With the exception of Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA), the Indian Affairs Committee has voted to delete Title III of H.R. 3286 as it passed the House included tax benefits for adoptive parents, anti-discrimination language and Title III, substantive reforms of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Indian Affairs then held a hearing on changes to ICWA proposed by the tribes but, except for Congressional witnesses, excluded all witnesses that would have questioned the thrust of the tribes to broaden and strengthen the arbitrary power of tribal courts over any U.S. citizen that any tribe decides to declare a member.

Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) led off and Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY) gamely asked that the Committee not disrupt children's lives. But the bombshell witness was Jane Gorman, playing multiple roles as: 1) attorney for the Rost family's appeal; 2) lobbyist for the American Academy For Adoption Attorneys; 3) negotiator with the tribes, seemingly on both her own case and the legislation.

Gorman's testimony undercut months of efforts in the House to achieve real reform: who can argue with a deal that is pitched as saving two children's lives today as against thousands of children who would be affected in the future?

As it turned out, only Rep. Pete Geren (D-TX) played hardball, with a good prepared statement and excellent verbal testimony. Geren was very persistent, even in the face of blistering attacks from Committee Chairman John McCain (R- AZ).

Geren deserves a special thanks from all adoption advocates for raising basic constitutional questions about people with minuscule Indian heritage being deprived of their right to voluntarily place their own children.

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), who led the no-compromise forces in the House, having been sandbagged by Gorman's testimony, was defending the House billwhile politely keeping the door open to negotiations. She kept her cool even in the face of repeated patronizing remarks from opponents of Title III.

While the hearing was clearly stacked and meant to provide a rubber stamp for the tribes' proposal, it was remarkably informative and interesting regarding how ICWA is presently administered and regarding the scope of the problems the law has created.

Three things seem clear after the hearing; the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over Indian affairs are dominated by the tribes; ICWA's application in adoption proceedings is greater than the tribes have argued; and many of the same anti-adoption arguments NCFA has seen over the years are being used by the tribes and their allies.

If the extent the committees are controlled by the tribes was not evident from the witness list, it was made crystal clear in the written statement of Ron Allen, head of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) which takes credit for the Tulsa Amendments. "It is ironic and a sad reminder of the past history of U.S.-tribal relations that the very same members of Congress who actively sought to prevent Indian tribes from commenting on their ICWA proposals, have determined it critical that they have the chance to comment on the tribal proposal here today."

In other words, the tribes are so used to having total control of what happens in the two committees with jurisdiction that they even question a Member of Congress having the nerve to speak at a Congressional hearing. Allen's statement speaks volumes about why there has been a growing distortion of ICWA since it passes: the only oversight's been by the tribally-dominated committees.

There were two statements at the hearing which demonstrate the reach of ICWA is possible greater than anyone ever imagined and that the present number of cases has been greatly underestimated.

The first statement was from Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (D- CO) who said that the definitions of Indian are vague and that while just over a million people are officially enrolled in tribes, anthropologists say that "15 million Americans claim Indian ancestry" Guess what that 15 million figure means in terms of implementing any amendments which require people to inform tribes if they know or suspect that a child has Indian heritage.

Another witness, Ada Deer, unwittingly offered the first of several pieces of evidence that the problems caused by ICWA affect more than the "40 cases" that the tribes keep saying are all that were litigated. Speaking for her tribe, the Menominee, Deer said that they'd "received 5,528 notices, that they had intervened in 96 and that only 12 notices were complied with fully so you can see the extent of the problem."

Deer also talked about off-reservation interventions by her tribe. She said there were 920, " but we exerted jurisdiction in only half." Deer said that cases affected fully one-third of all Menominee children. So much for the distorted statements of the tribes and their apologies that only one-half of one percent, or 40 cases have ever cropped up involving problems with ICWA.

Finally the same old anti-adoption rhetoric NCFA has so often fought in the past is creeping into the ICWA debate.

For example, Rep. Don Young (R-AK), joined the National Association of Black Social Workers rhetorical club, saying at one point that the adoption of Indian children by non-Indians amounted to "a form of brain drain and genocide" Yes, "genocide".

Also Ron Allen of NCAI, who is clearly carrying water for the "unhappy adopted Indian child" pitch, testified "we don't want them (Indian adoptees) to have to start backtracking when they're an adult" Others testifying also used the myth of 100 percent unhappy adoptees, planted by the anti-adoption forces, to bolster their arguments against reforms.

NCFA continues its opposition because this package is clearly moving in the opposite direction of reform initiatives: it broadens the scope of ICWA, brings even more under ICWA, and makes discussing adoption more dangerous with those who have a trace of Indian blood.

© National Council for Adoption