    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        RESOLVING INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL
                         CHILD ABDUCTIONS TO NON-HAGUE
                              CONVENTION COUNTRIES
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

                            GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

                          INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 9, 2013

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-58

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
                                      or
                           http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    80-801                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California             Samoa
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   BRAD SHERMAN, California
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    TED POE, Texas                       GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          KAREN BASS, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    PAUL COOK, California                JUAN VARGAS, California
    GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina       BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania                Massachusetts
    STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas                AMI BERA, California
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    TREY RADEL, Florida                  GRACE MENG, New York
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia                LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    LUKE MESSER, Indiana

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
                          International Organizations

                   CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             KAREN BASS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas                AMI BERA, California
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Susan Jacobs, Special Advisor for Children's
      Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State...     6
    Ms. Patricia Apy, Attorney, Paras, Apy & Reiss, P.C..............    37
    Ms. Bindu Philips, Mother of Children Abducted to India..........    52
    Mr. Michael Elias, Father of Children Abducted to Japan..........    64
    Mr. Colin Bower, Father of Children Abducted to Egypt............    74
    Mr. David Goldman, Father of Child Abducted to Brazil............    86

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Susan Jacobs: Prepared statement...................     8
    Ms. Patricia Apy: Prepared statement.............................    43
    Ms. Bindu Philips: Prepared statement............................    55
    Mr. Michael Elias: Prepared statement............................    68
    Mr. Colin Bower: Prepared statement..............................    79
    Mr. David Goldman: Prepared statement............................    94

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................   108
    Hearing minutes..................................................   109
    Written responses from the Honorable Susan Jacobs to questions
      submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith,
      a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
      chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human
      Rights, and International Organizations........................   110
    Written responses from the Honorable Susan Jacobs to questions
      submitted for the record by the Honorable Mark Meadows, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina....   116

                        RESOLVING INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL

                         CHILD ABDUCTIONS TO NON-HAGUE

                              CONVENTION COUNTRIES

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2013

                           House of Representatives,

                     Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,

             Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock
    a.m., in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
    Christopher H. Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Smith. The committee will come to order, and I want to
    thank all of you for joining us this morning to focus once
    again on the persistent and devastating problem of
    international parental child abduction, which occurs when one
    parent unlawfully moves a child from his or her country of
    residence, often for the purpose of denying the other parent
    access to the child.
        The damage to the child and the left-behind parent is
    incalculable, and often lifelong. The children especially are
    at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems, and
    may experience anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood
    swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment,
    guilt, and fearfulness. These victims are American citizens who
    need the help of their Government when normal legal processes
    are unavailable or failed.
        In 1983, the United States ratified the Hague Convention on
    the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to try to
    address this serious issue. This convention creates a civil
    framework for a quick return of abducted children, and for
    rights of access to both parents. Absent extenuating
    circumstances, the child is to be returned within 6 weeks to
    his or her country of habitual residence for the courts there
    to decide on custody, or to enforce any previous custody
    determinations.
        The Convention has helped return many children, but it is
    far from a silver bullet. Even in countries where the
    Convention is allegedly working, only about 40 percent of the
    children are returned. Other cases are ``resolved'' but too
    often with dubious application of the Convention. Susceptible
    to abuse by taking parents or unwilling judges, the Convention
    has too often been stretched to provide cover for the
    abduction, rather than recovery of the child.
        Taking parents have figured out that they can drag out
    hearing after hearing, appeal after appeal, for years, until
    the courts can claim yes, the child should have been returned,
    but that the child has settled in a new country by that point
    and does not have to be returned under an exception in the
    Convention.
        Some Hague Convention signatories are simply not enforcing
    legitimate return orders. The State Department's 2012 Hague
    Convention Compliance Report highlights five countries--
    Argentina, Australia, France, the Netherlands, and Romania--for
    failing to enforce return orders. Other countries--Costa Rica,
    Guatemala, the Bahamas, Brazil, and Panama--are non-compliant
    with the Convention, or showing patterns of non-compliance. In
    other words, abducted American children are not coming home
    from these countries, and American families, I would
    respectfully submit, need other options.
        The same is true for many countries that have not signed
    the Hague Convention. In 2012 alone, more than 634 children
    were abducted to countries that have not signed the Hague
    Convention, countries like Japan, Egypt, and India. More than
    300 children have suffered abduction from the United States to
    Japan since 1994. Congress does not know of a single case in
    which the Government of Japan has issued and enforced an order
    for the return of an abducted child to the United States.
        According to the U.S. Department of State's statistics, the
    United States is monitoring 54 ongoing cases involving 74
    children who were abducted from the U.S. to Japan, and 21
    additional children from the United States who may not have
    been abducted, but who are being denied access to their
    American parent. Although Japan has taken steps, including this
    morning, to join the Hague Convention, Japan's ratification
    will not address current cases for return. Moreover, experts
    question whether the ratification includes reservations that
    will make it nearly impossible for even new abduction cases to
    be resolved with returns.
        The United States does not have a bilateral or other
    agreement with Japan to facilitate the return of American
    citizen children who are currently abducted, citizens like Jade
    and Michael Elias, whose father will testify before us today.
        Under the Convention alone, if ratified by Japan, the best
    that American parents of currently abducted children can hope
    for is, perhaps, a visit with their child. Such visits are
    projected to look like 1 hour, once a month, in a secure
    facility. Hardly dignified or unfettered.
        Despite our multi-billion dollar investment in Egypt,
    neither the Mubarak government nor the Morsi government has
    seen fit to return abducted American children Noor and Ramsay
    Bower. They, along with 30 other American children in Egypt,
    are forced to live without half of their culture, half of their
    identity, and without the love and guidance of an American
    parent who fights daily for their return. The United States
    does not have a bilateral agreement with Egypt to facilitate
    the return of American citizen children, and has so far been
    unwilling to make prioritization of these cases a condition for
    the continued funding of the Egyptian Government.
        India has also been a source of immense frustration and
    grief for American parents. In 2012, 32 more children were
    abducted to India, bringing the total number to 78 open
    abduction cases involving 94 children. Although some Indian
    courts make Hague-like decisions to return some children,
    returns are at best uneven. Parents attempting to utilize
    India's courts for the return of abducted children report
    corruption and incessant delays. The United States does not
    have a bilateral agreement with India, either, to facilitate
    the return of American citizen children to the United States.
        In the last Congress, I introduced legislation which we
    entitled the Sean and David Goldman Child Abduction Prevention
    and Return Act, and I will reintroduce it shortly, to impress
    both upon the Hague and non-Hague Convention countries alike
    that the United States will not tolerate abduction or have
    patience with countries that hide abductors behind the Hague
    Convention.
        The bill would empower the President and the Department of
    State with new tools, and I would say necessary tools, and
    authorities, to secure the return of abducted American
    children. When a country has shown a pattern of non-cooperation
    in resolving child abduction cases, the President will be able
    to respond decisively with a range of 18 actions and penalties.
    Based on past experience, particularly with the Goldman case in
    Brazil, we know that penalties manage to get the attention of
    other governments and help them prioritize resolution.
        The bill also calls for the State Department to work out
    memorandums of understanding with countries that have not
    signed the Hague Convention in order to create agreed-upon
    routes to abduction resolution between countries, rather than
    the neverending and torturous maze Americans are currently
    forced to run.
        The status quo, despite best intentions, is simply not
    adequate. And while well-meaning and sincere, current policy
    has failed far too many children and their left-behind and
    brokenhearted parents. To combat the cruelty and exploitation
    of human trafficking, over a decade ago I authored the
    Trafficking Victims Protection Act. To tangibly assist abducted
    American children--and this is a human rights violation--and
    their left-behind parents, I again am introducing the Sean and
    David Goldman Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of
    2013. The United States can, and I believe must, do more to
    protect innocent American children and their left-behind
    parents from the absolute horrors of international child
    abduction.
        I now turn to my friend and colleague, Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding
    today's hearing on a topic that deserves this committee and
    Congress' full attention. Chairman Smith, I also want to
    commend you for your efforts to address this ongoing issue and
    the many challenges to ensuring that abducted children are
    returned to loving, caring and safe homes.
        And while today's hearing is on international child
    abduction, I think it's an important moment to acknowledge the
    extraordinary and harrowing developments of the three young
    women who won their freedom earlier this week in Cleveland.
    These people have endured a horrendous ordeal, and their
    nightmare is now over. We can all breathe a sigh of relief that
    they are back with their families and a new brighter chapter in
    their lives can begin. They will continue to be in our thoughts
    and our prayers.
        I would also like to offer my gratitude to the witnesses
    for their testimony today--I would particularly welcome
    Ambassador Jacobs--and for the important work that is being
    done on this critical subject.
        Today's hearing is vitally important because children who
    have been abducted internationally can experience extreme
    stress and confusion. Not only have they been taken from a
    parent, but they must also live and adapt to a place that is
    foreign to them in many ways. These are terrible events that no
    parent or child should ever have to endure, and as we approach
    International Child Abduction Day on May 25th, I am pleased
    that we are able to address the full complexity of these
    challenges around this issue.
        The complications associated with returning abducted
    children to the United States from countries that are non-
    signatories to the Hague Convention are very difficult and
    troublesome, yet not unresolvable, and holding this hearing is
    one step in the right direction. I hope the committee will also
    focus on the occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse in
    child abduction cases. There are many examples where parents
    who flee with a child do so to escape environments that are
    unsafe and, frankly, dangerous. This, too, deserves our
    critical attention and focus.
        I look forward to hearing your thoughts and recommendations
    on resolving international parental child abductions, and I
    thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and would like to yield to my
    colleague----
        Mr. Smith. No, I will yield.
        Mr. Cicilline. Okay. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. I would like to yield to Mr. Meadows.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this
    hearing on this important topic. And I want to thank the
    witnesses, obviously, and Ambassador Jacobs, thank you for
    being here. The witnesses that will testify in our second
    panel, we appreciate your willingness to tell your story.
        This seems to be a problem that simply is not addressed by
    current law or policy, and what I look forward to hearing from
    you, Ambassador Jacobs, is, as we start to look at that--we
    know that you are in a difficult situation where you have got
    law, policy, regulations--how we can be the heavy, how Congress
    can be the heavy and say, ``This must stop, and this is the law
    of the land,'' and how we can do that to help facilitate you on
    doing your job. Because obviously you wouldn't be here today if
    you didn't have a heart for these children, and we appreciate
    your willingness to be here.
        We know that as of January, the number of open cases in the
    international parental child abduction in the Office of
    Children's Issues was some 1,113 cases involving some 1,575
    children, and of these cases 649 of them, or 941 of the
    children, were in Hague Convention partner countries. But
    another 464 of those, or 634 children, were in non-Hague
    Convention countries. And so that presents an issue, and
    obviously this means that there is a significant portion of
    these abducted kids who are going to countries where there is
    virtually no ability for them to reach out to their families,
    and for their families to reach them. And this situation is
    just unacceptable.
        We obviously live in a global world, and perhaps a global
    solution is part of this particular issue. But we want to act
    as Congress, and I want to support the chairman in his efforts
    to make sure that we have legislation, and bring and highlight
    the fact that it needs to be addressed. And you know, child
    abduction is really child abuse. And when we see that--we have
    seen the effects of child abuse. And what we cannot do--we have
    a moral obligation to not allow that to happen.
        So I thank the ranking member here today for his
    willingness to join in a bipartisan way to address this issue,
    and I'm hopeful that we can develop some effective solutions
    that not only attack this difficult issue, but puts forward a
    way that we can move forward so that we can reunite these
    families.
        And I thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Meadows. I need to go
    to members of the committee first, and then I will go to Mr.
    Kennedy. Mr. Weber, Randy Weber.
        Mr. Weber. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am good. I am
    really here to listen and to learn. I applaud you, Madam
    Ambassador, for being here, and I look forward to the
    testimony, and being able--as my colleague, Mr. Meadows, said--
    to help make a difference. So I am anxious to listen. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Kennedy, not
    a member of the committee, but most welcome.
        Mr. Kennedy. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me
    to speak this morning and join all of you, even though I do not
    sit on this subcommittee. I am honored to welcome Colin Bower,
    a constituent from Newton, and most importantly a devoted
    father to his two sons, Noor and Ramsay. Mr. Bower will be
    joining us on a panel a little bit later this morning.
        As this panel knows, Mr. Bower has worked tirelessly to try
    to bring his two children home to the United States, after they
    were abducted by their mother in 2009. Despite a court ruling
    that gave him full custody and a subsequent Egyptian court
    order granting him the right to visit with his children, Colin
    has continually been denied the opportunity to visit his sons.
        Well, he has never given up hope. We must do more than just
    hope. As elected officials, every person on this dais feels a
    passionate responsibility to help our constituents, and we must
    remain vigilant and committed to all American children who are
    far from home, far from their families, through no fault of
    their own.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to join you
    today. I look forward to hearing the testimony of Ambassador
    Jacobs and the families later this morning, and to the
    commitment of the members of the panel. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
        It is now my privilege and honor to welcome to the
    committee Ambassador Susan Jacobs, who currently serves as
    Special Advisor in the Office of Children's Issues at the U.S.
    Department of State. Ambassador Jacobs has had a long and
    distinguished career in the Foreign Service, in which she has
    served around the world, including in Papua New Guinea, where
    she was the Ambassador. And she has also held a number of
    senior positions with the State Department here in Washington,
    serving as liaison to both Congress and the Department of
    Homeland Security.
        Ambassador Jacobs, the floor is yours.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN JACOBS, SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR
    CHILDREN'S ISSUES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
                                OF STATE

        Ambassador Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify again before you on the Department of
    State's efforts to prevent international parental child
    abduction, to resolve existing cases, and to encourage all
    sovereign nations to join the United States in membership in
    the Hague Abduction Convention.
        I would like to speak about the two main points of my
    written statement: The important work of the Bureau of Consular
    Affairs Office of Children's Issues in promoting the Hague
    Abduction Convention and our work in ensuring compliance with
    the Convention. I ask that my full written statement be entered
    into the record.
        Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
        Ambassador Jacobs. Thank you. The Department of State has
    no higher priority than to safeguard the welfare of children
    who have been wrongfully abducted across international borders.
    My experience over the past few years, as the Special Advisor
    for Children's Issues, has convinced me that the Hague
    Abduction Convention is the best tool for resolving cases of
    international parental child abduction, or IPCA. Of course, the
    prevention of IPCA is our priority as well, and my written
    testimony describes the work of our dedicated officers on this
    front. In those unfortunate circumstances where an abduction
    does take place, we turn to the Convention whenever it is
    available as a possible remedy. This has been the focus of my
    work since Secretary Clinton appointed me in 2010.
        The Hague Convention is a multilateral international treaty
    that allows us, in our highly interconnected world, to work
    harmoniously across cultures, borders, and legal systems. As
    you all know, however, there are many cases involving children
    abducted to countries where the Convention is not an available
    remedy. One of our top priorities is to engage bilaterally and
    multilaterally with those foreign governments to explain why
    the Convention is beneficial and to encourage expanded
    Convention partnership throughout the world.
        Last year, the United States welcomed Singapore and Morocco
    as new treaty partners, and we were pleased to see several
    other nations, including South Korea, Russia, and Lesotho,
    accede to the Convention and take steps to institute effective
    implementation.
        Parents, of course, want to know what we are doing
    specifically to help their children when the Abduction
    Convention is not an option for them to seek their child's
    return. In those cases, unfortunately, the options for seeking
    the return of a child are far more limited, thus underscoring
    why the Convention membership is critical as we move forward.
        The Office of Children's Issues works closely with those
    parents to provide information about domestic and foreign
    resources that may help them to resolve their children's cases.
    We raise individual cases with foreign governments, requesting
    through diplomatic channels that they return abducted children
    to the United States. We assist parents to obtain access,
    confirm their children's welfare, and understand their options.
    We monitor legal proceedings as the case unfolds in the court,
    and we attend hearings when appropriate. We also engage child
    welfare authorities and advocate for counselor and parental
    access.
        In addition, we coordinate with law enforcement authorities
    when parents choose to pursue criminal remedies and work every
    day to explore all available and appropriate options for the
    return of children to their habitual residence.
        In countries where the Convention is available, the Office
    of Children's Issues works to promote Convention compliance.
    Again, we have a variety of tools at our disposal. Among these
    are judicial seminars, legal information and infrastructure
    guidance, and ongoing monitoring as part of the annual
    compliance report to Congress. We follow individual cases very
    closely. We coordinate with parents and their attorneys to
    provide information and updates. We also review judicial
    decisions for compliance.
        But it is important to keep in mind that there are times
    when proper application of the Convention does not result in a
    child's return to the United States. When this happens, we
    stand by to provide parents with information about pursuing
    access to the child under the Convention, as well as providing
    all other appropriate assistance.
        Today, the Office of Children's Issues provides full
    support to my efforts, as well as those of Secretary Kerry and
    the entire Department, to increase the number of children
    returned to their parents, to advocate for membership in the
    treaty, and to create safeguards that will minimize the risk of
    international parental child abduction.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in conclusion
    I want to assure you that we continue to develop programs and
    outreach to prevent abductions through increasing awareness of
    this issue. Your support remains a key element to our success.
    Congressional interest is crucial as we encourage other
    countries to join the Convention and continue bilateral
    discussions to resolve existing cases that fall outside the
    Convention framework. I will be very happy to take your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ambassador Jacobs follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ambassador. Let me thank
    you for your testimony, and for the work of your office and
    yourself.
        Part of the concern that many of us have is that your
    office, assuming and believing that there is nothing but good
    will there, doesn't have the sufficient tools to get the job
    done. And I would hope--and you may not want to comment on it
    today, but I know you have seen the legislation. But as I said
    in my opening statement, our hope is to empower you, and
    empower the Secretary of State and the President, as we did
    with the International Religious Freedom Act--and as you know,
    the penalties, starting with a simple demarche on to very
    significant penalties, is derived verbatim from the IRFA
    legislation of 1998, which went through my committee and is
    authored by Congressman Frank Wolf. And it parallels very
    closely what we did on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
        Both of those initiatives were strongly opposed, especially
    IRFA, by the Clinton administration, but he signed them at the
    end of the day, both of those pieces of legislation. I know
    that human rights enforcement, if we assume good will on the
    part of a country, without a penalty phase, becomes somewhere
    between slim and none in most cases. That was a lesson learned
    from those two landmark laws that we are trying to apply now to
    child abduction.
        If you wanted to comment on the legislation, because the
    new bill will be very similar to the old, but with some
    significant upgrades. Would you like to comment on it?
        Ambassador Jacobs. Thank you, sir. We look forward to
    working with you on it. We would welcome seeing the new
    legislation and discussing it with staff at your earliest
    opportunity.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. I would hope you would. And I hope--you
    know, because time delay is denial for a left-behind parent and
    for a child. I mean, this legislation can move and should move
    quickly. It has been delayed far too long for whatever reasons,
    so we really need to, on both the congressional side and the
    executive branch side, come to a consensus and get this done.
        I noted in your testimony you talked about Japan, and we
    are all looking forward to a ratification. I am very concerned
    that the caveats and the reservations may be onerous, and may
    lead to very few resolutions where the child is actually
    returned. But you noted in your testimony that it will be
    entered into force automatically, it will immediately be
    applicable to the U.S. situation.
        And yet, when you talked about Korea, you said that the
    Department needs to study the Republic of Korea's
    implementation of the treaty, its domestic legislation,
    institutions and the like. It seems to me that Japan, with its
    sole custody laws and other hindrances, particularly in its
    family law, raises very significant barriers to a successful--I
    am wondering why the difference between Korea and Japan.
        Why isn't Korea entering into force now?
        Ambassador Jacobs. The reason is because Japan was a member
    of the Hague Conference when the treaty was written in 1980,
    and every country that was a member of the conference, of the
    Hague Conference, automatically becomes a party to the
    Convention without anyone else having to do anything.
        Mr. Smith. So regardless of how infirm their laws might be?
        Ambassador Jacobs. Regardless, that is the way the
    conference works. Korea was not a member of the Hague
    Conference then, and so we have to check that the central
    authority has proper authorities, that there is a judicial
    system and law enforcement to make sure that the treaty will
    work.
        So there is a big difference, and I can understand the
    concern.
        Mr. Smith. Congress has made several requests to be
    informed of the number of children returned to the U.S. in 2011
    and 2012, as had previously been the practice of the State
    Department, but we have not received a response. Do you know
    why?
        Ambassador Jacobs. I am sorry, but I don't. I will find out
    for you and let you know.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. And more importantly, if we could get
    those numbers----
        Ambassador Jacobs. I will see what I can find out.
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. That would be very good.
        Ambassador Jacobs. I think one of the things that is
    important to remember is that there is always something behind
    the numbers. The numbers are not the complete story. And so we
    look forward to working with your staff----
        Mr. Smith. Well, we are concerned about a breakout with
    actual returns, and then others that are deemed resolved but
    really there was no return. And that differentiation is
    something that it would be very helpful for policymakers to
    know. So if you could include that?
        Ambassador Jacobs. I will see what I can find out.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. Could you get that to us?
        Ambassador Jacobs. I will get you an answer.
        Mr. Smith. Let me ask you about memorandums of
    understanding and bilateral agreements. When I went with the
    Eliases to Japan, I met with members of the Diet, members of
    the government, our own Embassy people, who obviously were very
    empathetic.
        But as you know, children are not coming home from Japan.
    Whether the abductor is a father or a mother, it continues to
    be a serious, serious problem. In the case of Michael Elias, as
    you know, his former wife worked for the Japanese Government.
    And the judge, when custody was being decided, took the
    passports and said, ``No travel.'' She went and had a duplicate
    set made, because she worked for the government, and then
    whisked off with the two children. And as far as I know, there
    has been no real investigation, no penalty, no sanctioning, of
    that young woman for that terrible act of not just abduction,
    but also fraud, in terms of the passports.
        And one of the several conversations that I have had with
    your office, and with Ambassadors around the world who are
    dealing with this, particularly in non-Hague countries, is the
    compelling need to have a bilateral agreement. We do it on
    adoption in many cases, where there are gaps, even with those
    that have signed the inter-country adoption Hague Convention.
    But with Japan, it seems to me, the opportunity is ripe for an
    agreement.
        Good will, you know, only goes so far. And like I said, for
    Michael Elias, who is sitting there, and all the other left-
    behind parents, delay is denial. And why not an agreement?
    Hammer out an agreement for a modality to work this out.
        You know, the British have such an agreement with Pakistan,
    and it works. And it works well. Patricia Apy, in her
    testimony, will be speaking to that later on today. I mean, it
    is a vehicle that will undoubtedly yield positive results. I
    see no downside.
        Ambassador Jacobs. Well, I am going to have to disagree
    with you, sir. We have three bilateral--we have three memoranda
    of understanding with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. There is no
    enforcement mechanism, and we have had no returns under those
    memoranda. We believe that the Hague Convention provides the
    best opportunity for resolving these cases. And it took Japan--
    I think that the problems, one of the problems in Japan, is
    their belief about custody, that one parent is supposed to drop
    out of the child's life when there is a divorce. But we see
    that these things are changing, and that Japan is moving to a
    more global understanding of what custody is, and how both
    parents need to participate in a child's life.
        So we hope that, when they are soon a party to the
    Convention, we will be able to work with them on compliance and
    access, and make sure that parents do get to see their children
    for more than an hour a week. I agree with you that that is not
    access.
        Mr. Smith. But I would just say, even though the examples
    with Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan--I mean, Egypt went from a
    dictatorship that was elected but maybe falsely, under Mubarak,
    and I met with him so I know what he was like, to Morsi who has
    gone from bad to worse. Jordan is a good friend. Lebanon,
    obviously, has many problems.
        I mean, against those examples, Japan and India are mature
    democracies with functioning Parliaments. I mean, the Diet and
    the Parliament in New Delhi have checks and balances. It seems
    to me that they are major world players. They purport to follow
    the rule of law. For the life of me, I can't understand why the
    reluctance. It can only be value added. It can only add an
    additional mechanism. If it brings home one child, it will be
    well worth the effort. I believe it would bring home many
    children, and that it would start a process that might even
    have a chilling effect on future abductions.
        One of the things that Bindu will testify to--do you agree
    with that?
        Ambassador Jacobs. I think that we will have better success
    with Japan and India when they are members of the Abduction
    Convention.
        Mr. Smith. But again, all of the current cases with Japan
    are grandfathered out. And to assume that there will be a
    reservoir of good will created, I think, given their past--past
    is often prologue--we need some game-changers. And an MOU, I
    believe, would do that.
        Ambassador Jacobs. I think, for the cases that are not
    covered by the Convention, that we do need to reach an
    agreement with Japan. I agree with you, and we will be working
    with them to see what we can do, and also with our partners,
    who were incredibly helpful in working with us to persuade
    Japan to join the Convention.
        Mr. Smith. So then you would be for an agreement with
    Japan.
        Ambassador Jacobs. We will explore every avenue to get
    those children home.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. Again, I would hope that the sooner that
    is initiated, because the agony--as you know so well--I don't
    know how people--and you have met many of these people as well,
    as have your staff. When you sit and look them in the eyes, and
    realize that they lose hope, one of the--again, Bindu will
    testify that, when she went for help to our folks in India,
    that is to say U.S. Embassy personnel, she was told that there
    was very little they could do because she didn't have custody.
    She then got custody, and she has told me and, I believe, will
    testify to that, but she told me earlier today, because I asked
    her, that she still hasn't gotten help.
        And in your testimony, you cite a case: ``We are encouraged
    by a recent decision in the High Court of New Delhi to return a
    child to her country of habitual residence for a final
    determination of custody.'' I mean, it is one case. I don't
    know what country you are talking about. Is it the U.S.?
        Ambassador Jacobs. It is a return to the United States,
    yes.
        Mr. Smith. Oh, it is? Okay. Do you see a precedent in that?
        Ambassador Jacobs. I see hopeful signs that judges are
    making the right decisions. And we will continue to work with
    India to encourage them to continue to make those kinds of
    decisions while they write their implementing legislation to
    join the Convention.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. Again, it takes effort, but a bilateral
    agreement there as well could bring these two children home. I
    mean, based on all of the available court evidence, this man
    has acted--her ex-husband--with absolute impunity, which is why
    she is here today to testify. And so I would hope our efforts
    in-country would be redoubled on her behalf as well, if you
    could commit to that. That would be very helpful.
        Ambassador Jacobs. Absolutely.
        Mr. Smith. I do have other questions, but I will yield to
    my friend, and then come back. Thank you. Mr. Cicilline?
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Ambassador Jacobs, for your testimony.
        I just want to focus for a moment on the Hague Convention
    and compliance with that, because I agree that ensuring as many
    countries as possible become signatories of the Convention is
    the best and most effective way to ensure the return of
    American children, and so I was struck by a comment you made
    about some examples where compliance with the Hague Convention
    does not result in the return of the child.
        I take it that is not because of a failure in the current
    drafting of the Convention requirements, but just the parent
    who was seeking return is not--I mean, I am looking for an
    example of where that might happen. Is there something we need
    to address or revisit with the Convention protocols, in
    particular?
        Ambassador Jacobs. No. Thank you for that question. There
    is a section of the Convention, and it is called 13(b). Where
    there is a grave risk to the child, the child doesn't
    necessarily have to be returned to its habitual residence.
        Mr. Cicilline. Okay. Great. And I noticed in your written
    testimony that in June 2011, the parties to the Hague
    Convention did an examination and made some conclusions and
    recommendations, and some of those conclusions were that
    applications for returns had increased, but the number of
    returns had decreased.
        What is the reason for that? Are there things we can be
    doing about that? And are you sort of satisfied with the
    current provisions of the Hague Convention, that if parties are
    signatories and comply, it does what it is expected to do?
        Ambassador Jacobs. If countries--that is a great question.
    Because if countries comply, it works very well. And we are--
    the treaty is a living thing, and we are constantly working
    with our partners in the Convention to help them comply better
    with it, which is why we have the compliance report and we cite
    countries when they aren't doing the right thing, when the
    central authorities don't communicate with us or when law
    enforcement doesn't enforce what the courts are doing, or, in
    many countries, where court delays really delay the return of a
    child.
        And what you are citing in June 2011, there was a special
    commission meeting where we had the opportunity to meet with
    all of our partners and to talk about compliance and best
    practices. And this is something that we continually strive
    for. We try to improve our practices, and we certainly try to
    educate other countries on how they can do a better job in
    enforcing the Convention.
        Mr. Cicilline. But are we still seeing increased
    applications, meaning people are relying on or having
    confidence that this is a mechanism by which they will have the
    children returned, but in fact seeing a decrease in the number
    of children that are actually returned?
        Ambassador Jacobs. We have seen an increase in returns,
    especially from Mexico. We have a very productive relationship
    with Mexico. We have worked very hard at it. And we are getting
    much better at cooperation. There are some Hague countries
    where we do have problems, and where we have problems we work
    with them, we visit them and talk to them very frankly about
    what they need to do. Sometimes it works. It worked with St.
    Kitts. It was only one case, but they finally wrote their
    implementing legislation and now are enforcing the Convention.
        But it is an ongoing process. We have working groups with a
    number of countries. We meet jointly and we do everything we
    can to persuade countries to implement the Convention properly.
        Mr. Cicilline. And Ambassador Jacobs, what are your
    thoughts on the use of sanctions against countries that either
    violate the Convention and are signatories, or as a condition
    of United States assistance being required to become a
    signatory? For example, obligating in exchange for U.S. foreign
    aid, or some preferential trade status, that there be a
    condition that you be a signatory on the Hague Convention as it
    relates to abducted children. I mean, is that effective?
        Ambassador Jacobs. Thank you for the question. I think that
    sanctions are a two-edged sword. I think that threatening
    countries is often an unsuccessful way to get them to cooperate
    with us, because most of the relationships that we have are
    very complex and involve many issues. So to use Japan as an
    example, we have defense arrangements with Japan. We have trade
    arrangements.
        The return of these children is incredibly important to us,
    and we pledge to work to do the best we can to get these
    children returned, but I don't think that we are going to
    sanction Japan, or threaten them with sanctions, because I
    think that would be detrimental to our bilateral relationship.
        Mr. Cicilline. But how about countries in which, for
    example--just to use Egypt as an example--that are significant
    recipients of foreign aid?
        Would it be an effective--I mean, I don't know whether
    those conversations take place at a much higher level than both
    of us, but it seems like an obvious question to say, in the
    moment when we're providing substantial foreign aid, that while
    it may not warrant or it may be difficult to have an individual
    conversation about an individual case, a broader policy
    requirement of sort of signing on to a treaty such as this
    might be something that would yield some results.
        Ambassador Jacobs. It might, but it might also mean that
    they won't cooperate with us at all if they feel that they're
    being threatened. Egypt is a country in transition, and we are
    mightily trying to influence the direction that it takes. This
    is one of the issues that we raise constantly.
        The Ambassador--we have 20 cases in Egypt, and she raises
    this issue with the President, with the Foreign Minister, and
    with others all the time. I have made a number of trips to
    Egypt, most recently in March, to raise these issues. And the
    Egyptians listen. I think they hear the message. And we are
    hoping that they will be able to do something about it.
        One thing that I think will help us is when we become a
    party to the 1996 Hague Convention on Protection of Children,
    which includes the recognition of foreign court orders, and
    then we might not have to go through all the Hague procedures,
    but we would be able, with our partners, to present a court
    order and that would be recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you for raising that. I agree with
    you, and I hope we will join that. And I yield back, and thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. I will yield to myself for just a
    moment to make a point.
        You know, with Egypt, there is no MOU dealing with
    abduction. There is no MOU with Egypt, or bilateral agreement.
    It has to do with access, not with return, according to the
    Department of State's Web site. Not with return, it has
    everything to do with just having access to the child.
        So I think, just a point of--if I could just make a point
    on the sanctions issue. Sitting right where you sit, John
    Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and
    Labor under Bill Clinton, testified against the International
    Religious Freedom Act, citing opposition to sanctions.
    Madeleine Albright was unalterably opposed to sanctions when it
    came to combatting human trafficking. At the end of the day,
    Bill Clinton signed the bill. He was presented a bipartisan
    bill, and I know, because I authored it.
        But we had total bipartisanship. Sam Gejdenson, from nearby
    Connecticut, was the prime co-sponsor, and we worked hand in
    glove together on that legislation. But the administration was
    against sanctions, and they made the exact case, exact,
    verbatim, that you just made, that sanctions are two-edged
    sword and can be counterproductive.
        We give the President tools. He doesn't have to use them.
    Hopefully he will, the threat of sanctions, and then when you
    have an egregious violator--and remember, these are American
    kids. American human rights are being violated, and American
    parents.
        Ambassador Jacobs. I understand that, and I appreciate your
    passion for this. But I would argue that abduction and
    trafficking are two very different things. Trafficking in
    children is horrible. Abduction is horrible. But they are very
    different.
        Mr. Smith. Evidence clearly suggests that the child is
    injured very seriously, particularly psychologically.
        Ambassador Jacobs. I didn't say they weren't.
        Mr. Smith. Okay.
        Ambassador Jacobs. But the trafficking, it is my
    understanding that our laws cover trafficking for sex or for
    labor.
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ambassador Jacobs. And this isn't that. This is a wrongful
    removal from the other parent's custody, and I think that we
    would be better off trying to enforce civil remedies to find a
    solution to these problems. And if we can do this outside of
    the Convention, I think that would be great, but we have had
    very limited success in doing that.
        Mr. Smith. Can I just say, with deep respect, that--and
    David Goldman will testify to this--that the return rates are
    almost identical for non-Hague and Hague countries, just below
    40 percent. I am all for the Hague Convention, but it has
    proven itself to lack enforcement, and we are saying that when
    it comes to our children and our left-behind parents, we want
    additional tools in the toolbox to provide for enforcement,
    because their human rights have been egregiously violated. As
    you know, you now have Brazil back on the list. I am not sure
    why there have been problems there. It is another question. But
    I really should yield to Mr. Meadows, and then I will come
    back.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ambassador. And I understand some
    of your diplomatic issues that you have to deal with from
    trying to balance diplomacy at the same time as trying to make
    sure that we protect the rights of parents, U.S. parents and
    children that have been abducted.
        And so I want to follow up a little bit on my opening
    statements. And it has been mentioned here about sanctions and
    aid, and those kinds of things. We have to figure out
    legislatively, and as I look at the numbers from the Hague
    Convention, if you exclude some of the results--well, if you
    exclude Mexico, where we have had some successes, there, if we
    start to look at this, it doesn't look like there is really a
    big difference in terms of the return rate, whether they are in
    one or the other. We still have a third of the children that
    are in non-Hague countries, according to your testimony, and I
    think two thirds of them in Hague Convention countries, that
    are still not being returned.
        But as you look at that, is there a huge difference in
    terms of the return rate with regards to it? There doesn't
    appear to be, and maybe I am looking at it wrong.
        Ambassador Jacobs. No, I am sorry, you are not looking at
    it wrong. But the returns are not always under the Convention.
    Some of them are mediated agreements between the parents.
    Sometimes the parents just do the right thing and return the
    child. But in a Hague country, there is a legal framework for
    resolving these issues that are not available in non-Hague
    countries.
        Mr. Meadows. I understand the legal framework, but if the
    results are no different, then what benefit is the legal
    framework? I mean, if we have a legal right to get them back,
    and it is not doing anything better, then it doesn't matter?
        Ambassador Jacobs. Well, without Hague, the parents are
    really on their own. They have to hire an attorney. They have
    to go to court----
        Mr. Meadows. So you are saying that it is cheaper on the
    parents to get non-results?
        Ambassador Jacobs. It is not cheaper, it is more that there
    is a clearer path to a resolution in a Hague country, and we
    can provide a lot more assistance.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. And again, I want to remind you of my
    opening statement. I believe your heart is to return these
    kids, and so I am just trying to be--I need you to be the
    diplomat. I need to be the jerk. Okay? To put it from an
    international point of view, what I want you to do is say,
    ``Golly, I would be with you, but those guys in Congress are
    holding your funds,'' or, ``The guys in Congress are doing''--
    what I need is, I need to provide you the tools where there is
    some motivation.
        I mean, I get requests every day from foreign nations,
    because we sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, wanting money.
    And yet, that is not my decision. But if it were, where you
    bring up these issues, there has to be a--if you got paid based
    on the number of kids that came back from abroad, it would be
    every day you were saying, ``Well, how many people have come
    back?'' And I am not saying that changes your motivation. It
    just highlights it some.
        And so I want to provide you the tools, and if you can give
    me some of those--I am a little troubled when we start talking
    about international law and its attack on U.S. sovereignty,
    when we start saying, ``Well, we have got an international
    court that is going to decide this.'' And I am not saying that
    you are saying that. But what I am concerned about is that,
    from a sovereignty standpoint, what can we do, in America, to
    provide an incentive for these countries to return our
    children?
        Ambassador Jacobs. First of all, your interest and having
    hearings like this send a very strong message to other
    countries.
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Ambassador Jacobs. And believe me, when I go, and I travel
    a lot, to Hague and non-Hague countries, I tell them that
    Congress is watching this closely, and that this is an
    incentive to do the right thing.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. Well, let me give you this, so we are
    clear on this, Ambassador, so you can take this and you can
    play this little short YouTube video wherever you need to play
    it.
        We are serious. And even if it goes beyond the normal just
    waiting, Congress is serious about resolving this. We have a
    bipartisan resolve in terms of wanting to resolve this, and so
    that you can take that message that, not only are you here
    today, but we have other witnesses that will be testifying,
    that we are going to continue to highlight it until the rule of
    law prevails. And we are not asking for some non-rule to be
    enforced. We are just saying the rule of law must be enforced,
    whether we have a bilateral agreement or not.
        And so that really is not a question as much as it is a
    statement that I want you to be able to use. So let me go on a
    little bit further. Because what we talked about, it sounds
    like most of what has been done is judicial seminars,
    compliance reports, those. And that can be very frustrating to
    a parent when they start to look at ``Okay, what do you need to
    do?'' Well, you need to go and go to this judicial compliance
    review.
        And it is kind of like saying that, if you go to a seminar,
    it is going to get better. And what I want to make sure of is
    that I provide the tools that are necessary, not only from a
    prevention standpoint, but what do we have to do to make it
    going forward?
        Can you and your staff provide me with some recommendations
    that we might look at to introduce as legislation that might
    help you?
        Ambassador Jacobs. Absolutely.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. And then I want to finish up,
    because I think they are calling votes here, what would you
    say, in terms of that relationship, the only--you mentioned
    Mexico as being the one that you had the best options with,
    just because of our relationship with Mexico. What other
    countries would you say we need to model, from a standpoint of
    return rates, and how that could happen? I mean, is there
    anything to be learn from Mexico in terms of that, or is it
    just that we have a good relationship?
        Ambassador Jacobs. We have a good relationship with Mexico
    because we work very hard at it, and we do that with every
    country.
        And when we say judicial seminars, we have a Hague network
    of judges who travel at our request and work with the judges of
    other countries to explain how the treaty should be implemented
    and judged, and how cases should be decided. We have
    international visitors that come to meet with us, and we have
    lots of bilateral meetings to talk about the importance of the
    Convention and proper implementation. But we have some ideas on
    other things that can be done, because, as I said, it is a
    living document, and it can always be improved upon, as can the
    compliance of every country that is a party to it.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. Well, I believe my time is up, and so I
    will yield back to the chairman from Texas. But as I do that, I
    want to say thank you for coming. Again, I look forward to
    those specific recommendations, and I can assure you that, from
    a legislative standpoint, I will work with my colleagues
    opposite here to make sure that we act on those. Thank you.
        Mr. Weber [presiding]. Thank you. Now, without objection, I
    will yield to my colleague, Mr. Kennedy from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It sounds
    good to say that.
        Ambassador Jacobs, I want to thank you again for your
    testimony this morning. You have worked with my office for the
    safe return of both Noor and Ramsay to their father, and I want
    to thank you again for all of your work. As you know and as you
    have mentioned, the political situation in Egypt at this moment
    is complex and complicated, but we can't let that stop us from
    working for the safe return of abducted Americans.
        You mentioned in your testimony the lengths to which
    Secretary Kerry will go through his diplomatic channels to
    fight for the rights of Americans, and that nowhere has that
    been more evident than with his efforts as both Senator and now
    as Secretary of State, with regards to Mr. Bower. Egypt, as you
    also mentioned, is an emerging democracy that is struggling
    with the transition from decades of dictatorship. It has a long
    history with the United States, and is an important stabilizer
    to a volatile region.
        However, the United States has an obligation to its
    citizens to see that our laws are enforced, and that the rights
    of our citizens will not be infringed by blatantly illegal
    acts. A father has a right to expect that he can see his
    children, and a citizenry has the right to expect that its
    government will do all it can to enforce the legal obligations
    on its people.
        Given that dynamic, how do you balance our role in the
    international community with the obligation to reunite two
    young American citizens with their father? I ask for your
    renewed commitment today to continue that fight against child
    abduction, and will be interested in hearing your thoughts on
    how we can move forward. And only a couple of moments,
    unfortunately, because our time is limited. But thank you.
        Ambassador Jacobs. I will speak quickly. Thank you, sir. We
    will continue to advocate in every country for the return of
    children who have been abducted. The Secretary has been very
    strong on his first trip, I think the trip to the Middle East
    was one of his first trips. He met with President Morsi and he
    raised all the abduction cases in Egypt. We are not going to
    forget about these cases. We are constantly thinking of ways
    that we can use our influence to persuade the Egyptians that
    this is something that they should do and recognize.
        Mr. Kennedy. And Madam Ambassador, just to be a little more
    concrete on that--and I understand that you have been. You have
    been vocal about bringing these issues up through diplomatic
    channels. I have brought them up with the Egyptian Ambassador.
    I know Mr. Bower has, Secretary Kerry has.
        What more can we do, seeing that you have done much, but we
    are still not getting there? What are some concrete actions we
    can take moving forward to try to move the ball a little bit
    here?
        Ambassador Jacobs. I think we just have to keep talking to
    the Egyptians. And you know, eventually diplomacy can work. And
    that is what we have to do. I don't think that threatening the
    Egyptians is going to be effective. I don't think that--we
    aren't going to break relations with them. We are going to
    continue to talk to them, because we have to keep the channels
    of communication open so that they understand, yet again, how
    serious we are about resolving all of the cases in Egypt.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I will yield back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. And I have a couple
    of questions for you. You mentioned in your earlier testimony
    that abduction of children by one parent is not really viewed
    in the same light as trafficking, for example, and that it is
    more of a civil instance, I think you said, than a criminal.
        Is that accurate?
        Ambassador Jacobs. Parental abduction is a crime in the
    United States.
        Mr. Weber. And that is the point I want us to get to, that
    under the International Parental Kidnapping Act, it is a crime.
        Ambassador Jacobs. It is.
        Mr. Weber. And so what would you say if I highlight the
    fact that, when you take a child, and one parent, who is
    supposed to be a trusted overseer, or guardian, if you will,
    uproots that child from the other parent, would you agree that
    that is pretty heinous? I mean, the child has got to be really
    confused, because here that child was in a loving, stable,
    hopefully stable, nurturing relationship with the other parent,
    in a safe environment, and now one parent has taken that child
    from the only home they have ever known to a foreign place.
        And not only that, but if they get to the point where they
    feel like our country has deserted them, the only home they
    have ever known, then is it safe to say that they would
    actually feel the double whammy, double effect, if you will, of
    the fact that one of their parents has betrayed them now, not
    only by uprooting them from the other parent and the only home
    they have ever known, in most instances, but now the only
    country they knew, it seems like, has turned their back on
    them.
        How do we mitigate that? What do we do about that?
        Ambassador Jacobs. Well, I completely agree with you that
    it is a heinous act to abduct your child. But we haven't
    forgotten about them, and we work in Hague countries with the
    central authorities for the return of children under the
    Convention, and bilaterally and multilaterally in countries
    that are not parties to the Hague. We do not forget about these
    children.
        Mr. Weber. Well, I----
        Ambassador Jacobs. We work for them every single day.
        Mr. Weber. Well, you, of course, certainly have been doing
    that through your work, and the very fact that we are
    passionate about that also. But does the child know that?
        Ambassador Jacobs. I don't know what the child knows.
        Mr. Weber. But what does----
        Ambassador Jacobs. I think that the child is probably
    scared and confused and troubled----
        Mr. Weber. And kept in the dark.
        Ambassador Jacobs [continuing]. And kept in the dark about
    what has happened. We know that the taking parent often lies to
    the child, and says that the other child is not interested in
    them anymore. I just can't imagine anything worse. I'm a mother
    and a grandmother, and it would be incredibly awful to have had
    one of my children abducted.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, thank you for that. Unfortunately, I
    am out of time. They are calling votes. I have got to go. So I
    am going to have to recess. Chairman Smith will be returning
    shortly. So if you don't mind, stay put and stay tuned. Thank
    you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Smith. Thank you for your patience. And Ambassador,
    sorry for that break.
        Let me just ask you, if I could. I kind of hinted at this
    before, but Brazil is listed as demonstrating a pattern of non-
    compliance with the Hague Convention in the most recent
    abduction report. Can you explain what has happened there in
    Brazil?
        Ambassador Jacobs. I will be happy to.
        Mr. Smith. Please.
        Ambassador Jacobs. While we have an excellent relationship
    with the central authority and meet with them frequently,
    judicial decisions take an awfully long time and we often find
    that they, in our view, are misinterpreting the Convention. And
    then, once there is a return order, it takes a long time for it
    to be enforced. So there is the law enforcement problem and the
    judicial decisions.
        Mr. Smith. How many cases do we have in Brazil now?
        Ambassador Jacobs. One moment and I will look it up.
        Mr. Smith. Sure.
        Ambassador Jacobs. I am not sure, sir. I am going to have
    to get you that information.
        Mr. Smith. I appreciate that.
        Ambassador Jacobs. I don't want to keep you waiting.
        Mr. Smith. No, thank you. As I think you may know, the
    Japanese Foreign Minister reportedly said that if there is any
    chance that a taking parent could be prosecuted in the country
    of habitual residence, even if there is no pending charges, the
    child will not be returned. If that is accurate, that would
    mean that no children can be returned to the United States,
    where parental child abduction is a criminal offense.
        What is the State Department doing to ensure that the
    Japanese implementing legislation does not undermine the core
    principles of the Convention, or otherwise give the Japanese
    Government an excuse not to return an American child?
        Ambassador Jacobs. Thank you for that question. The
    Convention does not have criminal penalties in it, because it
    is a private international law convention. So the idea is that
    the child is returned for a custody hearing in the country of
    habitual residence. The problems would arise if the parents had
    chosen to go to the FBI and filed a criminal case against the
    taking parent.
        Mr. Smith. So they would be precluded an opportunity to use
    the Hague, as the Japanese see it, to permit that child to come
    home?
        Ambassador Jacobs. I am not sure. We would have to look at
    that.
        Mr. Smith. Well, is it something that your office could
    raise, if you haven't already? Because it seems to me that
    becomes a veto power. I mean, who can blame a left-behind
    parent for using every potential remedy at their disposal,
    including criminal sanctions, when such a horrible act has
    occurred?
        I mean, many have done that. And now they will be told
    ``Tough luck.'' I mean, that makes ratification of the Hague by
    Japan even more suspect, more of a sense of Japan--I mean, a
    sense of Congress-type legislation that we have here. But how
    will it be implemented? Not well.
        Ambassador Jacobs. That is the question. We are going to
    have to work very hard with Japan on proper implementation. But
    criminal charges against a taking parent often lead to a
    reluctance to return the child to the habitual residence,
    because they don't want the parent thrown in jail. I mean, the
    whole idea of the Hague is to find civil remedies that will
    encourage the return of children.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. Again, all the more reasons why a
    bilateral agreement could iron out those issues. Because I
    think the left-behind parents, like Michael Elias and all the
    others, Patrick Braden, all of them, will find themselves in
    even more of a maze, particularly if they took some legal
    action.
        Okay. So if you could take that back.
        I do hope, and I know it has probably been asked by my
    friend and colleague Mr. Kennedy, but I was wondering when
    Secretary Kerry was last in Egypt and provided a check to the
    tune of a quarter of a billion dollars, was the issue of child
    abduction on the table?
        Ambassador Jacobs. It was.
        Mr. Smith. And was there any sense of movement on the part
    of Morsi to resolve these cases?
        Ambassador Jacobs. He said he would look into it, that he
    would take action. We are waiting.
        Mr. Smith. And again, I know Mr. Cicilline mentioned this
    in talking about conditionality. I mean, Egypt does get an
    enormous amount of foreign aid from the U.S. Government, $1.3
    billion, approximately. When we fought last year to include
    religious freedom conditionality, it was opposed by the
    administration. It got in, but it has been waived, regrettably,
    particularly because of the mistreatment of the Coptic
    Christians.
        But do you think conditionality on aid would be a wise
    tool? Again, it's conditionality, it can be waived. The
    President would have that authority. But it would allow you and
    your staff, and our Ambassadors, and all those involved, to
    have additional clout. Because, again, I don't assume good will
    with some of these governments when they show a pattern of
    either non-cooperation, or they are not compliant, if they are
    Hague signers.
        Ambassador Jacobs. That is a question I am going to have to
    get back to you on.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. Do the others have any questions? No, they
    are all voting.
        Again, I thank you. I look forward to your answers,
    including some of the more just bookkeeping-type,
    accountability, as to children that have been returned, those
    that resolved that were not returned and what that means, if
    you could get back to us on that.
        Because there always seem to be some questions about what
    are the numbers, even when we have worked on legislation and we
    put findings, we get one number, and before the ink is dry it
    seems--not because--I mean, huge differences, disparities. So
    please, get those numbers back to us. It would be very helpful.
        Ambassador Jacobs. I will take the issue back to the
    office.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. I appreciate that.
        Ambassador Jacobs. Thanks.
        Mr. Smith. I am planning a follow-up hearing, and maybe you
    or the Assistant Secretary for Asia might want to testify. Has
    that person been selected, do you know?
        Ambassador Jacobs. For what, sir? I am sorry.
        Mr. Smith. For East Asian and Pacific Affairs, the
    Assistant Secretary.
        Ambassador Jacobs. Not that I am aware.
        Mr. Smith. Or maybe the DAS would come up, to talk about
    Japan again, especially since things are happening there. And
    we do plan on having additional members, family members who
    have been left behind, testify. So I do hope you will just work
    with us on this, if you would.
        Ambassador Jacobs. Absolutely.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Ambassador Jacobs. I pledge that to you.
        Mr. Smith. I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Ambassador.
        I would like to now invite to the witness table our next
    panel, and maybe if they wouldn't mind, we will wait until the
    other members come back, because they will want to hear what
    you have to say as well. So we stand in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Smith. The hearing will resume its sitting, and I again
    apologize to our witnesses and to all here for the delay
    because of the voting on the floor. Some of our members are en
    route, coming back.
        And I will now introduce our witness table, beginning first
    with Patricia Apy, who is a partner in the law firm of Paras,
    Apy & Reiss, which specializes in complex family litigation,
    particularly international and interstate child custody
    litigation.
        Her qualifications for testifying at this hearing are
    unbelievably impressive and extensive. She has litigated and
    been qualified as an expert witness and consultant on
    international family disputes throughout the world. Ms. Apy
    frequently consults and is regularly qualified as an expert on
    family dispute resolution in non-Hague countries and risk
    factors for child abduction.
        She was also one of the lead attorneys for David Goldman,
    and provided expert advice and counsel in his long, arduous
    case, and has been, I would say, a very, very important and
    very wise guide to our deliberations as a subcommittee with
    regards to technical issues, because she has litigated and has
    been all over the world dealing with these issues. So I thank
    you, and I welcome her back.
        Bindu Philips came to the United States in 1996 and became
    a U.S. citizen in 2009. Ms. Philips has lived in New Jersey
    since 2000, where her twin boys, Alfred and Albert were born 12
    years ago. She is an electronic engineer by training, and works
    in central New Jersey, and will be testifying on behalf of her
    sons in an appeal to our Government, and of course to the
    Indian Government, to do the right thing and allow her not just
    access, but to allow her to have her sons back.
        We will then hear from Mr. Colin Bower, who is the father
    of Noor and Ramsay Bower. Noor and Ramsay were abducted by
    their mother from Boston to Egypt in August 2009. Colin remains
    committed to the safe and swift return--swift is now an
    oxymoron in his case--of his children.
        I am pleased to have joined Barney Frank last year in
    sponsoring H.Res. 193 with regard to their particular case in
    the last session of Congress, and we welcome him back to the
    committee.
        We will then hear from Michael Elias, who is a former
    sergeant in the United States Marine Corps and met his wife
    while stationed in Japan in 2004 to 2005. She abducted their
    two children, Jade and Michael, to Japan in December 2008. I
    traveled to Japan with Nancy and Miguel Elias, Jade and
    Michael's grandparents--and Nancy is here with us today--
    Michael's mom and dad. I spent several days there meeting with
    high officials in the Japanese Government, and it was very
    clear that when they got to make their case, the Eliases were--
    there was an empathetic ear, especially from some of the
    members of the Diet, but the question is whether or not those
    empathetic ears turn into tangible policy that will permit the
    return of children who have been abducted.
        And then, finally, our cleanup batter, if you will, is
    David Goldman, who is the father of Sean Goldman, who was born
    in Red Bank in 2000. Sean was abducted to Brazil in 2004. Mr.
    Goldman spent 5 arduous years devoting enormous amounts of time
    and financial resources, and had a great number of people
    supporting him in the community, to secure the return of his
    beloved son. In December 2009, I had the privilege of being
    with David and Sean when they were finally able to return to
    the United States.
        Mr. Goldman has been a trailblazer in opening the eyes of
    our country to the agony endured by left-behind parents. I can
    say without any fear of contradiction, he did it like the left-
    behind parents who are here with us today, with great tact,
    with discipline. I remember being in a court where a man who
    was not the stepfather, but had custody, made so many
    disparaging remarks about him, and yet he remained steadfast,
    eyes fixed on the judge, and made the case as to why he
    absolutely had the right to have his son returned to him.
        So we welcome him back, and I would just note
    parenthetically that the legislation that we are introducing is
    named the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction
    Prevention and Return Act because there are successes that can
    be had, but levers need to be pulled, especially when you have
    a government that is, at best, indifferent.
        I would like to now ask, if you could, our first witness,
    Patricia Apy, if she would testify.

     STATEMENT OF MS. PATRICIA APY, ATTORNEY, PARAS, APY & REISS,
                                  P.C.

        Ms. Apy. Congressman Smith, thank you so much for
    permitting me to come back and address the subcommittee as it
    confronts international parental abduction, particularly
    abductions involving jurisdictions which have not ratified the
    Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
    Abduction.
        Interestingly enough, in listening to the testimony and the
    questions from members and Congressman Kennedy, I noticed that
    I have litigated cases, non-Hague cases, from each of the
    districts that are represented on the panel today.
        I have chosen two cases as demonstrative of the precise
    issue that we have here. I have been representing Michael
    Elias, one of the witnesses on this panel, in a pro bono
    capacity in response to the request of the former Commandant of
    the United States Marine Corps, General Conway. This battle-
    wounded Marine discovered his two children had been abducted by
    their mother. Mr. Elias' wife worked for the Consulate of Japan
    in New York, and with the help of the Japanese consulate
    authorities in Chicago was able to obtain the replacement of
    the children's court ordered surrendered Japanese passports and
    abduct his children.
        Mr. Elias will share in his testimony that the Japanese
    Government not only failed to address the clearly criminal
    behavior of his wife, the complicity of their consulate in
    Chicago, but their duplicity in telling yourself, a member of
    this subcommittee, along with the grandparents of these
    children, that they were actively investigating the criminal
    behavior--which would have provided a basis for extradition, I
    might add--when in fact they had already determined that they
    had no intention of doing so. And that information would be
    purposely withheld from Mr. Elias, as well as from this
    committee, for over a year.
        Christopher Dahm's daughter Gabrielle was abducted from her
    home in Florida to the United Arab Emirates, specifically Abu
    Dhabi, by her dual national Belgian mother. Gabrielle's mother
    brazenly obtained a Belgian passport for her daughter without
    the knowledge of Gabrielle's father, despite a Florida order
    which prohibited the issuance or the removal of Gabrielle from
    the United States. She abducted her with the assistance of the
    maternal grandfather, a pilot for Eithad Airlines, the national
    airlines of Abu Dhabi. That case is being prosecuted by the
    United States Attorney in Miami, which participated in issuing
    Interpol red orders.
        I chose those two countries, first of all, because they
    would be described, I think by every individual, as countries
    with whom we enjoy positive relationships. We are partners in
    issues of commerce and in issues of security. No one would
    identify them as behaving purposefully inappropriately. And it
    is in that context of non-Hague cases that the legislation that
    is proposed is the most important, because by having
    legislation that provides a construct of available tools, these
    countries have a mechanism with which they can have a political
    will and a legal will to do what we know they want to do, which
    is partner with us to address this issue.
        I think it is missing something if you see this merely as
    punitive, because in fact the type of remedies and the type of
    sanctions that are suggested are those that, in many cases--and
    I am thinking particularly of the use of memoranda of
    understanding--those are the kinds of things that can be
    educative and positive and level the playing field in
    negotiating for a remedy.
        One of the most important things to know about non-treaty
    cases is that they present the most expensive and challenging
    cases for the left-behind parent. Parents are consigned to live
    in legal limbo for fear that their chance to locate or retrieve
    their child will be diminished by their actions.
        For example, fearful of ruining their case, in many
    countries they cannot be divorced from the kidnapping parent,
    because to do so would cease their ability to seek a return.
    There has been reference to criminal prosecution, and the
    implication of those references were that a parent might choose
    to engage in criminal prosecution rather than use the treaty--
    for example, the Hague Convention--or other remedies. It is
    missing the point that, many times, the only way to locate a
    missing child is with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation, Interpol, and other law enforcement agencies.
    Unless a parent is extraordinarily wealthy, they certainly
    can't have their own private investigation of where their child
    might be located.
        And so it is a situation, as we believe it is in Japan at
    this moment, where if a parent engages in criminal prosecution
    in order to have the ability to locate their child, by
    definition, they will have lost the opportunity to use the
    civil remedies, which are being touted as being the most
    responsive.
        One of my colleagues--and in advance of this testimony, I
    had an opportunity to reach out to colleagues of mine who
    practice in this area as I have, and ask them their issues and
    concerns. And in addressing the issue in Japan, one of my
    colleagues, David Blumberg, who practices in Glendale,
    Wisconsin, said the following, and I think it is entirely
    appropriate for where we are today.

            ``The truly scary part of this whole question is that,
            because in this case Japan was technically a
            participating country to the original promulgation of
            the Hague Convention, if their legislature ratifies the
            Convention it will automatically go into force between
            the United States and Japan, even if nothing is done to
            set up effective enforcement processes or to change
            their legal system. In my view, such an eventuality
            could make our problems with Mexico or Brazil look like
            idyllic strolls in the park.''

        In fact, I agree with my colleague, and must indicate that
    my testimony would be that the ratification of the Hague
    Abduction Convention in Japan has to be considered now illusory
    at best, and deceptive at worst. The April 17, 2013 article in
    Japan Times described the situation and said what international
    family lawyers already know, and that is that Japanese
    authorities have repeatedly stressed that in any case where an
    unsubstantiated claim of domestic violence is voiced, the
    children will not be sent back ``regardless of the
    Convention.''
        Japanese family courts, as that article went on to propose,
    have seen an exponential jump in reported cases, going from, in
    2001, 409 reported cases, to 1,985. Now, those are cases in
    which a parent has the temerity to actually file something in
    the family court in Japan which, as my written testimony
    provides, is a fruitless application. There is no alternate
    remedy.
        The enabling legislation has demonstrated that, as a
    practical matter, there are significant obstacles to the
    reciprocal protections upon which the other 89 treaty partners,
    and most importantly our American judges, are expected to rely.
    See, American judges are going to be told that the Hague
    Convention is in effect between the United States and Japan
    when they assess applications for international access. They
    will believe, and they will follow the Convention here,
    returning American children to Japan when there is an
    application made here.
        But more importantly, when there is an application for
    access to visit a parent in Japan, they will be told that Japan
    is a signatory to the Hague Convention, and therefore when they
    assess risk they should permit that removal when, truthfully,
    as it stands right now, there is no reasonable expectation that
    a child under the current circumstances will be returned.
        If this were an accession case, if this were a situation in
    which we were talking about a country where we had the ability,
    as the Ambassador referenced in her testimony, the ability to
    review their processes and to assure that there is reciprocity,
    then we would clearly have to take time in order to do that.
    That situation is one that American judges are going to have to
    know is a situation in force.
        In listening to the testimony of the Ambassador, one of the
    things that struck me was the colloquy that occurred with the
    member from Rhode Island in addressing the decisionmaking
    process, and I believe that the Ambassador and the member both
    agreed that decisionmaking in some of these areas are above
    their pay grade or level.
        I respectfully must say that I believe that the
    decisionmaking process with respect to this issue is in this
    body, because the client for the Ambassador is not the left-
    behind parent. It is the diplomatic status of the United States
    of America which, as she continued to repeat, is a broad,
    systemic sort of issue.
        As someone who has practiced in this area for 20 years, the
    only people watching the shop on the individual needs and the
    potential redress for American children in parents is found in
    the Congress of the United States. The legislation that is
    being proposed provides extraordinary tools which we presume
    will be utilized well by the executive branch and by the
    Department of State. Nothing that the Ambassador said gave us
    any reason to believe that our confidence could not be placed
    in utilizing those tools properly. But it is ridiculous to
    assume that you can negotiate with countries and not have any
    possible level playing field in doing so. It makes no sense.
        And in this status of the legislation that has been
    proffered, you have a range of possibilities that, frankly,
    provides the genuine opportunity to sit down with countries
    like, for example, Pakistan, where you have a common law based
    Sharia court system where the judges have been indicating that
    they want an opportunity to sit down and seek bilateral
    agreements.
        The Ambassador has referenced, both in this testimony and
    in her prior testimony, that quiet diplomacy is used in the
    return of these children. In fact, there is not much that can
    be said other than ``Please, oh, please.'' Ultimately, in
    addition to the strong and positive diplomatic work, what has
    to happen is the governments abroad have to be sure that this
    is, in fact, an issue that is taken quite seriously.
        One of the concerning aspects of the Ambassador's
    testimony--and frankly, I think it reflects my experience as
    well--is the belief that there is a difference between the
    crime of international parental abduction and the human rights
    concerns that were referenced by other pieces of legislation.
    Demonstrative of this is, as it is contained in my testimony,
    the case of Christopher Dahm.
        Christopher Dahm had no choice, because of the way that the
    law is structured in the UAE, but to file criminal charges. To
    the credit, the United States Attorney in Miami initiated
    prosecution and, for the first time, indicted not only the
    abducting mother but the abducting grandparents who were as co-
    conspirators in that process.
        However, once that was done, the ability to criminally
    prosecute that case fell into, very frankly, disrepair. Mr.
    Dahm had to continually ask for reports, for assistance in the
    location of his child. Eventually, we requested a private
    meeting for the second time after 2\1/2\ years had gone by with
    no action. Let me say that again. Two and a half years.
        Meeting with the United States Attorney now assigned to the
    case, the second, asking for the FBI agents to be there--they
    weren't--and then being in a situation in which the U.S.
    Attorney on the case indicated that they didn't know who the
    FBI agent assigned was, they had no idea whether the child was
    still in the United Arab Emirates, they could not provide an
    explanation as to the response of the judge to the extradition
    request, or to the pickup on the red order.
        When this issue was raised, and we requested that the FBI
    agent be produced for the meeting, we were told that there was
    none assigned at that time. Finally, the young Assistant U.S.
    Attorney on the case said, ``Well, I think that the pictures we
    have of the child are all from,'' and then she went on to
    describe the location, at which point my client starts to cry,
    because he has not seen his daughter for 3 years, and he says--
    and I indicated, ``Do you mean to tell me you have photographs
    in the file that this parent hasn't seen?''
        As it turns out, the Assistant U.S. Attorney didn't know
    who had taken the photographs and under what circumstance. But
    the point is that on non-Hague cases in particular, right now
    the only aspect of being able to raise the criminality of this
    issue--and I appreciate the comments of Mr. Meadows in
    addressing that issue--is the prosecution by the United States
    Attorneys, who don't like these cases.
        I get that. I understand, as a former prosecutor, that the
    very last thing that they want to be involved with is anything
    that remotely looks to them like family law. However, I think
    that the idea--and this is how it gets translated. And I am not
    attributing this to the Ambassador, but I think that this is
    the default feeling. ``Well, after all, how bad is this really?
    I mean, the child is with the other parent.''
        I have been doing this for over 20 years. I remember the
    day when people said to me that intercountry adoption would
    have no impact on international foreign policy. Well, actually,
    as it turns out, that isn't the case. And international
    parental abduction has an impact on foreign policy because,
    while most of constituents have no idea what is involved in the
    decisionmaking process that goes on here, and frankly it would
    boggle most of their minds just what all of those moving parts
    are, what they know is ``Somebody took my grandchild and the
    United States of America is powerless to do anything.''
        I mean, the folks from the greatest generation who I deal
    with look at me like I am insane. How is it possible we don't
    have Marines, never mind sanctions. The fact of the matter is
    that David Goldman's case and other cases that have
    successfully used quiet diplomacy also used the specter of
    having a threat behind it. Not a punitive threat, but a
    recognition that American children are important, that the fact
    that they have been abducted and are not being returned in
    accordance with the rule of law or a criminal prosecution,
    where one is necessary to locate the child, is something that
    we will not ignore.
        With the fact that the Japanese cases, over one third are
    American military members who we sent there, it is mind-
    boggling to me that we would actually not consider placing in
    articulable form the potential remedies of the use of a
    memorandum of understanding in those places where it will be
    effective and will lead to the application of rule of law, and
    potentially treaty signatory down the road.
        I served as a delegate of the United States of America at
    the Hague for the negotiation and the signing of the Protection
    Convention that was referred. The Protection Convention is not
    a panacea. We are going to have enough trouble getting it
    enacted in the United States of America, never mind creating a
    reciprocal relationship that allows for mutual enforcement.
        As the judge in the United Arab Emirates said to me, ``You
    don't care about these cases. Why would you expect that we
    would politically go out on a limb to do so?'' Clearly--and I
    said it a moment ago, but I do think it bears repeating. The
    place where the decisionmaking that is most protective of the
    American parents whose children have been abducted takes place
    is not in some office away from all of us. It is in the
    Congress of the United States.
        This bill, for example, would require that Members of
    Congress would know that someone in their district has a
    pending abduction case. For reasons that pass understanding,
    that provision has been opposed by the Department of State on
    ``privacy grounds.''
        Well, very frankly, the fact of the matter is, I have never
    met in my 20 years of representing cases, particularly
    involving abductees in non-Hague cases, where a parent didn't
    want everyone they could tell. And it would be much easier to
    opt somebody out than to say--so that a Member would know that
    they have a pending case, so that when they are considering
    rule of law issues involving a country, they know how American
    citizens in that context are being treated.
        Again, it is my privilege to return and to have an
    opportunity to address this subcommittee to address what I
    consider to be extraordinary issues. I must say, the Japanese
    situation is a current, immediate danger. It is going to
    contribute, as we are right now sitting here, to a creation of
    a safe haven. American judges will not know that there is a
    risk of a child not being returned, because they will see the
    Japanese, appropriately so, as ``signatories.''
        I am hoping that the legislation which provides genuine
    diplomatic tools will be used, that this body will seek to
    oversee this issue as they should. And if there are any
    questions that I can answer to enhance that process, I stand
    ready to do so. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Apy follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Ms. Apy, thank you so very much for that very
    comprehensive and, I think, very incisive look, and for
    reminding us that the accession to the Hague, illusionary and
    deceitful at best, I thought that was a very profound
    statement. Because my sense is that there will be a breaking
    out of the champagne bottles, and--I won't say euphoria, but
    there will be an enormous amount of celebration. But people
    will not understand what this might actually portend for the
    abducted children and their parents, especially those to whom
    it has already happened. So, thank you so very much for that.
        Ms. Philips?

    STATEMENT OF MS. BINDU PHILIPS, MOTHER OF CHILDREN ABDUCTED TO
                                 INDIA

        Ms. Philips. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Good afternoon, ladies
    and gentlemen of the Congress. It is my honor and privilege to
    testify before you today, and I thank you for taking your
    valuable time to hear of my plight. My name is Bindu Philips,
    and it is my ardent hope that my story shall capture your
    attention today.
        While I have held many roles in life, none has been more
    meaningful to me than that of motherhood. Twelve years ago, I
    was blessed to be the mother of twin boys, my precious
    children, Albert Philip Jacob and Alfred William Jacob. When my
    children were born, my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob, and I made a
    joint decision that I would stay home and be their primary
    caretaker.
        I was an active and loving mother in every aspect of our
    children's life. My children came first in everything I did,
    and in every decision I made. Tragically, my world and that of
    my innocent children was violently disrupted by my ex-husband,
    Sunil Jacob, in December 2008, when he orchestrated the
    kidnapping of the children during a vacation to India. I would
    note that the children are American citizens and that the
    children were born in America, which is the only nation they
    identified as home.
        Sunil Jacob worked in the financial industry and was laid
    off by his employer, Citigroup, late in 2008. My ex-husband
    pressed me to agree upon this family vacation to India during
    the children's winter break. My ex-husband was both physically
    and emotionally abusive to me, and I feared the consequences of
    refusing him. I had seen return tickets for our flight on
    January 12, 2009, and I had every reason to believe that we
    would be home in a few weeks to resume our life in the United
    States. Had I known what would follow, I would have never
    boarded that flight to India.
        On reaching India, I was not only physically and
    emotionally abused by my husband, but also by his parents. I
    was finally very cruelly separated from my children with no
    means to communicate with them. I could not bear the separation
    from my children, and on learning that they were admitted to a
    local school in India I approached the principal, requesting
    that I be allowed to see my children, and I was granted
    permission.
        As soon as my ex-husband learned about this, he transferred
    them to another school and gave the school strict orders to
    neither allow the mother or any of her maternal relatives to
    see or communicate with the children. I contacted the U.S.
    Consulate in Chennai, India for assistance, yet, absent an
    order granting me custody of the children, there was little
    that the consulate could do for me.
        I would like to point out that Sunil Jacob's plan to kidnap
    the children and sequester them in India out of my reach was
    not a decision that was quickly or lightly reached. Subsequent
    events showed how carefully he had planned his actions.
        Unable to communicate with my children, I finally returned
    to the United States 4 months later, on April 9, 2009. I
    literally came home to an empty house. Our residence in
    Plainsboro was devoid of all furniture and possessions, and our
    cars were gone from the garage. While in India, my ex-husband
    had his three friends strip the entire house of everything
    inside. They took everything, leaving me with not a single
    photograph of my children. He had not paid the mortgage on the
    home, our Plainsboro home, nor the utilities, nor the equity
    line of credit which he had transferred to India and left me
    with additional financial burden.
        Heartbroken and impoverished, I had to start from scratch
    and initially survived on the graciousness of good people. My
    neighbors allowed me to move in with them briefly, and a local
    church provided me a car. Shortly thereafter, I found
    employment, secured an apartment, and purchased my own car.
        Over the last 4\1/2\ years, I continue to uncover
    information that shows how deceptive my ex-husband, Sunil
    Jacob, is. The investigation report from the Plainsboro Police
    Station showed that he had planned the move to India as early
    as March 2008. He had communicated his intentions to the
    principal of the children's elementary school without my
    knowledge. In November 2008, 1 month prior to the trip to
    India, Sunil Jacob had obtained a status for him and the
    children known as OCI, overseas citizen of India, that would
    allow him and the children to stay for an extended period of
    time in India, since the children are American citizens.
        Sunil Jacob, an American citizen, deceptively abducted my
    American citizen children and is staying in India, out of my
    reach and that of the Hague Convention indefinitely. Please
    note that India does not honor dual citizenship. I came to know
    that he has two software firms in India, and recently got
    information that he is the owner of a resort in India that was
    registered in 2007. That was when we were still married. I also
    came to know that he is remarried. Very recently, Sunil Jacob's
    family member confirmed with the Plainsboro Police that the
    separation of the children from me was planned well in advance.
        Frustrated but determined, on May 14, 2009, I filed a
    petition with the Superior Court of New Jersey for the custody
    of our children. Sunil Jacob tried to delay the matter by
    arguing that the U.S. did not have jurisdiction to hear the
    case, but the American courts, both at the Superior Court and
    appellate levels, have held that jurisdiction was indeed proper
    in the Superior Court family part. My ex-husband was in
    contempt of the court order granting me parenting time over the
    children's winter break, although he participated in the
    hearing over the phone. The flight information was conveyed to
    Sunil Jacob by the U.S. Consulate, my American attorney and me.
        The honorable New Jersey Superior Court granted me
    residential and legal custody of the children. The Plainsboro
    Police and the FBI have issued arrest warrants against Sunil
    Jacob. Please note, in 2007, while Sunil Jacob was working at
    Citigroup, he was involved in an unknown incident at his office
    that resulted in an FBI inquiry on him.
        It is significant that Honorable Barry A. Weisberg, judge
    of the Superior Court family part in New Jersey, not only
    granted me sole custody of the children and demanded their
    immediate return to the United States, but also said that Sunil
    Jacob must comply with a psychiatric evaluation and risk
    assessment upon return of the children. Clearly, Judge
    Weisberg, an experienced jurist in the family part, felt that
    Sunil Jacob's conduct was evident of a man who was disturbed.
        I fear for the safety of the children, and their emotional
    well-being, in their father's care. Despite having kidnapped
    our children, Sunil Jacob filed for custody of the children in
    the Indian courts. The case is currently pending at the
    Honorable Supreme Court of India. In addition to wrongfully
    keeping the children from me, Sunil Jacob has thwarted every
    effort I have made even to speak to my children and say that I
    love them.
        Beyond the kidnapping, Sunil Jacob continues to file false
    cases against me and my family in India, and is brainwashing
    the children against their own mother. He believes that if the
    campaign of harassment becomes too much for me to bear, we will
    back away from the quest to regain custody of my children.
        He must learn that this will not happen. He must be held
    accountable for his actions. I have put everything I have in my
    mission to be reunited with my children. I have rebuilt myself
    financially and made a viable career path for myself. I have
    made a new home for my children to return to, as I was forced
    to sell the marital home to satisfy the debts my ex-husband
    created.
        It must be remembered that America is the children's home.
    It is where they were born. The children went to school in
    America, in the culture that they love. They must be brought
    home to the American soil. I implore the Congress to assist me
    in righting the wrongs that have been done to me and to my
    children by my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob. Every day I awaken with
    the heartwrenching reality that I am separated from my children
    whom I love more than anything else in this world.
        I have done everything I can think of in this nightmarish
    situation, and I will never give up on my children. Yet I am
    here because I can no longer fight the good fight on my own. I
    respectfully request you, the Members of Congress, to help me
    make my voice heard in a way that shall be meaningful and allow
    me to be reunited with my children, who need the love and the
    nurturing of their mother.
        Please help me to put an end to the nightmare that Sunil
    Jacob has created for my family. Please help my precious
    children and me. I do not want to know, and cannot imagine, a
    meaningful life without them. Please act, not just for the
    benefit of the two innocent children and their brokenhearted
    mother. Please think of all the other children and parents
    caught in similar nightmarish situations due to hostile-minded
    parents who abduct the children to overseas nations.
        Thank you from the bottom of my heart for hearing my humble
    and fervent plea during your otherwise pressing schedules. I
    shall always be grateful for the time and the opportunity to
    share my story and that of my children. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Philips follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Ms. Philips, thank you so very much for that
    very moving testimony. We are here because we want to be here.
    When someone says that they don't have the time, they have
    stated not a fact but a priority.
        And the idea behind not just this hearing, and the series
    of hearings that we have had to build the case, to have cases
    that have failed because civil remedies proved to be
    ineffective and inadequate, is that we need to take it to the
    next level. Reasonable people, a reasonable man or woman, would
    say, ``Okay, if that didn't work, what else do we have? What
    other tools might we put into that toolbox?'' And that is what
    the legislation is all about. Because there are far too many
    people just like this very distinguished but harmed panel that
    are not being well served. So, thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Elias?

    STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL ELIAS, FATHER OF CHILDREN ABDUCTED TO
                                 JAPAN

        Mr. Elias. Congressman Smith and distinguished members of
    the subcommittee, my name is Michael Elias and I would like to
    thank all of you once again for this opportunity to share my
    personal experience involving international parental child
    abduction with you once again.
        From August 2003 to November 2007, I was a sergeant in the
    United States Marine Corps. I am currently employed as a Bergen
    County Sheriff's Officer in the State of New Jersey. I was
    stationed at Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan, from 2004 to 2005,
    where I met my future wife, Mayumi Nakamura. Shortly
    thereafter, my unit returned to Camp Lejuene, and Mayumi
    returned to her hometown of Saga, Japan. We remained in
    constant contact, and in late September I received a startling
    phone call from Mayumi informing me that she was 5 months
    pregnant.
        I was stunned. However, at the same time I was excited at
    the prospect of becoming a father. Therefore, in October 2005,
    Mayumi came to the United States and we were married at an
    intimate ceremony in Rutherford, New Jersey. I then purchased a
    home for us in Jacksonville, North Carolina, and our first
    child, Jade Maki Elias, was born on January 5, 2006.
        In March 2007, I was deployed to Iraq for a 9-month tour of
    duty while Mayumi was expecting our second child. She then
    moved in with my parents in Rutherford, New Jersey, so Mayumi
    and Jade would have full support and the assistance of my
    family.
        On August 2nd, 2007, my son Michael Angel Elias was born at
    the Hackensack Medical University. During my deployment, Mayumi
    started a relationship with a Japanese national. His name was
    Kenichiro Negishi. He worked as a travel agent in Manhattan.
    Sadly, a few months after my return, Mayumi and I separated,
    and on October 29, 2008 I was awarded joint custody of my
    children.
        On that day, the judge clearly ordered that the children's
    passports, both American and Japanese, be turned over because
    it had clearly been demonstrated that my wife was a flight
    risk. I felt I did everything I could to ensure the safety and
    well being of my children. I was confident that I had the
    reasonable expectation that my American-born children would be
    protected from being kidnapped to Japan.
        Mayumi was an employee of the Japanese Consulate in New
    York City, issuing visas and passports. She used her position
    at the Consulate as a tool to carefully collaborate the
    kidnapping of our children. Mayumi and Kenichiro flew to
    Chicago with the two of my children to obtain illegal
    replacement passports at the Japanese Consulate in Chicago,
    where she and her boyfriend Kenichiro exited the country via
    Chicago's O'Hare Airport on December 6, 2008 with Jade and
    Michael. I still have in my possession their original
    passports.
        My family and I were horrified and sickened by Mayumi's
    actions. We have repeatedly attempted to contact Japanese
    Consulates in New York, Chicago, Washington, DC, and continue
    to receive no cooperation whatsoever. Shortly after she arrived
    in Japan, Mayumi contacted me and told me that she had
    unilaterally decided that she would raise our children in
    Japan. When I explained to her that she had kidnapped our
    children, she maintained, and I quote, ``It's not kidnapping.
    My country will protect me.''
        Thereafter, I was awarded full custody of our children in
    the Superior Court of Bergen County, New Jersey. The judge
    ordered the immediate return of the children to the United
    States from Japan by means of the Hague Convention.
    Unfortunately, the judge was unaware that Japan was not a
    signatory of the treaty, something that Mayumi seemingly
    understood.
        Since the kidnapping, my family and I have pleaded with
    Mayumi to return our children to the United States, assuring
    her that there was no criminal charges pending. Since January
    2009, my family and I continue mailing gifts, cards, care
    packages to the children, with no responses or acknowledgement.
    After numerous emails and telephone calls, on January 5, 2010 I
    was granted the privilege to see my children via Skype on my
    daughter's fourth birthday. Although it was very hard to see my
    children through the monitor, it was very satisfying to see
    them happy to see me. My daughter, Jade, looked at her mother
    in heartache and said to her, ever so softly, something in
    Japanese. When I asked Mayumi what Jade had said, she replied,
    ``She wants to be with you.'' The monitor immediately went
    back, and that was the last time I saw my daughter's face.
        Prior to our final contact on Jade's birthday, Mayumi
    assured my parents, and only my parents, they would be allowed
    to visit Jade and Michael. In February 2011, my parents flew to
    Japan with the assistance of the United States Embassy in
    Tokyo, accompanied by Congressman Smith, his Chief of Staff,
    Mary Noonan, and my attorney, Patricia Apy.
        Congressman Smith, along with Ms. Noonan and Ms. Apy, spent
    every waking moment meeting with Japanese officials, trying to
    convince Japan to sign and ratify the Hague Convention.
    However, the Hague is not retroactive, so it would provide no
    benefit to the nearly 400 children abducted prior to the Hague
    implementation. So they urged Japan to prepare a memorandum of
    understanding to accompany their signing Hague which would
    cover the hundreds of pre-existing cases.
        They also contacted Mayumi to ask my parents if they could
    visit their grandchildren. However, Mayumi denied any access
    for it. She told the Embassy she would not accept their calls,
    and she told them to go home. While in Japan, my attorney, Ms.
    Apy, spoke with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Japan, and he
    informed her that the Japanese Government was moving forward
    with the prosecution of Mayumi. After numerous requests, we had
    still not received any information about the investigation or
    prosecution of Mayumi's case until December 2012.
        I received a call from my case worker from the Office of
    Children's Issues, Ms. Leah George, informing that she had
    received information regarding Mayumi's prosecution. However,
    she was unable to open the document or read Japanese, so we
    waited until February 21, 2013 for the letter I hold before you
    today from the Saga District Prosecutor's Office in Japan.
        And it says, ``Notice,'' and I quote, ``This notice is in
    response to your inquiry regarding the criminal case of
    violation of the Passport Act. With regard to this case, after
    conducting necessary and sufficient investigation, the
    prosecutor decided not to institute prosecution. Decision of
    the non-prosecution was made on October 29, 2010. If you have
    any further questions regarding this notice, please contact
    International Affairs Division, Criminal Affairs Bureau or
    Ministry of Justice, Japan. Yours truly, Takuya Komagata, the
    public prosecutor.''
        The timing on this decision clearly demonstrates the total
    disregard that Japan has for Americans and our children. This
    decision was made 2 years ago, and only now I am receiving the
    outcome? My only hope was that Japan would hold Mayumi
    responsible for her crimes, but like she so calmly stated, ``My
    country will protect me.'' And they have.
        Since December 2008, there has been no visual confirmation
    on the whereabouts or the well being of my children in Japan.
    Mayumi had agreed to a welfare visit by the Office of
    Children's Issues. This occurred a few years ago, and at the
    last minute Mayumi informed the case worker she would meet them
    at a local mall. Mayumi showed up with a photo album of the
    children that was good enough for the case worker. However, it
    was highly unacceptable for me.
        Right up to this day, no one from the State Department or
    the American Embassy in Japan can say they have seen my
    children, know their whereabouts, and are certain of their well
    being. Mayumi is running the show, and she is being permitted
    to do so. It is haunting to know that my children, along with
    thousands of other children from around the world, will suffer
    in silence because they are afraid to ask about their families
    who were left behind, in fear of disappointing and upsetting
    their abductor. It appears that their fate has already been
    determined.
        I cannot think of anything more important than the fate of
    my children. What about all the American citizens who have been
    ripped from their homes in this country against their will?
    What about my children? I don't know how to pick up the pieces
    and move on. My pieces are in Japan, a country that has
    willingly, knowingly aided and abetted the abduction of
    children from all over the world, a country that refuses to
    prosecute my wife for crimes that are recognized worldwide as
    fundamental human rights violations.
        Does the word parental in front of kidnapping make it less
    of a crime? If so, for whom? You, or the children involved, the
    children who have been silenced, sacrificed and brainwashed,
    the very children who have been ripped from their only life
    they ever knew, the family, the love, and now will be
    programmed to never look back? This is what it becomes, not
    only parental cruelty, it becomes child abuse. Can it be Japan
    has always felt this way, a private family mater, and never
    really looked at it from the eyes of children, my children?
        I often wonder when I look in the mirror why I don't see me
    anymore. I see a reflection looking back at me, watching me
    look at him. It makes me wonder if this happens to my children.
    What do my children see when they look in the mirror? Will they
    ever know who they really are? Do they think like me? Do they
    act like me? Do they dream with me? What does Mayumi tell them?
        As long as our Government allows Japan to continue to
    disregard our children, the number of parental kidnappings will
    continue to rise. Countless families will suffer the same
    heartache again and again, and Japan and its abductors will
    remain in control. It is time for a change. I have been waiting
    for 4\1/2\, along with hundreds of other parents, some who have
    been waiting for decades. There is not a day that goes by I
    don't pray for the return of my children. I am depending on
    Congress an the State Department to make that change.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Elias follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Elias. Thank you for
    your service to our country in Iraq. And there are some folks
    that stayed back from the Office of Children's Issues, and I do
    hope they will take your letter back. Because I had asked while
    I was in Japan, asked it at hearings, if we were pressing the
    prosecution of your wife for the passport fraud, among other
    things, what was the investigation? And I am wondering if we
    ever got a response back, and if not, why not. And to realize
    that a decision made on October 29, 2010 was not conveyed to
    us, the U.S. side, and to you for so long, is absolutely
    unconscionable.
        And leaving every other issue aside, that kind of
    nonresponsiveness suggests a relationship with an ally that is
    not what it purports to be. So we will follow up on this, and I
    do hope you folks will take back that letter and check into
    that, because that is 2 years.
        Mr. Bower?

     STATEMENT OF MR. COLIN BOWER, FATHER OF CHILDREN ABDUCTED TO
                                 EGYPT

        Mr. Bower. Thank you, Chairman Smith and honorable
    committee members. Thank you for allowing me to be here today
    to testify in front of you.
        My name is Colin Bower. And I am here today for one reason:
    To ask the U.S. Government to please stop giving Egypt billions
    of dollars until they release my two American, kidnapped
    children. David Goldman and the respected chairman can attest
    to the fact that this has worked before. And I think that, once
    you have heard the facts in this testimony, you will be
    compelled to agree that we can't continue to blindly fund a
    state that has sponsored, aided and abetted crimes against not
    only Americans, but defenseless American children.
        In the way of background, despite my having sole legal
    custody of my sons, Noor and Ramsay, they were kidnapped from
    the United States to Egypt in August 2009. Today's testimony
    marks the second time in the past 2 years I have testified in
    front of this honorable committee. Meanwhile, my boys remain
    illegally held in Egypt, as do 20-plus other American children,
    including Blake Cleveland, whose father just called me
    yesterday. All in danger, suffering child abuse and having
    their human rights compromised.
        To these children, their parents, and to Noor and Ramsay,
    when you watch or read this, please know that you are in my
    prayers, and it is my sincere hope that this testimony leads to
    the U.S. Government acting to bring each and every one of you
    home.
        Year after year, the U.S. Government sends billions of
    taxpayer dollars to the Government of Egypt with the U.S.
    Department of State using waivers under the guise of national
    security to get around conditions Congress tries to put on the
    aid. As to whether Egypt deserves this aid, please note some of
    their behavior since 2009, when my children were abducted,
    during which they continued to receive their annual billion-
    plus dollar stipend.
        They have engaged in state sponsored crime by aiding and
    abetting the kidnapping and illegal detention, child abuse, of
    at least two American children. They provided the false
    passports and transportation for the kidnapping, and they have
    abetted the kidnapper through ongoing protection. They have
    directly threatened U.S. national security. They issued false
    Egyptian passports for the purpose of committing a crime in the
    United States. And for nearly 4 years, they have refused to
    respond to formal requests from the U.S. Government for
    information around how or why these passports were issued. This
    is in direct contravention of the bilateral mutual legal
    assistance treaty. The Government of Egypt has refused to
    acknowledge the Hague Convention principles, or to commit to
    joining the Convention, and they continue to regularly commit
    flagrant human rights violations.
        If supporting this country without conditions is American
    foreign policy, then American foreign policy isn't working Not
    only are we not getting what we pay for, Egypt has thumbed its
    nose at real reform and at our leaders. I have seen my boys
    less than a handful of times since they were taken. Each visit
    was in Egypt, and each was attended by a large band of Egyptian
    relatives and government security personnel who watched the
    boys' every move, scrutinized the boys' every word. The boys
    were understandably anxious, and they behaved unnaturally.
        My last visit with them was in January 2012. Both my mother
    and myself, and the U.S. Embassy personnel who attended this
    meeting, noted that it was clear the boys wanted to interact
    with me. They wanted to be with me. And that is precisely, I
    believe, the reason why Mirvat el Nady, their mother, has
    forbidden me any contact with them since that time.
        I practice one-way communication in the form of posts that
    I send to them on a committed Facebook page every week. It is
    all I can do.
        In 2010, I fought for and won an Egyptian court order
    allowing me to visit my children regularly. I have made eight
    separate trips to Egypt to see my boys with no success despite
    this order. On these trips, I sat alone in a park with bags
    full of letters, toys, magazines, sports equipment, other
    mementos, waiting 6 hours hoping to see, speak with and hold my
    boys again. They were never brought to these visits.
        I have been forced to retain new counsel in Egypt at the
    behest of the State Department with no recourse. I don't know
    when I will see them again next. I don't know if they will ever
    come home. All I know is that I will never stop fighting.
        It is important to note that the el Nady family has direct
    ties to the Egyptian Military. They started the only private
    sector yeast factory in Egypt in 2005 through a company called
    EGYBELG. Like the production and distribution of all Egyptian
    necessities, this remains under the control of the Egyptian
    Military. The ties between the el Nady family and the military
    were strong under the Mubarak regime, and they have persevered
    into the Morsi regime. The el Nady family has been allowed to
    ignore both Egyptian and U.S. court orders, and refused
    communication with me, U.S. Embassy personnel, and the Good
    Intentions Subcommittee, which is a committee which includes
    senior Egyptian officials appointed to address issues specific
    to American children who have been abducted to Egypt.
        The majority of U.S. aid is directed to the Egyptian
    Military, which has been the bedrock of the Egyptian side of
    our bilateral relationship since the Camp David Accords in
    1978, and the U.S. Government has seemingly served at the
    pleasure of the Egyptian Military, apparently not wanting to
    upset the status quo since the kidnapping.
        Now, this is not to say that the U.S. Government has not
    made substantial efforts on behalf of Noor and Ramsay. On the
    contrary, pleas for Noor and Ramsay's return have been made,
    both face to face and in writing, by many senior officials in
    our Government, including the Vice President, two Secretaries
    of State, the Attorney General, two U.S. Ambassadors to Egypt,
    the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and ranking
    members of House committees and subcommittees.
        In Congress, resolutions calling upon Egypt to return Noor
    and Ramsay passed in both the House--thank you, Mr. Chairman--
    and the Senate, including through this committee. Further, as
    the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, now-
    Secretary of State John Kerry, said, his last conversation with
    President Mubarak was what he called a half-hour shouting match
    on this issue. His call to President Mubarak, and his call on
    President Mubarak to return the two boys, was to no avail.
        Secretary Kerry has continued to focus on this issue
    directly at the highest levels in his dealings with Egypt since
    he has become Secretary. Yet, I can't tell you where my boys
    are, when I will see them again, or when or if they will ever
    come home. Since 2009, these pleas from the U.S. Government
    have been made directly to former President Mubarak, current
    President Morsi, the Supreme Council on the Armed Forces, SCAF,
    the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Egyptian Minister
    of Justice, and other various Egyptian ministers and leaders.
        I remain incredibly grateful for all the assistance of all
    U.S. officials involved, all Members of Congress involved, the
    chairman of this subcommittee, as well as Secretary Kerry, in
    their sustained attention to bringing home Noor and Ramsay.
        Despite all of this, the Government of Egypt has been
    completely nonresponsive. They have refused to give the
    location of the children. They have refused to allow welfare
    visits with the children. They have refused to abide by the
    terms of MLAT. They have refused to enforce court orders. They
    have refused to acknowledge the rights of Noor and Ramsay. They
    have refused to return the children. They, along with the el
    Nady family, continue to aid and abet a wanted felon.
        And this nonresponsiveness has gone entirely without
    consequences. In fact, the United States has rewarded Egypt
    during this time by continuing to send them billions of U.S.
    taxpayer dollars and acting as if it is business as usual. The
    State Department has simply said, in a TV interview recently
    and in private, that our relationship with Egypt is
    complicated, and there are other important issues on the table.
        I have to ask the basic questions: What is more important
    than the safety of our children? What message are we sending to
    the perpetrators of crime against American children when we
    continue to support the perpetrators, unchecked and without
    consequences? Obviously, as Noor and Ramsay's father, I am
    devastated. But as an American, I am appalled. The inability of
    Mirvat el Nady to responsibly parent is outlined in our divorce
    judgment.
        It is also outlined in more detail in the House Resolution
    193, which includes analysis from various mental health and
    other professionals who evaluated Mirvat el Nady during the
    divorce proceeding and recommended that she receive inpatient
    care. I don't want to disparage the boys' mother in this forum,
    but the text in this resolution is chilling, as are the
    implications of allowing an unfit parent to watch over Noor and
    Ramsay in such a volatile social, political and religious
    environment such as exists in Egypt today.
        Obviously, a fit parent would never have kidnapped her
    children, alienated them and forced them to be estranged from
    their legal guardian, myself, a healthy father who provided for
    them and simply loves them more than anything else in this
    world. The combination of the instability of Mirvat el Nady,
    the instability in Egypt, and the nature of the recent events
    at the marathon in my hometown of Boston make my stomach churn
    with fear for the underlying safety of my boys. I am literally
    scared to death to whom she is outsourcing the parenting or
    mentoring of my children, what they are being taught, how they
    are being treated.
        What will be their future if I am not able to protect them,
    if their government has forsaken them for other important
    issues? Will they be led down a dark and mortal path? To
    Ambassador Jacobs' point earlier on, I don't see how this is
    any less terrible than trafficking. I don't see the difference.
    I actually cannot bring myself to articulate my fears on this
    front. All I can say is I pray my Government will change tack
    and do what is necessary to help me protect my boys before
    these fears become a full, or even a partial, reality.
        There are many things we can do immediately to protect our
    children. With regard to Egypt, not surprisingly, several
    include withholding U.S. and U.S.-controlled financial
    assistance pending certain actions. Of course, I understand the
    de facto services contract we have with Egypt, which is the
    most populous and strategically important Arab State. But I
    have to say, when one side kidnaps your children and ignores
    your leader, I say all bets are off. We have to start holding
    Egypt accountable. It is not a question of applying financial
    pressure to influence their politics, but of doing the right
    thing for us as Americans, to protect our citizens, to protect
    our children, and to protect our own moral credibility.
        I have some recommendations, Mr. Chairman. The first
    recommendation regards prevention. I think we need better
    controls in place to protect against the unlawful removal of
    our children to foreign countries. This includes better checks
    at the point of departure by Homeland Security and agreements
    with foreign carriers. Prevention is the easiest way to help
    cure and protect our children from being subjected to what is
    very much a nightmare.
        In the case of Noor and Ramsay, for example, Mirvat el Nady
    kidnapped my children despite the following flags: The boys
    were providing Egyptian passports in false last names. These
    Egyptian passports had no U.S. entry visas, leading to the
    obvious observation that my boys were in the United States
    under another, legitimate, auspice. These Egyptian passports
    were issued in a family name different than that of el Nady,
    therefore providing no connection between the children and the
    kidnapper. The kidnapper had no U.S. court or other
    documentation denoting her legal standing to be with the
    children. The airline tickets were purchased at the ticket
    counter, in cash and one way. The National Transportation
    Safety Board and airlines operating in the United States need
    to be held responsible for failing to act on any and all of
    these flags. Failure to do so is an inexcusable breach of
    security and, frankly, remains a huge risk to our children.
        Law enforcement. The FBI just did not act quickly enough to
    gather information tied to this crime, including identifying
    those who aided and abetted. This evidence, primarily email
    records, was deleted by the time the FBI started looking more
    deeply into this matter. If they had moved with the requisite
    urgency, further leverage could have been brought against those
    responsible, which could have aided in the return of the boys.
    Further, neither have the FBI been aggressive or committed
    enough in finding those that are aiding and abetting this
    fugitive and bringing them to justice.
        The enforcement of existing treaties. Because Egypt
    provided false passports for the purpose of committing this
    crime in America, a technique used in multiple terror attacks
    against our country, they must be held accountable to the MLAT
    agreed to by both our countries to protect our citizens from
    crimes just like this one. We need to see the MLAT enforced,
    the extradition of Mirvat el Nady and her co-conspirators,
    before we provide ongoing meaningful financial assistance to
    Egypt.
        Probate orders. We must tie U.S. financial aid to Egypt's
    agreement to recognizing their existing probate orders
    involving custody decisions. We have acted in that capacity in
    the United States, and I believe that we should act the same
    way, and the country harboring the fugitive should issue a
    mirror order consistent with that preexisting order.
        Human rights and the Hague Convention. We have to tie U.S.
    financial aid to Egypt's demonstration of commitments to human
    rights, including the rights of children, as evidenced by
    acceptance generally of the terms of the Hague Convention,
    adherence to the probate orders mentioned above, as well as
    Egypt's ultimately becoming a signatory to the Hague. In
    abduction cases, this can be sequentially evidenced by
    immediate wellness visits, normalized parental visits, and,
    where probate orders exist, by the immediate return of the
    children to their rightful home in the United States.
        Sixth, preclusion of blanket waivers. When Congress ties
    U.S. aid to protections for human rights and other like
    measures, neither the U.S. State Department nor the White House
    should be able to toss aside these congressional conditions via
    general waivers under the cloak of national security. Often,
    these congressional measures speak to the heart of our national
    security, including the protection of our children, which I
    consider to be our national treasure.
        Seventh, freeze Egyptian assets in the U.S. In conjunction
    with tying aid to Egypt to specific measures, Congress should
    similarly freeze Egyptian assets held in the United States
    pending compliance with these measures.
        And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a report
    by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to
    conduct a study focusing on the issue of all child abduction in
    Egypt, including the role of the Government of Egypt in the
    abduction and the ongoing abetting of the abductors.
        Mr. Smith and other committee members, I thank you for the
    invitation to speak today, for your attention to my testimony,
    and for your consideration of this most important of issues.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bower follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Mr. Bower, thank you very much not only for the
    very moving testimony, but also for those very significant
    recommendations, including the last one, the GAO. We will
    follow up on all of those, and the red flags that you
    referenced, I think, were telltale signs.
        Mr. Bower. Absolutely.
        Mr. Smith. And all were missed.
        Mr. Bower. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. So thank you.
        Mr. Bower. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Goldman?

      STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID GOLDMAN, FATHER OF CHILD ABDUCTED TO
                                 BRAZIL

        Mr. Goldman. Good afternoon. I am David Goldman, and I am
    honored and privileged to be here today, and I thank you for
    having me. And thank you for recognizing the fact that there is
    a tragic issue upon us, and hopefully we will be able to figure
    out a way to get you the support that you need from your
    colleagues, across the aisle and on your side of the aisle.
        And I think that is what we really need to do here, is
    create a movement. It is imperative that we don't continue to
    have parents that just suffer on a daily, on a moment-to-moment
    basis, just looking for any second of relief from the pain that
    is constantly searing in them.
        I first would like to just point out a couple of things
    that I heard before I go into my testimony. Mr. Cicilline, and
    I hope I am pronouncing his name correctly, he mentioned the
    fact that often times that these abducting parents are actually
    fleeing from an abuse case.
        Well, more often than not, these abducting parents create
    an alleged abuse to keep or thwart the return of the child,
    even after maybe months of years of custody disputes within
    this country, when there is not one evidence or report of
    abuse, which is very alarming in the fact that that is like a
    front and center loophole in the Japanese acceptance of their
    signing onto the Hague, is that if there is abuse, the child
    stays. So that is basically opening the door for any parent to
    come and say, ``I am abused,'' and the child never returns.
    That is very alarming, and that is a big red flag in my
    assessment.
        As well, Mr. Meadows mentioned that we are a global
    society, and in this global society we are going to have
    companies that are working with each other. Johnson and Johnson
    is working with Brazil, all these airlines and what have you,
    and there are going to be marriages. There is going to be love;
    there are going to be marriages. And in our own country, the
    divorce rate, unfortunately, is greater than 50 percent. You
    put two cultures together, and they are going to have issues as
    well.
        And the rate of abductions is growing at an alarming,
    exponential rate, and we really need to address this. And thank
    you, again, for holding this hearing, and for you recognizing
    the importance of this issue.
        The tools that we keep talking about that Ambassador Jacobs
    didn't seem to favor, more often than not if we do have them in
    our toolbox, just knowing that we do have them to use would be
    enough for these countries to return our children, especially
    if we start to use the tools, as are pointed out initially in
    the Sean and David Goldman Abduction Prevention and Return Act.
        There is a list right here, and it starts out with a
    private demarche, an official public demarche, a public
    condemnation. And they can see, ``Uh-oh, we are getting to the
    big ones. They are using them. Let us get these children. This
    is a thorn. We don't need these children. They are not ours.''
        We are not asking, Americans are not asking these countries
    for a favor. We are expecting them to abide by the rule of law.
    And I keep hearing about these delays and these stall tactics,
    and somebody mentioned Article 13(b), grave risk, and I had to
    really point that out. That is the biggest misuse of a denial
    to return a child. Grave risk is, in fact, an abuse or a
    hostile situation that that child would be returned to, not
    because the abducting parent had been allowed to delay and
    obfuscate the court system in the country where they had
    kidnapped the child for so long that the court could now say,
    ``It is a grave risk to return the child back to its home
    state, back to its habitual residence, back to the competent
    court of jurisdiction, because our courts have been delayed for
    so long that the child is now settled, to return them back to
    their home where they were abducted would be a grave risk,
    because it would disrupt the children's life,'' as they were
    supposed to return that child within 6 weeks of the abduction.
        So to use that, and these judges that use that so often,
    saying the child has settled, that is something that is
    completely wrong and it needs to be addressed, and that Article
    13(b) really needs to be outlined on what the purpose of it is.
        So I will go back to my written testimony now.
        And I just want to say, my beginning is, I understand what
    these three parents are going through. I walked in their shoes
    for 5\1/2\ years. I did live in a world of despondency and
    desperation, with that searing pain through my entire being.
    Everywhere I turned, I did see an image of my abducted child.
    Sleep was hard to come by, and never restful. If I smiled, I
    felt guilt. When I saw children, whether it was in a store, a
    park, on television, anywhere, it killed me. It killed me. It
    was too painful. For the longest time, I couldn't be around my
    own family members because they had children. I couldn't be
    around my nieces and my nephews, it was too painful. ``Where is
    my son? Where is my child?''
        He had been abducted. He was being held illegally. He was
    being psychologically, emotionally, and mentally abused. I
    needed to help him. I needed to save him. He needed me, his
    father. It was our legal, our moral, our God-given right to be
    together as parent and child. I did everything humanly
    possible, leaving no stone unturned, but for so many years the
    result remained the same: My son, as these parents' children,
    remained kidnapped, abducted, in a foreign country. They are
    not home with them. And it is a crime. Every second, every day,
    the crime continues.
        Finally, after Congressman Smith, who is chairing this
    hearing today, became directly involved with my case, he
    traveled to Brazil with me on multiple occasions. Sean and I
    were reunited after a nearly 6-year separation as a result of
    his abduction. But it took not only Congressman Smith's direct
    involvement, having meetings with high officials in Brazil, but
    it took worldwide media attention, the personal outspoken
    support of former Secretary of State Clinton and President
    Obama, and ultimately U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, after the
    urging of Congressman Smith was saying, ``Hold this trade bill.
    Hold this trade bill.''
        There was a trade bill that was coming up, and Congressman
    Smith kept asking him to hold it. Finally, Senator Lautenberg
    did decide to hold the trade bill to make it possible and help
    return my son. And I must say that countless others also became
    involved and joined in my fight, making it essentially their
    fight, which made it our fight. And I am forever indebted and
    humbly grateful for every ounce of their support.
        Which leads to my last point of this paragraph, why I
    wanted to say all the help I got. I also know it is next to
    impossible for any single left-behind family to garner the
    support which my family was so extremely fortunate to receive.
    These folks don't have it. But I hope, today, collectively, we
    will start to change that. We move mountains. We all came
    together. Somehow, it was a perfect storm that helped me. But
    these folks are like I had been, and they need help. Their
    pleas are falling on deaf ears, as mine were for so many years.
    And these are just three of the faces of thousands upon
    thousands.
        This is my fourth time testifying before Congress on this
    issue, and I am disappointed to report that the situation with
    international child abduction to both Hague and non-Hague
    countries continues to worsen since the return of my son, Sean,
    December 2009. This hearing today, by my count, is at least the
    20th hearing--the 20th hearing--on this issue, dating back to
    the 1980s. Yet today, over 30 years later, the problem
    persists. The number of abducted children continues to rise at
    an alarming rate, and precious little is being done about it.
        As I prepared to testify today, I spent time looking back
    at the extensive record of congressional testimony on this
    issue over the years. So many important and meaningful
    statements have been made that I felt the most effective way to
    communicate my message is to quote these officials and their
    testimony.
        I would like to start with a brief quote from Congressman
    Walter Jones of North Carolina from a session on the House
    floor when my son Sean's case was being discussed which I
    believe accurately sums up the issues we are here to discuss
    today. Congressman Jones said, ``The world should be about
    bringing families together.'' Simple. And he is absolutely
    correct. Let us work together to bring more children home and
    more families together. These American children, left without a
    voice as a result of their abductions, they deserve better.
    They don't have a voice. We are their voice.
        The following is a quote from former Congressman Barney
    Frank, from remarks made at a July 2011 congressional hearing
    on international child abduction. And this is very important.
    This goes again to what we were discussing with Ambassador
    Jacobs.

            ``We sometimes hold back in using our legitimate moral
            authority because we worry about somehow alienating
            other countries. Now, I want America to be reasonable
            and fair in its dealings with other people, but as a
            general rule, it does seem to me that most countries in
            this world need us more than we need them. I don't want
            to abuse that, but I think we sometimes assume that we
            can't press hard because people will get mad at us. A
            reasonable assessment of what the relationships are
            should allow us to press cases on their merits and not
            be held back by some fear that we will somehow lose
            influence.''

        That was from Mr. Frank, very profound and still to this
    day very pertinent and relevant.
        Now I turn to the remarks made by Ambassador Susan Jacobs
    at that same hearing.

            ``In non-Hague countries we rely on quiet diplomacy,
            knowledge of local conditions and respect for local
            customs, and often less visible means to try to resolve
            an international abduction case. The Hague
            Convention,'' as she said again today, ``remains our
            best hope of resolving international abductions. It is
            the first subject that I bring up with foreign
            governments during my travels on behalf of the
            Secretary.''

        Well, these mechanisms, these quiet diplomacies, while they
    may be effective, we need more. Obviously, these mechanisms
    used to date to return our children are failing.
        We have some statistics here. Over the last 5 years, 2008
    to 2012, over 7,000 American children have been abducted from
    the U.S. I mean, 7,000. If they were all abducted at one time,
    we would have the U.S. forces to go invade wherever they are
    and bring them home. But because there are 500 here, there are
    200 in this country, 100 in this country, it is not that big of
    a deal. Mexico is a great return, she said? It is not. Five
    hundred are taken every year, and what is the Ambassador to
    Mexico? His first thing is looking at arms, arms control,
    border crossing, the handful in his mind of children aren't a
    priority, and they need to be.
        For the calendar year of 2008 to 2010, the State Department
    reported an increase of almost 3,000 abducted children, yet the
    number of children--this is one you need to pay close attention
    to. In the last 2 years, there has been an increase of 3,000
    abducted American children, yet the number of children whose
    cases are active dropped from 2,800 to 2,400, and are now
    1,900.
        So what they are saying is, we have more cases, more
    children and more cases being opened every year, yet the amount
    of open cases is dropping. That does not add up. These figures
    do not add up. And it is in their stat sheet. And we need
    transparency. That is one thing that we asked before. Some of
    these statistics, they don't show any longer. And we need
    complete transparency from the State Department on all the open
    cases.
        And these are only the reported cases, and the reported
    cases that they have. We also don't know exactly what
    quantifies a report. An agreement between two parents closes a
    case, or they count it as a return? The parent losing the case.
    I know they close cases because the case is lost. The country
    where the abducting parent takes the child decides they are not
    bringing their child home, so they close the case. And then
    they check that off as one less case they are working with.
        But in the meantime, that parent is still somehow begging
    on his knees every night, praying for the return of the child,
    even though the state and our country failed them and gave up
    on them.
        And there are some more stats, but I will go back into what
    we need to do in our State Department as a complete cultural
    change. And nothing short of being extremely bold and
    principled is going to do much to change the status quo and the
    corresponding playbook for handling international child
    abduction cases.
        Left-behind parents, especially ones whose children have
    been abducted more recently, often make the mistake of thinking
    that the State Department is competently handling their cases
    and that countries routinely return children as expected. And
    that is one of the things that Ms. Apy said. Judges here, if
    they look at a country and they say they are a signatory to the
    Hague, when a parent is in a divorce or a custody dispute and
    that parent goes to the judge and says, ``I want to go back to,
    say, Brazil, because that is where my family is,'' and the
    judge says, ``Okay, Brazil is a Hague country.'' And the other
    parent is saying, ``No, they have already said they are going
    to go and they are not going to return my child,'' and the
    judge is going to say, ``Yes, this is a Hague country. The
    parent can go back, because then they will return them if the
    child is''--no, it doesn't work that way.
        So we need to educate our judges as well, and they need to
    see that these countries aren't abiding by the law and
    returning the children as the Hague Convention requires, which
    is also a very important aside.
        In reality, the State Department and Foreign Services have
    been involved in these cases almost since the founding of
    America. We have always been a country of immigrants, and these
    issues have always existed and been escalated to the State
    Department. But what these parents, and what I failed to
    appreciate, is that it is not incompetence or ignorance that
    leads to the mishandling of abduction cases, but rather failure
    to enforce our policy.
        All the things that I was listening to today, the State
    Department does quiet diplomacy, they pass information, they
    gather information, they monitor the cases. But there is no
    advocacy. We need an advocate. We need an advocate. We need our
    State Department to advocate on our behalf. I mean, we do have
    to find our own attorneys, here and in the country of the
    abducting parent where they are taking our children, and we
    don't have an advocate unless we are our own advocate and we
    are our own voice, and then we have to find ways to hire
    attorneys, which most of the time we end up giving up because
    these cases drag on.
        Because there is almost a playbook that these abductors
    have, where they can figure out a way to keep having delays,
    delays, delays in the courtrooms, until finally they get a
    decision that they want. And they appeal every turn that looks
    like they might be losing, or they will just go run and hide,
    and then the judge will say, ``Yes, the child is here. Even
    though they were abducted, the child has been here for so long
    that they are settled. Sorry.'' And it is very, very sad, and
    it is continuing.
        Here is one from Secretary Clinton. This was to commemorate
    National Missing Children's Day in May 2011.

            ``We are committed to preventing child abduction and to
            helping the children and families caught up in these
            very complex situations. Our dedicated staff in the
            Office of Children's Issues work every day to support
            families and children at risk. We help parents access
            the tools available to prevent international
            abductions, such as our Passport Issuance Alert
            Program.''

        Well, Secretary Clinton deserves credit for addressing this
    issue, but unfortunately the tools her staff has to work with
    are woefully inadequate to bring the majority of these abducted
    children home. Yes, preventing abductions is critical, as Colin
    pointed out, but we cannot give up on these children once they
    have been taken out of the country. Parents don't have the
    resources to fight this battle in two countries on their own.
    They need real advocacy. They need real action. They need the
    commitment and the resolve to bring these children home, not
    platitudes and talk about how much we care.
        I would also like to share a quote from Bernard Aronson,
    former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs,
    from his December 2009 testimony before the Tom Lantos Human
    Rights Commission. Mr. Aronson stated that--and this is very
    key, and we touched on this, too--``a diplomatic request for
    which there are no consequences for refusal is just a
    sophisticated form of begging.''
        The success rate of using the Hague Convention for a left-
    behind parent is abysmally low, and the number of abducted
    children is increasing at an alarming rate. The main reason the
    Hague is not working is that there are no material consequences
    for abusing it, and the U.S. has to do more to change that.
        Publishing a list of non-compliant countries does not
    create much incentive for such countries to change their
    behavior, and essentially that is all we are doing. We send a
    list: Non-compliant, compliant, non-compliant, better, almost
    getting there. What is that? That is not going to make a
    country return our children if they don't want to.
        Now let us look at the cases of thousands of American
    children who have been wrongfully removed from the United
    States. Could the U.S. find ways to put pressure on these
    countries to honor their international obligations? Do we trade
    with these countries? Do the leaders of our Government
    understand the difference between a custody dispute and an
    abduction? Do they really want to make the Hague Convention an
    effective treaty to minimize international child abduction? If
    the answer is yes, the case of my son can serve as a blueprint
    for what can and should be done.
        Our newly appointed Secretary of State, John Kerry, is
    intimately familiar with international child abduction,
    specifically the case of Colin Bower's two children who remain
    in Egypt. As a U.S. Senator, Secretary Kerry authored a
    resolution admonishing the Egyptians for their abduction of
    Colin's children, Noor and Ramsay, and advocating for their
    immediate return. He also called on all governments to assist
    in the safe return of children abducted from or wrongfully
    retained outside of the country of their habitual residence.
        Once again, the intentions are good, but there is no action
    to see that these children are returned. We should stop talking
    and start acting. If we are sincere in our desire, as I believe
    you are, Mr. Chairman, as I know you are, and the rest of us
    here, if it is really, really, really that we sincerely desire
    to see our children brought home to their loving families where
    they belong, then let us do something about it.
        At his swearing-in ceremony in February, Secretary Kerry
    made the following remarks:

            ``We can protect children as we did in Africa. We can
            keep students learning even after an earthquake
            destroys their schools, as we did in Pakistan. We can
            help young girls pursue their dreams of education, as
            we did in Afghanistan and other places in the world.''

        Well, that is what the State Department can do, and should
    do. Certainly, American children are no less deserving of
    protection than children of Africa and other countries. Because
    the problem of IPCA is not being addressed in an effective
    manner, thousands of abducted American children and their
    parents are suffering daily. We can, and need, and should do
    better.
        At a Senate hearing on international child abduction, Vice
    President Biden, then Senator Biden, remarked:

            ``The act of taking a child in violation of a custodial
            order, whether across state lines or across
            international borders, is a heinous crime which is
            extremely heartwrenching, for the parent left behind
            and for the child affected.''

        These folks are still in office, and their positions have
    heightened. They should step up. We have now a Secretary of
    State, we now have a Vice President, and we know that they
    spoke about it. They know about these cases. Let us call them
    to action. Now is the time. Now is past the time. That was 15
    years ago, and the same holds true today. With the passage of
    time, the only difference between then and now is the names and
    faces of the grieving parents here today before us telling
    their stories. These cases are different, but all too similar
    in so many ways. We are failing these parents and their
    abducted children, again and again.
        If Congressman Smith hadn't traveled with me to Brazil, I
    wouldn't have been able to see my son after more than 4 years
    of being separated because of his abduction. These cases
    typically drag on for months, which soon turn into years, as
    the abductor creates the home field advantage with endless
    appeals and delay tactics in their home country's legal system.
    This is the norm, not the exception. These case are abduction
    cases, and laws have been broken. They are not custody cases.
        Right now, as I sit here, Sarah Edwards, a suffering mom
    whose child, Eli--her son, Eli, was kidnapped to Turkey. She
    sat next to all of us, actually, in 2011, pleading for her
    son's return. It was a black and white abduction case,
    absolutely unquestionable. If you put it in a legal class, 101
    Law, abduction, put her case up. Unquestionably that boy was
    abducted, should be returned. She lost her case. She is there
    in Turkey, right now, as we are here, looking to see her son,
    Eli.
        We failed her. We failed her.
        We are not asking for anything other than the rule of law,
    again, to be followed.
        Let us be clear what we left-behind parents and families
    are asking for. Some people mistakenly believe we are asking
    our Government to intervene in custody disputes. We are not.
    All we are asking is that, when our children are kidnapped to
    thwart a proper resolution of custody, the law governing their
    return to our country is upheld. We Americans proudly proclaim
    that we are a nation of law, not of men. But when it comes to
    the international law that deals with children abducted from
    the United States to other lands, a law embodied in the Hague
    Convention, which our country helped convince other nations
    over the world to adopt, there is no rule of law. And the
    broken lives and broken spirits of left-behind parents across
    American, whom we represent here today, stand as a living
    rebuke to that failure to enforce the rule of law.
        The issue is not whether Ambassador Jacobs and her
    colleagues are trying their best. I have no doubt they are. The
    issue is that, after more than two decades, more than 20 years
    of failure, Ambassador Jacobs and her colleagues still have no
    effective tools to accomplish their objective. They are like
    combat troops sent into battle with no weapons or ammunition.
    The plain fact is that nations who refuse to return America's
    children pay no price for defying the law, and unless we arm
    the State Department with the tools they need to do their job,
    and unless nations who break the law flagrantly and repeatedly
    suffer real consequences, nothing is going to change.
        Nothing is going to change, and we will have another
    hearing in another year or another 2 years, and there will be a
    new line of faces of parents who are just completely broken,
    and their kids remain abroad, abducted, psychologically
    tortured, emotionally battered, and we will be spinning our
    wheels. Hopefully, we will change.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goldman follows:]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Goldman. Thank you for
    being an inspiration, I think, to other left-behind parents
    that success can be had. But as you said, herculean efforts,
    even when applied--and Mr. Bowers certainly has had the
    Secretary of State in his corner solidly fighting aren't always
    enough.
        What we are trying to do with the legislation is to make a
    systemic change to empower the diplomats, the executive branch
    and anyone else concerned, who goes country to country, and say
    that this has meaning. You sanction what you care about. If you
    don't care about it enough to sanction it, that sends a very
    clear, unmistakable message to an offending country, especially
    when there is a lack of good will on the part of that country.
        So we are trying--and I know you know this, but I think the
    record needs to clearly state it--to make this a country-to-
    country fight, so you don't have David versus Goliath being
    replicated time and time again for Americans.
        And I do believe, I find it disheartening that the
    administration may not support this. I do hope that, if
    presented with the bill, President Obama will sign it. But it
    is value added at the very least. What is it that they would
    oppose? Being much more robust when we deal with non-Hague
    countries? Promoting MOUs so that we have a mechanism, as well
    as with Hague countries, to effectuate positive results?
        I mean, as you pointed out, Mr. Goldman, we have had years
    of ineffective results. Reasonable people will then say we need
    to go back to the drawing board and find some ways of fixing
    it. So I do think, and I do hope, I wish--I did mention it, but
    I will mention it even further now. There is a myth that
    parental abduction is somehow not as egregious as other kinds
    of behaviors. As the author of the trafficking law, and as
    horrific as that is, this is right there, side by side, because
    parental alienation is a horrible outcome for that child. And
    of course, it is cruelty to the left-behind parent as well.
        So I would hope that that myth would be shattered
    immediately, if it is harbored by the Ambassador or anyone
    else, about how bad parental abduction actually is. It is
    awful, and those who have suffered from it, as you have done so
    today, can speak volumes as to what----
        Mr. Goldman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I believe--or I
    know it is in our country--parental abduction within our
    borders is a crime punishable by law. As a matter of fact, most
    of the Amber Alert signs that you see are from one parent, a
    non-custodial parent in a divorce that takes the child.
        And I know most of these other countries that I have
    experience with, it is a crime punishable by jail time. So when
    you have domestic parental abduction, it becomes a crime in
    that country, for example Brazil, but when a parent who is a
    Brazilian national takes an American child over to Brazil, all
    of a sudden it is not a crime. And these parents also use the
    Hague Convention as a double-edged sword, because it is civil
    and the parent has nothing to lose. If they go to the court
    here, they have a chance of having to do a shared custody. If
    they go back to their country where they want to go--for
    example, I use Brazil, because that is the one I am most
    familiar with--the worst that they feel will happen is they
    will get sent back to have a custody hearing in the country
    where they abducted the child from.
        So they figure they have nothing to lose. ``Let me give it
    a shot. I will break this guy. I will break him financially, I
    will break him mentally, I will break him emotionally. I will
    create a home court advantage, and go on and on and on,'' and
    the worst that will ever happen is they return the child, they
    return our son, our child, and she will have to come back, or
    he will have to come back, whoever the abductor may be, and go
    through a regular custody hearing.
        So there is no deterrent. There is no deterrent.
        Mr. Smith. You know, an important point, and anything you
    would like to add. Mr. Meadows did want to come back and ask a
    question or two, if he can get here. He is doing a radio
    interview.
        In your testimonies, because you have lived this, you have
    answered most of the questions. And you gave all of us on this
    committee and other Members of Congress the case histories, if
    you will, of why we have to do more and why we have to do it
    immediately.
        But Ms. Philips mentioned a very important point, which all
    of you have done, and she says, ``I know that Sunil Jacob feels
    empowered by the passage of time.'' I think the sense of
    urgency, if we don't have it now, we will never have it. So all
    the more reason why we have got to do more in this Congress,
    this session, within months if not weeks, to get this
    legislation passed.
        So you have given us a lot of ideas. I think the GAO
    report, all those other ideas, Mr. Bower, that you conveyed to
    the committee, we will take every one of them up, look at it,
    see if we can do something with it. I just would yield to Mr.
    Meadows, and then anything you want to say in closing.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank each one
    of you for your testimony and highlighting this issue, and I do
    believe that we have got to remain vigilant, but that we don't
    continue, Mr. Goldman, just to have hearing after hearing after
    hearing. Hearings with actions make sense. Hearings with
    inaction are really a waste of time. And so my commitment to
    the family members here is, we want to find real solutions and
    a real bipartisan way to come up with legislation that gives
    tools, and actually gives them some incentives.
        And so with that, I would like to go to Ms. Apy. If you
    could share, because I know as we were talking earlier and in
    some of the testimony, it sounds like you have got a number of
    years of experience here. And so if you were the Ambassador at
    the State Department, what are some of the things that you
    would like to see that would help out in this situation?
        Ms. Apy. Well, that is a luxurious question, actually.
    First of all, I believe that using the tool of a memorandum of
    understanding, and using diplomatic means to begin to craft
    agreements, both for Hague countries that are having
    difficulties in compliance and reciprocity, as well as non-
    Hague countries, would be number one on my list. I know there
    was reference in the Ambassador's testimony about what she
    characterized as unsuccessful MOUs involving Egypt, Jordan and
    Lebanon, and there is some question about whether or not there
    is actually an MOU involving Egypt. There are some access
    agreements.
        But the real issue is that when we have agreements, even
    like in the British agreement with Pakistan, you have a
    situation in which judges that are making decisions know that
    this agreement exists. Parents who are making agreements know
    that this exists. So there is an opportunity to have their
    behavior, the decisions that the court makes, reference this
    agreement. It changes the legal culture. It provides an interim
    step.
        Being able to not only have those agreements, but then be
    able to say, ``We are serious about this, and if we are not
    able to do this by agreement, we are going to have to tell our
    judges,'' American judges, for example, ``that a reciprocal
    agreement does not exist right now. That despite the fact that
    we have entered into the treaty, they cannot rely upon that
    reciprocal relationship until the following things have been
    dealt with.'' That would be one of the first things.
        As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, and I think is
    crucial, the partnership between the Congress of the United
    States, the decisions that you make, and this issue. By knowing
    who in your district has a pending case, and having a non-
    defensive response from the Department of State with respect to
    those issues. You should know 15 minutes after they get the
    application that there is a pending case in your district, what
    country is involved, and what the issues are. If law
    enforcement is involved, you should get a list so that you
    know, when you are hearing testimony about dangers in these
    places, about other aspects--that, I think is something that
    lawyers, for example, can't address in the same way that you
    would be able to.
        Additionally, there has been discussion about having
    judicial training and having other means, which go on in any
    event, and they should continue. But being able to represent
    that, on behalf of the United States of America, there are
    positions that need to be taken with regard to these issues,
    and having the Ambassador who is serving in that capacity go to
    Pakistan, or the United Arab Emirates, or Japan, or other
    places in Asia--and we haven't even talked about the number of
    cases there right now, and the number of the countries
    implicated--and be able to sit down and negotiate, identify the
    issues, fine tune those issues for that legal system.
        The other thing is, when our SOFA agreements are being
    negotiated, our Status of Forces Agreements involving American
    servicemembers, if we are putting them in a country we have to
    ask the question as to what protections will be available for
    them. If it is a country that is non-compliant with the treaty,
    or if it is a country that will not provide them remedies with
    respect to child custody disputes, if we are negotiating a SOFA
    agreement we have to sit at the table and say that. And that is
    not being said.
        So again, I could warble on. But those are the things that,
    if I were to identify the things that are the most important,
    that would be what I think is the next level of what we are
    talking about.
        Mr. Meadows. And probably what I would ask of you, if you
    could get to the committee, is really how we address the
    notification process without violating privacy. Because any
    time that we look at this, we have got to look at it in the
    hands of not only those that are well intended, but those that
    perhaps are not. And so I want to be sensitive to the privacy
    side of that, but yet at the same time, if you can come up and
    provide some thoughts on that, since you have experienced that
    on a regular basis, that would be great.
        Ms. Apy. And simply enough, for the purposes of your
    decisionmaking, for example, the information could be provided
    without indicating names and simply giving you the heads-up
    that we have a pending case that has been filed. Because it has
    been filed with the government.
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Ms. Apy. ``We have a pending case of an abduction of a
    child from your district out to Country X,'' giving the parent
    the opportunity to expand on that information.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, what about some piece of legislation----
        Mr. Smith. Will my friend yield on that?
        Mr. Meadows. Yes, I would be glad to.
        Mr. Smith. In the appropriations cycle in the last
    Congress, we actually put some language together and got it
    passed in the House. It basically said that the Office of
    Children's Issues will notify a Member of Congress of an
    abduction case, but they would pre-clear it with the family
    member, thereby meeting the obligations of privacy.
        It was not accepted by the Senate, watered down to
    nothingness. But why can't it just be done by OIC on its own? I
    mean, you don't need an authorization by Congress to ask the
    parent, ``Would you mind if we told so-and-so?'' Because that
    parent will then have an advocate who will, when he or she
    travels, when he or she meets with delegations, especially on
    our committee, will say, ``I have someone here in my district,
    and I want to raise that case.'' And then he or she becomes an
    advocate for them.
        Ms. Apy. Well, may I just say, even beyond the advocacy
    piece, which may be within the purview of a parent, the other
    piece is, you are in possession of information and
    decisionmaking that you should know, as you are listening to
    that information and making those deliberations, what the
    status of those issues are involving your district. Without the
    names of the individuals. You wouldn't have to have that.
        Mr. Smith. Right.
        Ms. Apy. The other issue is, the current reporting
    requirements in the existing legislation provide that you are
    to be reported to by the Office of Children's Issues and
    provided an accurate reflection of cases that are in existence.
    And, of course, we have country reports. There have been some
    changes in the way that information has been recently submitted
    to you.
        I need to tell you that the use of that information in the
    practice of family law is extraordinarily important. The judges
    hearing these cases now, requests for access and other
    deliberations, rely upon it. The fact that it is not being
    provided now is--I just don't understand. But parents who don't
    have the ability or the resources to hire international experts
    to testify to judges rely on the information that is provided
    to you to educate judges. We heard about educating judges. That
    is how they know. They look at the information provided to you
    in compliance with the existing statute.
        That information, I understand now, we are not having the
    number of cases in the same way, we are not having--that
    information is crucial to American judges to assess risk of
    removal and to, frankly, be able to apply the law, both the
    substantive law of the state as well as, obviously, the Federal
    law, from both a criminal perspective and, certainly, the Hague
    Abduction Convention. Without that information, it is very
    difficult for a judge to be a country expert on every single
    country.
        And they rely upon that communication, so I would strongly
    urge that, again, in the legislation that is being
    contemplated, and any other deliberations that you will make,
    keep in mind that the information that you receive gets
    disseminated to our judges around the country, across the
    jurisdictions, and it is extraordinarily important for them to
    be able to access it.
        Mr. Meadows. So if we had a congressional liaison that
    would work with these type of cases, to work with some of our
    other colleagues, to inform them and keep this in the
    forefront, is that something that would be useful?
        Ms. Apy. I think it would be extraordinarily useful. I
    think, to the extent that it provides a conduit of information
    by the body that is most familiar, if it is possible to say,
    with how these individual problems can be worked. For example,
    we have been talking about the role of the Justice Department
    in the prosecution issues. Well, that is DOJ, and that is a
    whole--that is an area, though, that having a congressional
    liaison could be able to act in the capacity where it isn't
    always within the bailiwick of the Department of State, very
    frankly.
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Ms. Apy. And sometimes that disconnect can mean months or
    years of waiting on the part of parents. Again, having a
    private lawyer make numerous phone calls a day is not a
    practicable answer for many, many people.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, and it is costly. I mean, as you know,
    every phone call that you make--my time is a lot cheaper, I can
    tell you. And so in doing that, we want to be an advocate and
    find a way to do that. But I thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Goldman, you seemed to agree with what she was saying.
    Would that be fair to say?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. It is almost like we did have the
    introduction of the Ambassador-at-Large. Anyone who is going to
    almost be an independent liaison or conduit can only help.
        And it is great that Ambassador Jacobs was appointed, but
    she was appointed almost a day before we had another hearing,
    after we already introduced legislation for an Ambassador-at-
    Large, almost as another reason--remember, I am not a
    politician. I am just a guy who sees what is going on and says
    it like I see it. Almost as if to say, ``We don't need the
    legislation with the Ambassador-at-Large now, because we have
    this new position.'' And you can see, as history is repeating
    itself, it is failing. So absolutely. Thank you.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, and I will close with this for our
    three witnesses. As you see areas that, even though none of you
    to my knowledge, are in my district, if you see areas that
    would be meaningful, please feel free to call our office and
    call on us for suggestions that you might have. And with that,
    I would yield back to the chairman. I thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Meadows, thank you so very much for your
    questions and for your keen interest.
        Just a quick question to Ms. Philips, if I could. Will
    Sunil Jacob be prosecuted in New Jersey for parental
    kidnapping? Why or why not? And you mentioned in your testimony
    the pre-planning that Sunil Jacob put into the abduction, and
    that the Plainsboro Police investigation showed the involvement
    of three of his friends in the abduction. Has there been any
    legal sanction against the friends for their participation in
    the abduction?
        Ms. Philips. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Yes, the Plainsboro
    Police did have two arrest warrants on Sunil Jacob. One is for
    parental kidnapping, and the other is for interference with
    custody. We have Sergeant Blanchard from the Plainsboro Police
    Station here today.
        And also, they did take actions on one of the friends who
    was in New Jersey. So he was arrested. And what happened later
    is the prosecutor, they had their case open since 2010, and
    there was a Federal arrest warrant on him for unlawful flight
    against prosecution. When the FBI wanted to execute the
    prosecution, they requested the U.S. Attorney's office which
    held the case for about 1\1/2\ years, and then gave the
    decision over to the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office. And
    the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, in February 2013,
    they administratively dismissed the case after keeping it open
    for more than 3 years. And so the Plainsboro Police are going
    to work to file for interference of custody again.
        Mr. Smith. Ms. Apy, what do you think of that? Dismissing
    the case?
        Ms. Apy. It is certainly not limited to New Jersey. It is a
    common problem. And again, part of it is that this is not the
    standard case. It is not the standard type of prosecution. Some
    of our U.S. Attorney's offices are brilliant at it. The U.S.
    Attorney's office in Chicago, for example, has prosecuted a
    number of cases. Once a prosecutor knows how to do it and an
    FBI agency gets used to doing it, you find that you have that
    kind of follow-up. It is like anything else. If it is a job we
    are not used to doing, we kind of--we are not as facile at it.
        One of the concerns is the interjurisdictional fight that
    goes on. The United States Attorney, of course, when evaluating
    these cases, as well as the state courts, look at the expense
    involved. I mean, when you are putting together a case to
    beyond a reasonable doubt, you are talking about having to get
    somebody in India, or the witnesses involved. You know, there
    is that push-back. And there is the context that ``Well, this
    is just a parent. The child is not really in danger.''
        It is consistent and across the board, even in the Dahm
    case that I mentioned in my testimony. Here is a situation
    where orders against leaving, the U.S. Attorney indicts, but
    then they basically do nothing on the case and we have to ask
    them to have another meeting, the FBI doesn't show. When people
    come in from out of state--I mean, it is appalling. And
    ultimately, I think it is a reflection of the systemic story
    that you are hearing, and that is a lack of understanding that,
    not only is it an academic rule of law issue, it is a crime.
        And from the standpoint of deterrence and all the things
    that you all would talk about if we were talking about drug
    trafficking or sex trafficking or other issues----
        Mr. Smith. Child abuse.
        Ms. Apy. Absolutely. Deterrence is one of the primary
    issues. You know, if we are not going to take it seriously--and
    countries know what that looks like when we take things
    seriously--and U.S. Attorneys know that their careers are not
    going to be advanced on a case that is tough if it is not at
    the priority of those watching, then you have to be constantly
    on it, and you have to constantly be asking them what to do
    next.
        Frankly, the latest movement in the Dahm case came because
    I indicated that I was going to be testifying about the case to
    this body, because I am at a loss as to what we can do to
    encourage and inspire the Department of Justice to be active
    and supportive to the victims of these crimes. And by the way,
    a footnote on this. To get the case queued up before the U.S.
    Attorney, it has got to be a good case. They would have dumped
    it. It gets dumped quickly otherwise. If it has been brought
    before--and I champion the U.S. Attorney in Miami for issuing
    the indictments they did. No small feat.
        But there is a huge reluctance across the board. Getting
    them to do it and keeping on it is extraordinarily important.
    And again, your interest for future hearings, or in your
    deliberations, or in dealing with congressional liaison
    contexts, would be to partner with DOJ and make sure that there
    is a seamless application of these issues.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you
        Ms. Philips. Can I add something?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, please.
        Ms. Philips. Also, the FBI was involved when I sent a
    letter to the President, Barack Obama, in 2009. So they are
    willing to go ahead and extradite my children, but they are
    waiting for the approval from the U.S. Attorney's office. And
    when the prosecutor administratively dismissed my case, like
    Mr. Ramisar and Mr. Preston Findlay from the National Center
    for Missing and Exploited Children, they spoke to the right
    people in the prosecutor's office and gave them the right
    information, and told them why this case has to be open. But
    they didn't reopen the case.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. Anything else before we close?
        Yes, Mr. Bower?
        Mr. Bower. I just had one point I wanted to call out a
    little bit more, and it is the issue of financial burden. I
    think a lot of times we are talking about the politics here,
    and we are talking about legislation here. And a lot of times,
    I know myself, for instance, I have been told I need to retain
    local counsel. And after fighting a fight for 3\1/2\ years on
    multiple fronts I will tell you that local counsel, even in
    Egypt, doesn't come cheap. And particularly not if you are
    going to get the right kind of local counsel that can stand up
    to the various forces in a country like that.
        And I didn't know whether or not there were mechanisms for
    USAID or through their funding of certain NGOs locally that
    might be considered or put in place that would allow that
    financial burden for families like ours to be eased a little
    bit. And I just heard reference to it, and I don't think that
    we had really talked about it. I know I hadn't before, but I
    think it is an important issue, and I just wanted to bring it
    up to you before we close, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bower.
        Mr. Goldman. And a couple more things. I am sure we can
    keep going and going, because there are always more issues. One
    thing Ambassador Jacobs said is that she considered sanctions
    as extortion, and I liked how Mr. Meadows put it, maybe not
    sanctions, but incentives. I mean, if it has to be a play on
    words to get something going, you return our children and here
    is an incentive for returning our children. Maybe that is how
    we can get it in somehow in a positive way.
        And the other thing that is also disturbing is, she was
    appointed as somebody to monitor and work with these cases
    solely as her position, and doesn't see international child
    abductions as a heinous crime. Doesn't even put them on the
    same playing field as human trafficking and those other things
    that we have laws about. And I think that is quite alarming,
    too.
        I just wanted to make that point. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. I appreciate that. Thank you. And I would agree.
    That is why I spoke of the myth that somehow child abduction by
    a parent means ``that child is now in safe hands.'' It is a
    terrible myth, and the science that even led to the Hague
    Convention itself, the psychological data about what parental
    alienation does and the consequences for that child, it just
    shatters that myth. So you know, the act of abducting puts is
    just like child abuse. You wouldn't say, ``Well, at least the
    child is in good hands, even though he or she is getting beaten
    every day by a child abuser.'' And this is a pernicious form of
    child abuse.
        Mr. Goldman. Absolutely.
        Mr. Smith. So I do thank all of you for your testimonies.
    It will be very helpful as we move to markup on the
    legislation, which I suspect will be opposed at least at some
    level, by the administration, as was every other human rights
    bill I have ever seen go through this body. I exaggerate a
    little, but that has been true for the ones I have worked on.
    But we will persist, and it will be bipartisan, I can assure
    you, because there is good buy-in from both sides of the aisle
    on the need to do this now.
        So I thank you, and the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

         Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.

                   \\ts\

                  \t
                          \

          \\aws \