Latest news appears to be that ICARE passage may be imminent as it has been attached to a general Department of State appropriations bill (PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS FOR CLARIFICATION ON THIS) and will likely be voted on very shortly.
For those completely unaware of the bill, it has two main purposes. One is to centralize all intercountry adoption functions in a new Office of Intercountry Adoption (OIA). This office would be part of the State Department and would be headed by an Ambassador-at-large who would be appointed by the President. The second purpose of the bill is to confer the same citizenship rights to children adopted abroad as those enjoyed by the biological children of US citizens who are born abroad. Basically this makes them the same as any US citizen except for that they still can’t become President.
The latest version of the bill has many improvements over what had been previously presented to Congress. Much of the ambiguity over what was meant by a “competent authority” has been clarified among other things. The bill still does confer much needed citizenship rights though as I have pointed out before, conferring these rights does not require a new law. The bill also changes the orphan status definition so that married couples could choose to relinquish and still have the child considered an orphan.
While I do support the bill in principle I still have some major reservations that prevent me from giving it my endorsement (for whatever my endorsement is worth). For those of our readers who at times criticize me for not being clear on what is my opinion and what is fact – everything from this point on is MY OPINION.
POLITICAL APPOINTEE – The person in charge of interpreting the “best interests” and “rights” of the child will be a political appointee. This could lead to a few troublesome things. The obvious one is just the fact that political appointees generally have a 4 to 8 year shelf-life. Every time there is a new President, jobs change. This is especially so when we have a change in the political party of the President. Do we want to have changes in the interpretations of adoption policy every few years?
The second problem with the Ambassador-at-large being a political appointee is the fact that it leaves us open to politics infiltrating ICA policy. I, for one, have absolutely zero faith in the ability of our highest elected officials – of any party- not to use innocent children as pawns in their geo-political chess game. This is not a partisan thing in any way. I would fear that with a right wing President we could face situations where the US might use adoption policy as a way to pressure countries into things like free trade deals. And with a pinko President like I’d be likely to elect, I could very easily see a “Human Rights” agenda result in misguided ICA policy.
Lastly on this appointee thing is the fact that the OIA will get to decide who can and can’t adopt. There is nothing to prevent them from going farther than the current system of essentially making sure you can provide a healthy home and that you aren’t a child molester. Is it a far stretch to believe that Pres. Bush might appoint someone who would say that gays and lesbians can’t adopt? How far of a stretch is it to believe that groups like Focus on the Family might be able to take it one step further and prevent singles from adopting? Once again, just my opinion, take it or leave it.
FUNDING – The ICARE bill does not offer any guaranteed funding stream. Instead, the office is funded out of the DOS’s annual budget. This leaves it very vulnerable to overall fiscal woes and well as prioritization on the part of the Sec. of State. I believe that ICA should have a direct fee for service arrangement similar to Al Gore’s concept of a social security lockbox. This becomes especially important when the next concern is taken into consideration.
STAFFING AND RESPONSIBILITIES – ICARE does not specify any guidelines for staffing the new office. Logic would state that this would be a function of how much money is allocated for the office. In addition, ICARE calls for the OIA staff to do a lot of non-adoption related things such as gathering data for annual reports on human rights and trafficking. I do not object to their involvement; however… if budgets are tight – and they will be – and there is limited staff, how much of the OIA’s time is going to be spent on things other than processing adoption paperwork.
MAYHEM – ICARE gives the DOS six months to establish the office. Once that six -months (following passage by Congress I believe) is past, the DHS no longer has any involvement in adoptions. There is no way that this office will be established, all hiring and training completed, responsibilities assigned, and up and running in six months time. Without doubt, there will be a period of extreme stress and mayhem in the first year of the OIA’s existence. I do not state that this is a reason not to pass the bill, though it could have been written better to give more time or flexibility. But this is something that the adoption community must be prepared for. Maybe it is an inevitable inconvenience if things are ever to change.
In conclusion, ICARE is not as frightening to me now as it was last year when I first started to research it. I still believe that this law is a danger to adoptions from Guatemala as the very nature of the private system could lead an Ambassador-at-large to call for a shutdown. I still believe that the US needs a national policy that explains how we interpret doctrines like the Convention on the Rights of the Child so that the Ambassador-at-large has at least some guiding direction. My greatest fear is that ICARE will pass and five years from now we’ll be calmed down and satisfied with the great new citizenship rights. At that time, some religious zealot, tree hugging hippie, or other ideologue will become the head of the OIA and then we’ll be wishing we had fought harder.
Thanks for your opinions Kevin. I had not paid any attention to the ICARE bill (been a little busy since my princessa came home). Reading your opinions has helped me to process what might happen.
Posted by: Malynn at April 27, 2005 09:15 AMThank you for the update and the analysis.
Will you please post again when the bill is passed?
Posted by: Jennifer at April 27, 2005 04:06 PMMy biggest issue with ICARE is that it was tagged on to an appropriations bill instead of having it stand on it's own. Why was this backdoor maneuver used by the bill's sponsors? Why not let it stand and be debated on it's own merits?
All the good in ICARE, the citizenship rights, can be done through other policy changes without funding a new office.
I do agree with most of Kevin's assessment but do think we need to have this bill separated from the current bill and have it debated on the floor as a separate bill.
Posted by: Traci at April 27, 2005 11:21 PMThanks for the update and analysis, Kevin. I think everyone has good concerns, but I guess I am not so pessimistic. The funding and short term mayhem seem like valid concerns, but for me they seem outwieghed by the advantage of getting an advocate. For so long there has been no attention to the matter, having this as a part of somebody's job will at least give it some attention - - a face and a voice attached to it. If we believe that international adoption is a good thing, then having an advocate who surfaces the issues should be good.
I am not so worried about the political appointment aspect. Generally these ambassador folks have some (minimal) experience in the area, and rely on the staff to keep things running. There are advantages to not having a permanent staff person there. Anyone who has worked with govt knows that bad apples are very hard to remove... and often, after folks get into a role, they get comfortable. That could be irritating to folks who want to see action because they have kids they are trying to adopt. An appointee, as a representative of the President, is expected to be responsive- - and is answerable for his/her actions, at least to the President. He/She will expect the staff to be responsive as well.
My take on the political party switches is this: A Republican appointee will be at least as interested in the adoption side as the other HR aspects. Since they will answer to a religious constituency, which is very pro-adoption, the odds are they won't buy in to a lot of the UN garbage and will work to promote the truth and positive changes in the adoption process. But if somebody did use ICA for leverage somehow, or (more likely) just didn't consider the impact from other political decisions, at least we would now have a voice at the table. Right now there is none other than 'calling our congressmen and senators'.
If a Democrat gets elected, the nominee will still be responsible for the ICA process and from a strictly human nature aspect will be less likely to support moratoriums that take away that peice of their empire unless they are a real leftist idealogue. Even then, at least we have a face and a name to call to account instead of losing adoption issues in a web of government concerns. Besides, if ICA is part of their job, and they really learn about it, they may be more supportive than you expect. I know that goes against our experience with the Clinton person at UNICEF, but keep in mind, adoption was never a big goal of UNICEF. Democrats are not necessarily anti-ICA.
So in my opinion, I remain optimistic. But maybe I am just a 'glass is half full' kind of guy.
-Shannon
Posted by: Shannon at April 28, 2005 12:40 PMI think it is important to correct the record. ICARE has been OFFERED as an amendment to the State Department Authorization bill, not attached. If the underlying bill does come to the floor, it will be subject to debate and could be amended. Also, S. 600 is not an appropriations bill it is the bill that authorizes the activities of the state department, one of which is international adoption. Therefore, offering it here is very appropriate. As those of you familiar with Washington will tell you, it is very common for members to offer free standing bills as amendments in the hopes that it will force the committee to address the issue (hold hearings, mark up the bills).
That being said, people may be interested to know that the State Department already has similarly siutated offices. One example is the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, which is headed by Ambassador Miller, a political appointee. One might argue that if we need an office to protect the rights of the 17,000 people who enter the US through trafficking, we should also have a dedicated office for International Adoption.
For those who do not know me, I am Senator Landrieu's advisor on these issues. I respect and appreciate the concerns raised above by others and will do my best to see that they are better addressed before the bill is passed by the Senate.
Posted by: Kathleen at April 28, 2005 10:16 PMThank you very much Kathleen for clarifying the exact status of the bill. I apologize for not being 100% correct on that aspect and I would agree that it is an appropriate fit, although I would prefer to see it as a stand-alone bill in order to get the attention and debate it deserves - but that is a different debate.
I'd also like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to read a site like Guatadopt and listen to some concerns. ICARE is definitely a well-intentioned bill and I appreciate the dedication you appear to have to make it as strong as possible.
Kevin
Guatadopt.com
Further information is available at Pass ICARE, a pro-ICARE site (http://www.passicare.com/). You can get the actual text of the proposed amendment there and a list of co-sponsors, etc.
I have read elsewhere concern about a specific section of the proposed amendment:
SEC. 926. ADJUDICATION OF CHILD STATUS.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Prior to the issuance of a full and final adoption decree or a visa under section 101(a)(15)(W) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 923(a) of this Act--
(1) the Office shall obtain from the competent authority of the country of the child's residence a certification, together with documentary support, that the child sought to be adopted meets the description of an adoptable child; and
(2) not later than 15 days after the date of the receipt of the certification referred to in paragraph (1), the Office shall make a final determination on whether the certification and the documentary support are sufficient to meet the requirements of this section or whether additional investigation or information is required.
The effect of this would be to add as much as 15 days to the post-adoption period before the child could travel. With respect to Guatemala, as I remember things from when I did this in 2002, it seems to me that the adoption was finalized before I traveled, and only the immigration matters were left unsettled. So I think with ICARE there might have been as much as a 15 day delay *before I could travel*. In countries like Russia, where I believe the parents must travel and be present at the court proceedings, there would be an additional delay I assume, while the parents stay (with their newly adopted child) in a hotel in some dismal provincial capital.
I would want to know more about the specifics of this before I write any of my represetatives.