
such as India and the Philippines, and others declining dramatically
due to suspensions, such as Cambodia and Vietnam. In 1990, Asian-born
children made up 42 percent of Americans' intercountry adoptions; in
2005 that proportion was 46 percent.
BENEFITS OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION
The benefits of intercountry adoption to children are indisputable.
The clinical record clearly confirms what common sense tells us--that
outcomes for children who are adopted internationally are better than
those for children raised in institutions or in foster care. A study,
``Behavior Problems and Mental Health Referrals of International
Adoptees,'' recently published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association found that even though the studied internationally adopted
youth were referred to mental health services more often than non-
adopted youth, the effect size was small, and the large majority of
them were ``well-adjusted.'' The researchers considered the finding
that the large majority of internationally adopted children and youth
were well-adjusted to be particularly significant in light of the fact
that prior to adoption many internationally adopted children
``experience insufficient medical care, malnutrition, maternal
separation, and neglect and abuse in orphanages.'' Clearly,
internationally adopted children grow up healthier than they would have
if they remained in institutional or temporary care.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Behavior Problems and Mental Health Referrals of
International Adoptees,'' Journal of the American Medical Association,
vol. 293, no. 20, May 25, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empirical studies are valuable, but in this case they only confirm
what we already know from common sense and millennia of human society:
All children need and deserve loving, permanent families of their own.
We can also observe intercountry adoption's benefits to children with
our own eyes in the international-adoptive families we know personally.
Even good institutional or temporary care cannot take the place of a
loving, permanent family of one's own, whether obtained through
domestic or intercountry adoption.
HOLISTIC APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY OF ADOPTION AND CHILD
WELFARE
The basic tenet of intercountry adoption is that national
boundaries and national pride should not prevent children from having
families. This truth seems self-
evident. Does the child have a greater interest in remaining in his or
her country of origin than in having a family? Given the choice between
growing up with a loving, permanent family of one's own through
international adoption versus growing up without a family in the
country in which one happens to have been born, most people would
choose a loving, permanent family through intercountry adoption. The
love and security of belonging in one's own legally recognized and
permanent family during childhood is fundamental to healthy human
development.
Adoptive parents and intercountry adoption policy can address the
concern about losing connection with national roots by providing
opportunities for internationally adopted children to learn about their
countries of origin, and even to visit them, if possible, and the
children so desire. In fact, most adoptive parents pay close attention
to teaching their internationally adopted children about their national
roots.
Nationalists and opponents of international adoption sometimes
virtually equate adoption with child trafficking. International
adoption advocates should be careful always to make clear the
distinction between adoption and child trafficking. Intercountry
adoption is a professional social service, in the best interests of
children to provide them loving, permanent families, conducted in
accordance with child protection regulations in a transparent process.
Child trafficking is the illegal exploitation of children and their
parents or guardians, through kidnapping or financial corruption, to
serve the selfish interests of unscrupulous and predatory sellers and
buyers.
To varying degrees, intercountry adoption advocates and
practitioners encounter a streak of nationalism in every country of
origin with which we work. To some extent, this nationalistic reaction
is understandable: Any self-respecting nation would like to be able to
take care of its children in need itself. NCFA agrees with the
principle that domestic adoption is to be preferred over intercountry
adoption. Whenever possible, it is preferable for children to grow up
with loving, permanent parents and families in their countries of
origin. However, when domestic adoption is not occurring for children
within a certain timeframe, international child welfare principles
suggest that they should become eligible for intercountry adoption in a
timely manner and they should receive the best possible temporary care
while waiting.
In communications with countries of origin, it can be
counterproductive solely to advocate that Americans be allowed to adopt
their orphaned children. This approach can feed into the negative,
nationalistic caricature--that rich, presumptuous Americans are trying
to take the mother-country's children--which cynical politicians in
countries of origin exploit to suspend or discourage adoptions. This
potential pitfall argues for the current advocacy approach, which is
working well, whereby the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs
manages intercountry adoption as part of a broader portfolio, and it
argues against the creation of a single-focused Ambassador at Large for
Intercountry Adoption. It is difficult to see how political leaders in
countries of origin would find it advantageous to associate favorably
with the American representative whose sole purpose is to enable
Americans to adopt the native country's children.
Instead, NCFA recommends a holistic approach to international
adoption advocacy, which respects intercountry adoption as part of the
country of origin's overall adoption and child welfare program. In its
communications with countries of origin, NCFA presents intercountry
adoption as a positive option for orphaned children, second in
preference to timely domestic adoption, but to be preferred over
domestic foster care and group or institutional care. NCFA also offers
to share with these countries as much as they would like to receive of
its expertise regarding America's experience with adoption, foster
care, and other child welfare policies. This approach has helped NCFA
to build strong relations with several Asian countries, including
China, Korea, and Vietnam.
In response to their implementation of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption, many countries are taking comprehensive looks at
their adoption and child welfare programs. Because America has many
decades more experience with governmental approaches to these policies
than almost all the countries of the world, it has much to offer to
countries of origin as they develop their own programs, if they are
interested in learning from our experiences.
National boundaries should not prevent children from having
families, indeed. But in the area of international adoption and child
welfare policy, the United States' opportunities go beyond simply
promoting its citizens' ability to adopt internationally. By sponsoring
educational seminars and exchanges with other Hague central
authorities, for example, the American Government and adoption
community can also promote and inform the global proliferation of
adoption and child welfare policies, in the best interests of children
around the world. The increased international cooperation and good will
created in doing so would also likely increase international
receptivity to Americans' adopting.
MAKING A SMOOTH TRANSITION TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON INTERCOUNTRY
ADOPTION
Now that the Department of State has published in February 2006,
the implementing regulations for the Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA),
the top international adoption priority for the American Government and
adoption community should be to make a smooth transition to U.S.
ratification and implementation of the 1993 Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption.
While these regulations are sound and will promote child protection
and international adoption, they are also complex and demanding. It
will be mid- to late-2007 before the regulations have been sufficiently
implemented so that the treaty can be formally ratified and entered
into force. During that time period, the entire international adoption
community in America will be relearning its ways of processing
adoptions from the more than 60 Hague Convention member states. Hague
Convention central authorities from around the world will also be
relearning how to work with America.
Among the new systems and challenges in the State Department's 100-
page public notice of the final rule that will have to be learned and
managed over the next 18 months, in order to process adoptions with
Hague Convention member states are: The establishment of the new
central authority in the Department of State; the authorizing and
contracting of new accrediting entities; the complete accreditation of
adoption agencies and approval of persons who may make adoption
placements under the Hague Convention; the adaptation of all adoption
service providers to the rule's new standards and requirements; a new
six-part definition of adoption services and new rules regarding four
newly defined categories that may provide them; the establishment of a
case registry at State and the Department of Homeland Security for
incoming and outgoing adoptions, both for Hague Convention and
nonconvention intercountry adoptions; new data collection,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and much more.
Other substantial reforms may be appropriate once the intercountry
adoption system is further along in the transition to the Hague
Convention. Indeed, as the IAA regulations are implemented, the need
for additional reforms may become evident, and they could be considered
along with other proposals at that time. But there is no compelling
reason to implement other major reforms at this time, such as
transferring to the State Department all of the Department of Homeland
Security's intercountry-adoption work currently housed in Citizenship
and Immigration Services (CIS). Forcing such a transition at this
already demanding time would be disruptive to the intercountry adoption
system and confusing to our central authority partners around the
world.
After many frustrations with CIS (formerly INS) and the State
Department in previous years, NCFA is pleased to note that the
intercountry adoption community in America reports significant
improvements in the performance of both agencies. There has been
greater cooperation between the two agencies, increased communications
and more responsiveness to families and adoption service providers,
increased standardization of processes across branch offices, and more
proactive, international advocacy of adoption. Both agencies seem to
have grasped and appreciate the preciousness of the mission they are
responsible for in handling intercountry adoption--helping American
citizens provide loving, permanent families for orphaned children
around the world.
The pivotal moment of implementation of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption of 1993 and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000
is here. The international adoption community believes that we should
not jeopardize this long-awaited transition by introducing other major
bureaucratic and organizational reforms at this time.
COUNTRY REPORTS
Following are brief reports highlighting intercountry adoption
issues in various Asian countries.
China
Since China began expanding its practice of intercountry adoption
in the early 1990s, the country has become a model of consistency and
predictability. The China Center for Adoption Affairs (CCAA) is an
example of what a central authority, as contemplated by the Hague
Convention on Intercountry Adoption, can accomplish in terms of
decisionmaking, and setting policy, procedures, and oversight. However,
American adoption service providers express concerns that China's
process can be unduly long, with adoptions routinely taking more than a
year--perhaps, the consequence of increased demands on the CCAA to
process a growing number of applications. When NCFA met with CCAA in
November 2005 in Beijing, the CCAA reported that it had just received
2,000 dossiers in the month of October alone, a dramatic increase.
The American international adoption community applauds Beijing's
emerging commitment to improved child welfare services, including
CCAA's promotion of domestic adoption. However, the American adoption
community is concerned about the impact this trend could have on
international adoption. We recommend ongoing, proactive international
adoption advocacy by the American Government, so China will continue to
treat intercountry adoption as the preferred alternative to
institutionalization, for children who are not likely to be adopted
domestically.
South Korea
Formalized American intercountry adoption essentially began in
association with the Korean War and the pioneering work of Harry and
Bertha Holt of Holt International Services, and has continued since the
1950s. By far, the largest group of internationally adopted children in
America, still, is children born in South Korea. However, in 2005,
South Korea posted its lowest number of American adoptions since 1996,
and nationalistic voices have begun to speak out more vocally against
intercountry adoption in this pioneering country.
A South Korean trend toward reduced commitment to intercountry
adoption would not be surprising, if that is indeed what we are
experiencing, but it should be resisted, in the interests of children.
Since the days of intercountry adoption's beginnings, South Korea has
become a relatively prosperous country. The more prosperous the country
of origin, the more prevalent may be the attitude that it can and
should take care of its orphans domestically. The American Government
and adoption community should applaud South Korean efforts to promote
domestic adoption and strengthen its domestic child welfare programs.
But we should continue to advocate, in the best interests of children,
for the policy of preferring intercountry adoption over nonfamily
options when domestic adoption is not occurring for a child.
Vietnam
From 2002 to 2003, Vietnam adoptions decreased by half, from 766 to
382. Credible concerns that some children made eligible for adoption
were being bought or stolen led the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) to review the Vietnamese adoption process. Subsequently,
the Government of Vietnam announced amendments to its adoption
regulations, which took effect January 2, 2003. Changes included a
requirement for countries to enter bilateral agreements with Vietnam
and the creation of a central foreign adoption office to approve
petitions.
The American adoption community is encouraged that, in 2005, the
United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral agreement that laid the
groundwork for intercountry adoptions between the two countries to
recommence after a 2\1/2\-year hiatus. In the interests of Vietnam's
orphaned children, the adoption community is hoping for and looking
forward to a full resumption of adoptions to premoratorium levels and
to eventual increases in the number of adoptions. However, given the
still evolving system in Vietnam, close monitoring at the local level
will continue to be necessary, in order to ensure a transparent process
free from corruption, with legitimate consents from birth parents, and
appropriate recordkeeping.
India
Technically, Indian law does not provide for foreigners to adopt
Indian children. But under the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890,
foreigners may petition an Indian District Court for legal custody of a
child to be taken abroad for adoption. Considering the enormous orphan
population in India, its annual average of 418 adoptions by Americans
seems startlingly low. In fact, 2005 posted the lowest number of
adoptions from India by Americans in the last 15 years--324. However,
the Indian central authority told NCFA at the Special Commission
meeting on the practical operation of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption in The Hague, in September 2005, that India would
be interested in working more with the United States upon our country's
implementation of the Hague Convention. With implementing regulations
now in place, the American Government and adoption community should
begin to discuss moving forward with this plan with the Indian central
authority.
Cambodia
Citing ``baby selling and baby abduction,'' as well as ``seriously
flawed'' adoption processes in Cambodia, the INS declared a suspension
of United States adoptions from Cambodia in December, 2001. The
adoption community shares the concerns about corruption and
trafficking, and urges the U.S. Government to ensure child and birth
parent protections, as well as legal and ethical practices, while
moving forward toward resuming international adoptions from Cambodia as
soon as possible.
Philippines
The Philippines is a Hague Convention country and posts 10th on the
list of countries of origin, with 259 American adoptions in 2005. The
Philippines' geography presents a barrier to monitoring the adoption
process due to its 7,100 islands. The intercountry adoption process in
Philippine courts is tedious and the law requires a strong preference
for domestic adoption, followed by a preference for placing children
with Philippine families abroad. Unlike some other Asian countries,
there is a disproportion of male children available for adoption. The
Philippines' long history of cooperation with America and its status as
the world's third largest English-speaking country suggest that
increased American adoption advocacy may serve the interests of
Philippine orphans through increased intercountry adoptions.
Tsunami Countries
On December 26, 2004, Southeast Asia suffered a horrific natural
disaster, the tsunami, leaving thousands of people in these countries
in a state of emergency. Of the four most affected countries--
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand--only India at the time had
an established international adoption program. Thailand had experience
with international adoptions on a small scale, but the process took up
to 2 years and the Thai Government granted only 69 adoptions in 2004.
The most affected country, Indonesia, only allowed adoptions by foreign
couples who had been residents for 2 years. Sri Lanka allowed only 4
adoptions by United States parents in 2001.
Despite the outpouring of sympathy from Americans offering to adopt
tsunami orphans, international adoption was not a habit of these
countries. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, affected
countries' authorities and the international child welfare community
appropriately focused their efforts to serve the children on shelter
and nutrition, protection from trafficking, and reuniting them with
parents or other relatives and community members. Furthermore, before
intercountry adoption could be considered as an option for tsunami
orphans, as with all adoptions, it needed to be determined that a child
is truly orphaned, emotionally ready to be adopted and moved from
familiar surroundings, and legally free to be adopted, through proper
legal determinations and proceedings.
With the passage of time, it seems appropriate for the American
Government and adoption community to revisit the possibility of
providing loving, permanent families through intercountry adoption for
tsunami child victims who have been identified as orphans. Perhaps the
tsunami-affected countries will be more open to this compassionate
option at this time. Although international adoption cannot be the
solution for all of these children, for those who are adopted it will
likely be the best possible solution.
Chairman Murkowski, intercountry adoption can strengthen the bonds
of friendship between countries. Approximately 2 million Americans have
beloved family members through international adoption from Asian
countries. Adoption, whether domestic or intercountry, is a
phenomenally successful social institution, which has met the needs of
millions of children. It can continue to do so for millions more
orphans around the world, if allowed the opportunity. We greatly
appreciate the American Government's and this subcommittee's advocacy
of intercountry adoption and offer our continued assistance in
advancing this crucial mission.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Mr. Atwood. Ms.
Cox, your comments this afternoon?
STATEMENT OF SUSAN SOON-KEUM COX, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC
POLICY AND ADVOCACY, HOLT INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES,
EUGENE, OR
Ms. Cox. Thank you. I would like to thank you and the
committee for holding this hearing today, and especially for
your support and interest in this subject. My name is Susan Cox
and I am vice president of public policy at Holt International.
But I also have the distinction of being an adult adoptee. I
was the 167th child to be to be adopted from Korea, so that was
obviously a very long time ago. But it has really been a
pioneering effort that has continued to help more than 200,000
children throughout the world find families of their own.
And one point in the commitment of adoption is that it is
intended to be a means for families for children, rather than
children for families. And I can tell you that in the three
generations now of adult adoptees, that is something that is
very important to us. The simplistic assumption that a poor
child in a developing country will have a better life with a
family in a rich country is simply misguided, imperialistic,
and it overlooks the sacrifice and loss, not only to the
sending country, but also to the child.
Having said that, I don't know that you will ever find
anyone that feels more positive about adoption and intercountry
adoption than I do. But at the same time, the rest of the world
does not necessary understand or believe that families are
willingly adopting children who are orphans--who are in
orphanages and institutions--and it's something that they do
not understand to the point where the ``body parts'' scandal
makes more sense to them, because, in fact, families would be
adopting children for their body parts.
In this environment, it is very necessary for the advocacy
efforts of the U.S. Government on behalf of so many different
children and families. I want to point to some of the issues
that are very important and critical now. As China hosts the
Olympics, I think it is important to look at the lessons
learned from Korea in 1988 when they hosted the Olympics, and
the stories where it said ``babies for sale--Koreans make them,
Americans buy them.'' The response to that in Korea was
literally to stop adoption for a period of time, and certainly
the public opinion about adoption in Korea has never been
supportive. It is that sort of environment that has made Korea
begin to propose adoption as a ban, an intercountry adoption
ban, immediately.
In Cambodia, a country, the only country that has actually
been closed to adoption by our Government, it's important that
we do not sacrifice that process and lose the opportunity that
is there to maximize the resources and expertise of private
public partnerships--to be able to build an infrastructure and
process that can support intercountry adoption. I would say
that the violation of the process there was so critical where
adoption was stopped, there really was no ability for adoption
to move forward, and it created an unstable process in the
region, where Vietnam or other countries were also tainted by
what was happening in Cambodia.
I would like to support the process of the Hague as it
moves forward. Tom and I have both had the privilege of being
members of the special commission, and it is very clear that we
are, the United States, is the 800-pound gorilla. We are the
largest receiving country in the world, and because of that, we
have a moral responsibility to make sure that the rest of the
countries that are also participating in the Hague see us as
being leaders as we move forward.
I would like to express concern about the shutting down of
countries. Madam Chair, you've talked about that in response to
allegations for things that had gone wrong. But when the
process isn't respected, when it is circumvented, the tragedy
is that the programs do shut down. Back in the 1970s, in
Thailand, where there were abuses, and you could easily bring a
child home for adoption, the consequence was that that country
shut adoption down, and even now those numbers are quite small.
But Latin America responses to allegations of abuse and
trafficking, and then certainly Romania--while hundreds of
children were placed--because the process was never readily in
place in a way of a respectful process with the children and so
on, that's a country that's now closed.
I would like to join my colleagues, Tom, the National
Council for Adoption, as well as the joint council, in
expressing our grave concern about ICARE. We applaud the
efforts of both Senator Landrieu, Senator Craig, and all of the
Members of Congress who are advocating--and the adoption tax
credit, many of the initiatives of the last few years--we
certainly support that. However, we feel strongly that this
puts at risk the process that is happening now, and in fact,
instead of being able to streamline it, it in fact will have
the opposite effect. That sentiment is widely felt in the
adoption community. So again, I want to thank you for this
opportunity, for your interest, and to remember that there
really are thousands of children who will benefit from adoption
if we all work together on this behalf.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Susan Soon-Keum Cox follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan Soon-Keum Cox, Vice President of Public
Policy and Advocacy, Holt International Children's Services, Eugene, OR
I am honored to testify before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, and thank Senator Murkowski for holding this hearing on
Asian Adoptions to the United States. My name is Susan Soon-keum Cox, I
am vice president of Public Policy and External Affairs for Holt
International Children's Services in Eugene, OR.
Holt International pioneered intercountry adoptions from Korea in
1956, and has placed approximately 30,000 children from 20 countries
with adoptive families in the United States. I have been an adoption
professional for more than 25 years, and I have had the privilege of
visiting adoption and child welfare programs in many countries. I have
witnessed tremendous changes in intercountry adoption practice. Some of
these changes have moved the practice forward--some have not. Sadly,
what has not changed is that the number of homeless children has not
diminished, but rather has increased. That reality requires a critical
examination of the problems associated with international adoption and
a determination to find solutions.
In 1956, when mixed-race Korean children were sent to adoptive
families in the United States and Europe, it was considered an
outrageous notion that children of one race, culture, and nationality
could be successfully transplanted from one country to another.
Particularly since white families were generally adopting Korean
children. Many considered it a crazy social experiment. But in spite of
the skeptics, it worked.
Worldwide, approximately 200,000 children have come to their
families through international adoption. More than half of those
children have come to families in the United States. In 2005, U.S.
citizens adopted 22,728 children who were born in other countries.
International adoption should never be the first line of defense
for homeless children. It is not meant to be a solution to world
poverty, civil unrest, or urban migration. For literally thousands of
children throughout the world, however, intercountry adoption is the
only viable possibility for them to have a permanent loving family.
Whenever there is a disaster, whether from natural causes, armed
conflict, or human atrocities, the predictable consequence is that
children are the most vulnerable. Their survival, both immediate and
long-term, is the most fragile.
Few subjects elicit deeper passion than issues regarding children.
International adoption has always been controversial and often
misunderstood. It is a life-long process, one that is generational and
extends even beyond the generation that the child comes into the
family. The more ordinary international adoption becomes, the larger
the numbers, the greater the critical mass, the more diligent we must
be in setting ethical standards that assure that birth parents,
adoptive parents, and especially the children be protected and safe.
This diligence is also necessary to protect the institution of
intercountry adoption and the hope it represents for generations of
children in the future.
International adoption is complex and complicated. That is
unavoidable when you consider how multilayered the process. It extends
between different cultures, languages, time zones, laws, currencies,
and the official bureaucracies of at least two governments. Providing
ethical adoption services requires more than just learning the laws,
procedures, and nuances unique to a particular country and program.
Adoption agencies, facilitators, adoptive parents, and adoption
advocates must be committed to the big-picture, long-term process of
international adoption over the short-term, immediate result for a
particular child. Policies and practices must be established that
recognize the greater good for children who will be served.
An unfaltering commitment of adoption should be that it is intended
as a means to provide families for children, rather than children for
families. This commitment is especially critical in international
adoption, where children of one country are being taken to another. The
simplistic assumption that a poor child in a developing country will
have a better life with a family in a ``rich'' country is misguided,
imperialistic, and overlooks the sacrifice and loss, not only to the
sending country, but also to the child.
As the number of countries with international adoption programs
have increased, the number of agencies and individuals placing children
have increased, to nearly 500, according to the National Adoption
Information Clearing House. The size of a program or agency does not
determine whether or not ethical adoption practices are followed. In
the United States and elsewhere, there are large and small agencies
that provide sound, ethical adoption services. The measurement of a
good program is the philosophy and commitment of its principals and
employees to strong professional child welfare principles.
International adoption is not simply a legal process; it is a life-long
process that requires consistent and professional social work
practices.
International adoption is undeniably a business, and there are
legitimate expenses associated with managing and operating legitimate
program activity. Adoption practitioners are required to know the
complex adoption requirements in the United States as well as the ever-
changing international requirements. It is not the standard cost of
providing services that is problematic; it is the inflated expenses
passed on to families that create ethical land mines. The appearance of
``buying and selling'' of children is unavoidable when the cost of an
international adoption far exceeds the local yearly income of a family.
It is in the best interest of adoption agencies and practitioners to
set the ethical standards that avoid even the appearance of profiting
at the expense of children and families.
ASIAN ADOPTIONS TO THE UNITED STATES
China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Indonesia, the countries that are the
focus of this hearing, are representative of issues and concerns that
overlay intercountry adoption more generally. These countries, however,
also represent unique circumstances in the current intercountry
adoption climate.
China
After intercountry adoption from China became more common in the
early 1990s, China rapidly became the largest and most prominent
``sending country'' in the Asian region. More than 51,000 children have
been placed for adoption in the United States from China between 1991
and 2005. Although the process has slowed in terms of the length of
time that it now takes for a child to be adopted from China, the
Chinese Government's adoption program is considered a model program in
terms of efficiency. The conditions of orphanage care in China have
improved dramatically in the last decade, and domestic adoption, foster
care, and permanency programs for orphaned children in China are
increasing each year.
Adoptions from China changed the landscape and profile of adoptive
families. For the first time, single parents and prospective parents
over the age of 40 could adopt babies and toddlers. The requirement of
families to travel to China created strong bonds and connections
between adoptive families and the birth country of their adopted child.
This increased understanding about the critical need for adoptive
families to help their child stay connected to his or her birth
heritage and culture has helped transform how adopted children identify
and balance their race, culture, and heritage.
As China continues to be a more active participant in the global
community, intercountry adoption is likely to be examined in the harsh
light of international public opinion. As China prepares to host the
Olympic Games in 2008, there are lessons to be learned from the
experience in 1988 when Korea hosted the games and intercountry
adoption became the target of news media stories whose headlines
described adoption as ``exploitation.''
Vietnam
Before the fall of Saigon in 1975, approximately 8,000 children
from Vietnam were placed for adoption with families in the United
States. When relationships with that country reopened and intercountry
adoption resumed in the early 1990s, there was strong interest on the
part of United States families to adopt from Vietnam.
Those early adoptions from Vietnam were complicated by the lack of
formal diplomatic and consular relations with the United States, which
required children adopted in Vietnam to finalize their paperwork at the
United States Embassy in Thailand. This procedure added both to the
time and the expense of the adoption process. This situation changed in
the mid-1990s, when adoptions could be finalized in Vietnam,
eliminating the need to complete the process in Thailand.
In many ways, the success of adoptions from Vietnam contributed to
a climate of market-driven competitiveness, and eventually to
widespread abuse and unethical adoption practices. In this environment,
it was virtually impossible to maintain ethical professional standards
when the opposite became the norm. Predictably, there were adoption
scandals, and in response to these allegations of abuse, the Vietnamese
Government rewrote their adoption laws in 2002.
What was expected to be a brief period of disruption resulted in an
intercountry adoption moratorium to the United States that lasted for
more than 2 years. During that time, the number of U.S. agencies that
had been working in Vietnam shrank from dozens to fewer than 10. During
those 2 years, the disruption to the process was critical. Agencies
that had invested years in developing child welfare programs simply
could not afford to continue to support those services. Many children
had been in the process of adoption and had already been matched with
adoptive families. A few families continued to wait through the 2
years, but sadly, dozens of other children lost their opportunity to be
adopted. For those children, the cost of delay is immeasurable.
Intercountry adoption was reestablished between Vietnam and the United
States in 2005 and, to date, 19 United States agencies are licensed to
place children from Vietnam.
Cambodia
Years of war, genocide, and political violence underlie the serious
crisis of homeless children in Cambodia. A host of factors created
homelessness, including children born out of wedlock, desertion of
spouses, death of parents due to AIDS or other ailments, and other
physical and psychological health conditions in families. All these
factors are compounded by severe poverty.
Child trafficking is also a serious issue in Cambodia, partly
caused by inadequate legal and social service systems governing
intercountry adoption. This situation has resulted in the closure of
Cambodia to intercountry adoption and a current restructuring of
adoption practice there.
In the 2005 USAID Cambodia Orphanage Survey [attachment], Holt
International identified over 8,000 children living in 204 residential
child care facilities. Most of the children expected to grow up in the
institution that is caring for them. Only a few well-resourced
international organizations offer services to assist local families to
stabilize so parents can care for their children. Scarce resources are
targeted to meeting the immediate needs of the children through model
projects.
[Editor's note.--The attachment mentioned above will be maintained
in the permanent files of the committee.]
Community-based services that are far more cost effective than
currently existing alternatives will be documented in these programs;
emphasized in trainings; and broadly promoted to generate interest in
service replication and child welfare system reform.
Funding for these programs will not be applied to intercountry
adoption, but the services developed through model projects will cover
key competencies required for sound, ethical intercountry, and local
adoption practice. These competencies include comprehensive background
checks, child developmental assessments, child-friendly temporary care
models, and prioritizing family preservation, if this result is in the
best interest of the child. Opportunities for promoting local adoption
will be assessed.
Overwhelming evidence exists that family-based care gives children
vastly improved life prospects when compared to those facing life in
institutions or on the streets. In addition, family care reduces a
tremendous toll on a country's economic and social fabric. The
objective is that several hundred children a year will avoid
institutionalization and life on the streets through community-based
family alternatives.
Cambodia has the distinction of being the only country that the
U.S. Government has closed to intercountry adoption. This dramatic
action followed reports of unethical practices and trafficking that
affected dozens of families and children. Although there are differing
views about how the adoption process in Cambodia deteriorated to this
point, the current situation has been an important opportunity to
evaluate lessons learned by everyone connected to the adoption
community.
The Cambodian Government acknowledges its own institutional
limitations regarding accountability and infrastructure. Officials have
also responded favorably to the international community's offers to
help develop their capacity and the infrastructure required to
establish a reasonable and effective adoption process that will meet
standards of efficiency and the critical need to protect children and
families.
The Cambodian Government's highest current priority is to draft and
enact a new adoption law, and work on this draft law is taking place
within the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the
Ministry of Social Affairs. According to UNICEF, the changes that were
made to the adoption law seek to bring the law into compliance with
Cambodia's new draft civil code.
The next priority in Cambodia is to establish a central authority
for adoptions and, through UNICEF, the process is underway to do a
rapid assessment of the existing infrastructure at the ministry level.
This step will be followed by an evaluation of existing mechanisms and
an assessment of what is required to develop an infrastructure for
intercountry adoption.
While immediate attention in Cambodia is focused on adoption
activity, it is essential that priority also be given to developing a
child welfare infrastructure that will serve the long-term best
interests of children and families.
Advocating for children and families
In addition to the current closure of adoptions from Cambodia and
previously from Vietnam, other countries around the world are reacting
to circumstances in which internationally-adopted children were clearly
not protected, with devastating consequences. Although these situations
are the rare exception, they often result in increased concern about an
alleged relationship between intercountry adoption and child
trafficking and abuse. It is critical that policies and practices
balance the urgent needs of children with the necessary safeguards that
will protect them, not only at the time of adoption, but also as they
address the life-long issues associated with intercountry adoption.
In the United States since 2000, there have been numerous policy
advancements in support of sound, ethical intercountry adoption,
including the Child Citizenship Act, the Adoption Tax Credit, and the
Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000. Each of these initiatives delivered
positive benefits for adoptees and adoptive families.
In this current environment, in which intercountry adoption is
observed with suspicion and doubt, there is great urgency to establish
and promote policies and systems that are respectful of homeless
children, as well as the culture and circumstances of their birth
countries.
On behalf of the adoption community, I want to express our sincere
appreciation for the concern and support of the U.S. Congress on issues
regarding intercountry adoption, especially from Asia. I appeal to this
committee to continue to be a powerful advocate on behalf of
intercountry adoption. As you promote future adoption reform, I
respectfully urge you to consider carefully and thoughtfully the
consequences of initiatives that may delay or compromise the
implementation in the United States of the Hague Convention.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you so very much, Ms. Cox. Let me
ask a question of both of you, and this is relating to the
ICARE legislation, which you have both mentioned and expressed
a degree of concern. Mr. Atwood, I thought I heard you say that
your concern was about yet another layer of bureaucracy or
different process--is that really what it is about, that we are
at that point where we know what the process is, and we have
learned to work with other countries and they understand our
process, and if we change it, it will be more complicated, or
does it add more bureaucracy? I am trying to get clearly the
concerns coming from the adoption community on this
legislation.
Mr. Atwood. First and foremost, it is a management issue--
it is a transition issue. The Hague implementing regulations,
which were just published in February--they are 100 pages long,
and they change a lot of ways of doing things. It is going to
take 18 months for the intercountry adoption system
approximately, or 12, at least, to make the transition to that
new way of doing things. And to, at the same time, ask that
everything that is being done presently by the Department of
Homeland Security is to be moved to the State Department while
both of those agencies are in the midst of managing the Hague
transition, and to have the adopted transition, and to have the
adopted service providers out there, and the prospective
parents, and be able to try to figure out what is going on,
would be an impossible assignment.
Senator Murkowski. So the concern is as much about timing--
that if we had an oportunity--that these new regulations that
are going forward with the Hague--that perhaps the ICARE
legislation would fit better, and its objections are more
around timing than anything else?
Mr. Atwood. As we say in our letter to Senator Landrieu,
NCFA finds many of the tenets of ICARE to be of interest and
potentially worth pursuing. We sincerely respect the excellent
intentions contained in the initiative. However, we believe
that now is not a time to consider such dramatic changes to the
intercountry adoption system, just as that system makes the
transitioning to the Hague Convention piece. And moreover,
there is--as we make progress through the transition--it's
possible other reforms might need to be considered. The first
thing is to make the Hague transition, and then look at the
ideas in ICARE.
Ms. Cox. I agree they are two parallel tracks, and I think
at this point it would be very confusing, and instead of
improving the process that is going forward now, to continue to
overwhelm it seems to derail that, or potentially could derail
that.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you both again, where there
have been allegations or concerns that here in this country, we
adopt from other nations and bring the child in and then the
child is abused, or there are things that happen to the
children--how do we, as a Nation, counter the cases of abuse of
adopted children to assure other nations that may want to
continue to have open adoptions with us, and not close off the
adoption process to the United States, and remain willing to
participate in international adoptions?
Mr. Atwood. Well, first, I think we have to share in the
grief and outrage that a country feels when one of its children
adopted by an American is harmed. This should never happen. It
is an outrage. But that said, these rare tragic incidents could
only be made more tragic if they resulted in a shutdown of
adoptions and the children be deprived of having families.
Unfortunately, harms to children do occur in families, whether
adopted or biological, and we should do everything we can to
minimize those.
Beginning with strict screening processes. Of course people
who adopt go through much more than people go through to bear
normal biological children. So we do need to be strict in our
screening processes. Many countries require post-placement
reporting, and we need to be cooperative, both with adoption
service providers and parents--should obey the rules of the
countries with respect to post-placement reporting. The
emphasis needs to be, however, on the need for the children and
families, ultimately.
Ms. Cox. I think the preparation of families is critical.
And while you can certainly also point to abuses that happen in
biological families, this is different because it has been the
trust of one country to let their children be adopted by
another country, and so it does create a different kind of
tension certainly. And I think one of the things that the Hague
will do certainly is by an accreditation process, there will be
a much more stringent requirement for uniformity in the way
agencies protect families. You know, the idea that you can just
love a child and take him home with you, and that everything
will be okay. Unfortunately, that isn't true.
And so many children who were placed for adoption have been
institutionalized, and they will have the effects of the
institutionalization, of all of the abandonment, of loss, all
those things which reflect in how the childhood behavior
develops. And if family is not told about this and prepared,
they do not really have anyone to go to. And we are looking now
at what is happening in Russia with some really terrible abuses
that happened there, and the numbers may be small but it has
created a huge amount of attention in that country. And so we
have to be careful, and sometimes it may seem overly stringent,
and there needs to be a balance between reasonableness, but
also protection.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, I appreciate that. When you
talk to anyone that is an adopted family--the adoptive
families--there is one thing that is consistent in their
complaints, and it is the bureaucracy, the process that they
have got to go through. And I think so much of it is just
understanding the need for all the hoops and all the checks,
and there are very good and legitimate reasons for so much of
it. But it seems that the bureaucracy and the cost associated
with it are hurdles that we hear about all the time. What is
the role of the National Council of Adoption in addressing this
or helping to alleviate, or just helping to explain these two
issues?
Mr. Atwood. Alleviate and explain, both. We are an
adoption, research, education, and advocacy organization, so we
do policy analysis and advocacy--we do education. And with
respect to the bureaucracy, as you noted, there are good
reasons for significant regulations when you are talking about
the determination of parental rights of one set of parents, and
the difference for parental rights to another set of parents.
The child placement is needed--the regulations to prevent
corruption are necessary in the process. So part of it is
explaining.
Another part of our work is to try to improve the rules and
regulations. However, that is one of the incentives behind the
Hague Convention--to create uniformity, predictability,
transparency, to promote intercountry adoptions while
protecting the children. So it is a hefty--you know, you have
to kind of an analyze a regulation on a case-by-case basis in
order to comment when a parent says that it is excessive. It is
a difficult process. It needs to be a difficult process in that
respect, because we are talking about protecting children, and
the birth parents and adoptive parents, as well.
When something goes wrong in adoption, it is heartbreaking.
Things will go wrong in adoption, because there are things to
go wrong in every human endeavor. But when it goes wrong in a
contract or a business deal or something like that, it is not
the same. When it goes wrong in an adoption, you are talking
about children, family, love, parents, and dreams. And so, that
is the nature of what we work with here in adoption.
Ms. Cox. Senator, sometimes the bureaucracy is our response
to what the other countries require. The dossiers that other
countries ask for are really quite elaborate, and it is a
burden for adoptive parents, there is no question. And so a
part of it is the required response that we have to fulfill the
obligations that other countries ask for. But there are two
points that perhaps you and your committee could help with. The
extended time with China, for example, right now, is going to
require--and not only China--but that families have to redo
their certificates. If there is some way to really look at a
process where it does not have to be all done over again. The
home study information is really not going to have changed that
much. But then if they had records or if there were things that
should have prevented them from being a parent, it is not going
to change in that expired time of 6 months, so that really does
not seem like a practical thing to maybe have to do. And so if
there were something, something we could do to look at that, I
think that would be very helpful.
The other thing that I believe will change with the Hague,
and when the different bureaus around the country, formerly
known as INS, has to look at the different home studies and the
processes. Very often they also end up doing case work; that
the information that has been sent to them was not adequately
provided by the adoptive--the agency, and so hopefully, when
the Hague is, you know, at the accreditation process, there
will be more uniformity to that in those agencies that do not
adequately do the work for their adoptive parents, and for
their process, that that will be eliminated, and that will
streamline it a bit. Certainly that is a hope.
Senator Murkowski. Well, is it also possible that if they
fail, these entities that have been providing some of these
services fail to meet the accreditation, actually have fewer
out there as you would possibly take longer? Is that a concern,
or are we pretty comfortable with the accreditation--those that
are providing the service will be able to meet the
requirements?
Ms. Cox. I think so. The Hague is not something that has
just happened. I mean, we have been anticipating this for a
long time. So I do not know the number of agencies that are
already accredited, but that is certainly something agencies
could have been anticipating for some time. So there will
certainly be a moment or a time as we are all adjusting in the
transfer that will be difficult--I think we have all expected
that. But hopefully, the agencies are also going to have a
clear enough process and guidelines that we will be able to
accommodate that.
Mr. Atwood. You also asked about costs.
Senator Murkowski. Oh, yes.
Mr. Atwood. The cost of adoption is a stretch for many
families. The adoption tax credit helps. We need the sunset
that is scheduled for that in 2010 to be repealed. It is
currently at $10,000, and it needs to stay at $10,000 at
least----
Senator Murkowski. What is the average cost of
international adoption?
Mr. Atwood. In the neighborhood of $18,000 to $25,000, and
it can be more. The tax credit is really crucial for a lot of
families, and this really comes into play in international
adoption, in particular, because there are lots of children
internationally. When it comes to domestic infants adoptions,
while looking at it from a child's point of view, we know they
are going to be adopted. Somebody will be able to afford to
adopt those children. But looking internationally, where there
is way many more children eligible to be adopted than there are
parents adopting, it becomes really crucial for marginal
families to have that tax credit.
But there again, it also needs to be noted that adoption is
costly--has costs associated. People ought not to think there
are people out there just exploiting in a systematic way,
broadly and widely, parents' desire for children. The large,
vast majority of people involved in providing adoption service
are doing it because they want to help children and families.
That's the whole reason.
Senator Murkowski. Which is the right reason.
Quickly, the increase in international adoptions--is this
leading to a downward trend in domestic adoptions? Are we
seeing that, or is that actually happening on the domestic
front?
Mr. Atwood. Actually, international adoptions have slightly
exceeded the number of domestic infant adoptions at this point.
It is certainly not competing, so to speak, with infant
adoptions--there still will be plenty of parents to adopt them.
There are children in foster care--118,000 children with the
case status of ``waiting to be adopted,'' in foster care. I
would not put it that way, that you know, the people are--I
think it is more of an expanding pie than a fixed pie. People
who are called to adopt a child will explore all the options.
And they are, you know, any adopted parent will tell you ``this
is my child, this is the child who is supposed to be in my
family,'' and we feel that--my wife and I feel about our child
by adoption--and this is true of every adoptive parent.
Ms. Cox. The domestic numbers have also been affected by
things like surrogacy and just the increased ability for
infertility treatments and that sort of thing, so that's been
somewhat affected by it. But I think that it is really--I think
it is a very good question--and also one of the things I so
appreciate about the congressional coalition on adoption is
that they advocate not for ``our children'' and ``their
children,'' but ``the children.'' It is much more of a global
emphasis on children, which I think is very positive and
important. I thank you for that.
Mr. Atwood. Senator Landrieu, who is a great adoption
leader--and I find it awkward and unusual to be having concerns
about her legislation--has a very nice way of putting it, which
is ``There are no unwanted children, only children who haven't
found their families yet.'' So we need to do a better job of
educating people about the need, and inspiring them to a
calling they may be having to adopt.
Senator Murkowski. Well, thank you for bringing children
together with their families. We appreciate the efforts that
you do on behalf of so many, and I thank you for giving us some
time this afternoon. We really appreciate that.
And with that we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]