Legislation to Speed Up Adoption Treaty Gets Bogged Down

With more Americans than ever adopting children from overseas, a treaty meant to create the first ground rules for the often-bewildering world of international adoptions would seem wired for overwhelming congressional approval.

But legislation to approve the landmark 1993 treaty on international adoption has been taken hostage by two lawmakers who are pressing for changes that proponents say could be deal killers. The treaty is a key issue for countries in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America that provide U.S. parents with thousands of children each year.

Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), best known for linking payment of United Nations dues to anti-abortion policies, wants to include a measure that could sharply curtail overseas adoptions by gays, lesbians and people who “engage in promiscuous sexual activity.”

And Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is seeking to limit federal regulation of agencies that conduct overseas adoptions, arguing that an increased bureaucracy could drive up costs and put many out of business.

As a result, legislation essential for implementing the treaty has stalled in the House and the Senate while Republican leaders in both chambers try to avoid potentially bruising floor fights. In a separate but related action, the treaty needs a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to ratify.

The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, which the United States signed in 1994, would bring order to an adoption process that until now has had few international standards and has been plagued by abuses caused by some incompetent or unscrupulous agents who link would-be parents with children in need. So far 40 countries have ratified or acceded to the treaty.

Among its provisions, the treaty says that all participating countries must establish a central authority to coordinate intercountry adoptions, ensure that adoption agencies meet minimum standards for accreditation and take steps to safeguard the rights of children and of their prospective parents. Experts say that the current system all too often leaves children vulnerable to abduction and would-be parents vulnerable to extortion or fraud.

Supporters warn that, unless the United States ratifies the treaty soon, countries such as South Korea, Romania, Russia and others could reduce or cut off adoptions of children by Americans. That could provoke a major uproar among many prospective adoptive parents in the United States, which accounts for four of every five intercountry adoptions in the world. The number of children who have come to America through adoption has more than doubled in the last decade--from 7,093 in 1990 to 16,369 last year.

“It’s more critical now than it’s ever been because more countries have ratified” the treaty, said Susan Soon-Keum Cox, vice president of public policy for Holt International Children’s Services, a well-known adoption agency based in Oregon.

Cox, herself a U.S. adoptee born in South Korea, said that in her travels she frequently faces pointed questions from officials in other countries who wonder why the United States has not yet ratified a treaty that would make it comply with standards gaining international acceptance. “There’s no easy way to explain that.” Cox added that the threat of retaliation from countries that have signed the treaty is “very real.”

An array of adoption and child welfare organizations, many of which are often at odds on public policy, have endorsed the treaty. And a senior State Department official said the U.S. cannot afford to wait.

“The world will watch how the U.S. implements this convention and how it protects children, birth parents and adoptive parents,” Mary A. Ryan, assistant secretary of State for consular affairs, said last October in congressional testimony. “Several of the largest source countries have indicated that they are looking to us to ratify and implement the convention quickly and that they plan to model their programs after ours. These concerns about U.S. ratification and implementation bear directly on the future ability of American parents to adopt children from abroad.”

President Clinton first sent Congress proposed legislation to implement the treaty two years ago. Last March, the House International Relations Committee cleared an implementation bill unanimously. In April, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee followed suit. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), chairman of the committee, who is renowned for giving treaties scrutiny, is a sponsor.

Indeed, pro-adoption sentiment runs strong on Capitol Hill. In recent years Congress has enacted tax breaks for adoptive parents and has eased regulations to help children move from foster care into permanent homes. On Wednesday, a group called the Congressional Coalition on Adoption staged an event to celebrate a new postage stamp advocating adoption and to press lawmakers to sign a pro-adoption pledge that takes note of “millions of children worldwide awaiting permanent, safe, loving homes.”

One influential figure who spoke at the event was Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), the House majority whip, who has been a foster parent. He called adoption “a blessing” that should be bestowed on every parentless child, “one child at a time.”

But in a brief interview afterward, DeLay acknowledged that Smith’s proposed amendment had thrown up an obstacle to bringing the treaty legislation to a vote in the House. “We’re trying to work with him on that,” he said.

Smith declined to be interviewed for this story.

In an opinion published last week in the Trenton (N.J.) Times, Smith wrote that he wanted to attach an amendment that would prohibit U.S. officials from facilitating intercountry adoptions sought by people who “engage in promiscuous sexual activity or sexual acts or relationships with same-sex partners.” But Smith added a caveat. He wrote that the prohibition would apply only when such acts are likely to come to the attention of the child, which he suggested “could result in serious and lasting harm.”

Lawmakers who back the legislation are reluctant to tackle Smith’s proposal head-on for fear of starting a firefight that would distract public attention from the treaty’s main goals. In recent years, the House has had close votes and acrimonious debates on whether unmarried couples should be allowed to adopt in the District of Columbia.

Rep. William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.), who adopted an infant girl from Vietnam, said case-by-case decisions on who is fit to adopt should be left to child-welfare and legal professionals. He added that the Hague treaty “is really about promoting intercountry adoption, providing children with opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise. This isn’t an issue about gay rights.”

In the Senate, where individual senators wield significant procedural clout, Brownback’s criticism is less contentious but also an obstacle. The Kansas Republican, who has adopted children from China and Guatemala, said that the legislation would create an unwieldy federal bureaucracy and expensive red tape. Legislative sponsors said that they hope Brownback’s concerns can be solved. But the senator said in an interview: “There are children that need to be adopted around the world and now you’re going to add more costs? I have trouble with that.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

International Adoptions on Rise

The number of Americans who are adopting children from abroad is at an all-time high. In 1990, U.S. authorities issued immigrant visas to 7,093 orphans brought to the United States by adopted families. Last year, 16,369 such visas were issued.

The top countries of origin for the adopted children in 1999:

Russia: 4,348

China: 4,101

South Korea: 2,008

Guatemala: 1,002

Romania: 895

Vietnam: 712

India: 500

Ukraine: 323

Cambodia: 248

Colombia: 231

Bulgaria: 221

Philippines: 198

*

Source: State Department