    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           NO ABDUCTED CHILD LEFT BEHIND: AN UPDATE ON THE GOLDMAN ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    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 FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 11, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-121

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    29-692PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             DINA TITUS, Nevada
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York              NORMA J. TORRES, California
    DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York     BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
        Wisconsin                        ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 TED LIEU, California
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah

         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
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         KAREN BASS, California
    DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York     AMI BERA, California
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
        Wisconsin                        THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
    THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Ms. Suzanne Lawrence, Special Advisor for Children's Issues,
      Office of Children's Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S.
      Department of State............................................     5
    Ms. Patricia Apy, international and interstate family law
      attorney, Paras, Apy, and Reiss................................    31
    Mr. James Cook, father of four children abducted in Japan........    42

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Ms. Suzanne Lawrence: Prepared statement.........................     8
    Ms. Patricia Apy: Prepared statement.............................    37
    Mr. James Cook: Prepared statement...............................    45

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    66
    Hearing minutes..................................................    67
    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:
      ``The Case for Reciprocity,'' by Patricia Apy..................    68
      Dr. Samina Rahman submission for the record....................    76
    Written responses from Ms. Suzanne Lawrence to questions
      submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith.    84

          NO ABDUCTED CHILD LEFT BEHIND: AN UPDATE ON THE GOLDMAN ACT

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018

                           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 2:00 p.m., in
    room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
    Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Smith. The hearing will come to order, and good
    afternoon to everybody. Thank you for being here.
        I would just like to make one introduction. Sue Kiley,
    who's the mayor, now deputy mayor of Hazlet, and her husband,
    three decades on the police force as well as number two there,
    is also with us today.
        I want to thank them for joining us and would like to thank
    all of you for being at this hearing, which is one of a large
    number of hearings we have held on child abduction and pretty
    much a series on it.
        And, of course, we will be focusing on this afternoon a
    continuing and excruciatingly painful crisis of international
    parental-child abduction and what the Trump administration can
    and must do to stop it.
        As many of you here today have experienced, international
    parental-child abduction rips children from their homes and
    whisks them away to a foreign land, alienating them from the
    love and care of a parent and the family that has been left
    behind.
        Child abduction is child abuse and continues to plague
    families across the United states and, really, around the
    world.
        According to the U.S. Department of State and their
    statistics, almost 800 children are today held hostage in a
    foreign country, separated from their American parent.
        Several hundred additional children join their ranks each
    and every year. If past is prologue, only 16 percent of these
    children will be returned to the United States.
        In 2014, Congress adopted legislation that I wrote known as
    the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction
    Prevention and Return Act, Public Law 113150, to change the
    status quo.
        Its template was the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and
    the International Religious Freedom Act, and on the former I
    was the author of that.
        Frank Wolf authored the International Religious Freedom Act
    and what we did was come up with ways of holding countries to
    account, and then prescribing a series of increasingly strong,
    or stronger, sanctions to try to change the behavior of
    offending countries.
        Since 2014, we have seen the reduction in new abductions of
    children but not an increase in percentage of returns of
    ongoing cases. Despite the new legislation, the State
    Department has persistently refused to use the return tools
    contained in the Goldman Act as envisioned by Congress.
        Moving beyond letters and meetings, the Goldman Act is an
    enforcement tool for the Hague Convention on the civil aspects
    of international child abduction and leverage for return
    agreements with non-Hague countries.
        The Goldman Act takes the lessons again from not only other
    legislation but from the successful return of Sean Goldman from
    Brazil and lays out actions like delaying or canceling of one
    or more bilateral working meetings or state visits, the
    withdrawal limitation or suspension of U.S. development,
    security, or economic support assistance and extradition.
        To my knowledge, extradition has been used only once and
    the other options not at all. The Obama administration said in
    the past that sanctions will not work.
        But in one case where sanctions were employed by Congress,
    they worked, and they've certainly worked in other programs
    both domestically and internationally and, frankly, all of our
    civil rights laws have enforcement that includes significant
    sanctions and that has worked as well.
        The inaction by the Obama administration has been noted and
    challenged. On February 14, 2017, 1 month into the new Trump
    administration's tenure, Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs,
    Kishida, noted in the Diet discussion of abduction that, and I
    quote him, ``Until now, there is not a single example in which
    the U.S. applied the Goldman Act sanctions toward foreign
    countries.''
        He went on to note that, ``According to the United States,
    Japan is not included in the category of the noncompliant
    countries.'' In other words, no fear. Hasn't been used, will
    not be used, and Japan is off the list.
        Three days later, the Osaka High Court overturned a return
    order for the four American children of James Cook, who will be
    testifying today, in flagrant violation of the Hague
    Convention, Japan's own Hague implementation guide, and U.S.
    law.
        The court has reopened the case because Mr. Cook has moved
    into an apartment after the enormous legal bills from years in
    court in Japan.
        When did sharing a bedroom with a sibling--and this is
    something that has become part of his concerns--become a grave
    risk to a child's physical or psychological wellbeing? It's
    not, and yet that now is being thrown in his face.
        I believe and I urge the new administration to do more on
    behalf of these parents and especially on behalf of these
    children.
        At least 300 to 400 children have suffered abduction from
    the United States to Japan since 1994 and more than 35
    currently wait reunification with their American parent. Most
    of these are left over from the previous administrations.
        In almost all cases, the child is completely cut off from
    contact with the left-behind parent. Most have aged out of the
    system without ever being reunited with their left-behind
    parent and, of course, then that's a closed case.
        Some parents have won in court only to find that Japan's
    law enforcement could not return their children unless the
    taking parent agreed to abide by the decision and the taking
    parent did not.
        That is underscored in James Cook's testimony today, if I
    can find it. It certainly will make the point and it's worth
    repeating what he will be telling us shortly.
        Numerous enforcement attempts have been made in Japan using
    all legal means of enforcement--talking about his own case--
    starting in February 2016 through September 2016. All attempts
    were unsuccessful.
        At the heart of Japan's enforcement articles for Hague is
    required voluntary compliance from abductor for enforcement.
    When abductors says no, the enforcement ends. In contrast, if
    we were to go to see our children in Japan without permission,
    I risk arrest and being held for 23 days in jail before any
    changes need to be filed, after which I could be denied entry
    into Japan in the future.
        This is just one example he points out of systemic
    deterrents against left-behind parents attempting to have a
    relationship with their abducted children or effectuate foreign
    court ordered returns.
        So enforcement, even when the courts do the right thing,
    enforcement stands out like the sword of Damocles that says
    there is no way you're getting your child to come back.
        The systemic non-enforcement of access and return orders is
    so bad in Japan that 26 EU countries recently issued a joint
    demarche to Japan asking Japan to fix the problem.
        Although non-enforcement has plagued many U.S. cases, the
    U.S. did not join in that demarche. However, in the upcoming
    Goldman report, the U.S. has the chance, the opportunity, to
    hold Japan accountable for its failures in the Cook case as
    well as so many others, like that of the Elias children taken
    from my home state of New Jersey after their mother obtained
    duplicate passports from the Japanese consulate in
    contravention of a judge's order in New Jersey.
        The report can and must better reflect the reality of the
    child abduction issue and the suffering of American children
    separating from their American parent every day in Japan.
        According to the Goldman Act, the country can find itself
    on the noncompliance list and eligible for sanctions if the
    country regularly fails to enforce return orders in Japan.
        The State Department should also put the country on the
    list if the judiciary fails to properly apply the Hague
    Convention, as we have seen in the Cook case in the past.
        Finally, a country should be put on the noncompliance list
    if 30 percent of more of the cases in the country are
    unresolved or cases that have been pending for more than a
    year.
        Notably, the definition of an unresolved case makes no
    mention of a country's Hague status. In other words, all of the
    cases that began before Japan's ascension to the Hague
    Convention and that were communicated to the Japanese
    Government should be counted against Japan.
        No child should be left behind. We received assurances from
    the State Department years ago as they myopically pursued
    Japan's ascension to the Hague Convention, knowing that the
    convention would not cover the existing cases grand fathered
    out of more than 50 children that they would not leave these
    children behind--that they would find ways to resolve those
    cases.
        How many of these children have come home 4 years later?
    How many have even had access to their left-behind parent.
    Almost zero.
        The Goldman Act directed the State Department to develop an
    agreement with Japan for the previous children that were
    already abducted. The Goldman Act made a way for the State
    Department to hold Japan accountable for these cases.
        Four years later, we have no agreement, no MOUs with Japan
    for these cases. We have no action against Japan for these
    cases or current cases and we have yet to see the department
    even list Japan as noncompliant in the annual report.
        Every day these children are separated from their U.S.
    parent the damage compounds. It's bad in the beginning. It gets
    worse, gets worse, then gets even worse.
        As the State Department's own 2010 report on compliance
    with the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of intentional
    child abduction observes,

              ``[A]bducted children are at risk of serious
            emotional and psychological problems. Research shows
            that recovered children often experience a range of
            problems including anxiety, nightmares, mood swings,
            sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment,
            guilt, and fearfulness.
              ``As adults, individuals who have been abducted as
            children struggle with identity issues, personal
            relationships, and experience problems in parenting
            their own children.''

        We must do better by our children. We must not leave any
    abducted child behind. Congress is currently looking at new
    ways to put pressure on countries with low resolution rates,
    like Japan, Brazil, and India.
        Last year, I introduced H.R. 3512, the Bindu Philips and
    Devon Davenport International Child Abduction Return Act of
    2017, to amend the generalized system of preferences system so
    that any country named as noncompliant would use their trade
    benefits.
        The loss of trade preference would be automatic and not
    dependent of the administration choosing to apply sanctions.
    Currently 11 of the 13 noncompliant countries receive trade
    benefits from the United States. That has got to change.
        In addition, I am working on a bill that would limit H-1B
    and other business visas for countries that have low abduction
    resolution rates and, again, that would affect Japan, Brazil,
    and India, among others.
        We have 13 egregious long-term cases pending in Brazil
    including Dr. Brann and Davenport cases. More than 90 American
    children were separated from their American parent in India.
    India will not even appoint a person to receive the
    applications and they have refused to join the Hague
    Convention.
        We asked in our hearing last year when is enough enough. We
    hope that the State Department will do its job and implement
    the Goldman Act robustly.
        We hope the Trump administration will be different than the
    last administration. But we are--so I do--would like to yield.
        We are joined by Dr. Harris of Maryland and I thank you for
    being here. I'd like to now introduce our first witness. We
    have two panels today, beginning first with Ms. Suzanne
    Lawrence, who is the new Special Advisor for Children's Issues,
    having assumed the role late last year.
        Ms. Lawrence has previously served as the Deputy Chief of
    Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece, and as a Senior
    Advisor for the Assistant Secretary in the U.S. Department of
    State's Bureau of Consular Affairs.
        Her career at U.S. Foreign Service has given her a wide
    breadth of experience to apply to child abduction cases and we
    are very grateful that she's here and look forward to her
    tenure in office, and without objection her full resume will be
    made a part of the record.
        Ms. Lawrence, the floor is yours.

        STATEMENT OF MS. SUZANNE LAWRENCE, SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR
       CHILDREN'S ISSUES, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S ISSUES, BUREAU OF
               CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith, other members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for the opportunity to speak about the work we do to
    prevent and resolve international parental-child abduction. My
    written statement, which I ask to be entered into the
    congressional record, provides----
        Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
        Ms. Lawrence [continuing]. Comprehensive review of our
    accomplishments and challenges. I will highlight the most
    critical of these in my opening statement. Allow me first to
    take a moment to thank Ms. Patricia Apy and Mr. James Cook for
    their commitment to our shared objectives.
        I also want to acknowledge the parents who are here today
    and who work to resolve their cases with my colleagues in the
    Office of Children's Issues.
        I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them in the past
    7 months. My colleagues and I are encouraged by the continued
    interest and support from the American public and from
    Congress. As we advocate on behalf of the children and parents
    affected by the heartbreak of abductions, congressional
    involvement and oversight are unique tools we can use in our
    diplomacy.
        The 1980 Hague Abduction Convention remains one of the best
    methods for resolving abduction cases. Over the past 10 years,
    more than 4,500 children have returned to the United States.
        Further, the existence of the convention's return mechanism
    has deterred an untold number of abductions, and we are
    heartened to see the number of new abductions reported to the
    Department of State has declined by more than 60 percent over
    the past 10 years.
        Allow me to mention three examples of the effectiveness of
    the convention. From 2014 through 2016, 95 percent of abduction
    cases to the United Kingdom, one of our biggest partners in
    terms of cases, closed in less than 1 year.
        In Mexico, our largest convention partner, more than 73
    percent of abduction cases were closed within 1 year, and more
    than 340 children returned to the United States from 2014
    through 2016.
        And in Japan, there has been a 46 percent decrease in
    reported abductions since 2014. There is additional detail on
    the convention's successes in my written statement, and these
    outcomes underscore our goal to encourage all countries to join
    and properly implement the convention.
        The Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction
    Prevention and Return Act has supported our efforts to promote
    accession to, and implementation of, the convention.
        For example, since 2014, seven countries that previously
    did not adhere to any established protocols to resolve
    abduction cases have acceded to the convention, and we are in
    the process of moving toward partnership with some of these
    countries.
        We have also welcomed five other countries into our
    community of convention partners, which now include 77 members
    committed to the shared purpose of resolving child abduction.
        In countries where the convention has not been embraced, we
    turn to other tools. Non-convention cases are extremely
    complex, and we work with left-behind parents, interagency
    partners, and foreign counterparts to resolve those cases.
        Since my arrival in September of last year as the Special
    Advisor for Children's Issues, I have traveled the Hague, to
    India, to Japan, and to South Korea to personally engage in
    elicit cooperation.
        In India, I urged the government find a resolution for the
    many abducted children located there and for India to join the
    convention.
        In Japan, I raised our concerns about the enforcement of
    convention court orders and also urged the Government of Japan
    to find a resolution for the children involved in pre-
    convention cases.
        In South Korea, I addressed potential areas of improvement
    in their handling of convention cases and explored
    opportunities to strengthen multilateral efforts to advance the
    convention in that region, and at the Hague, I worked with the
    Hague Permanent Bureau and representatives from dozens of
    member countries to improve implementation of the convention
    around the globe.
        The act has also bolstered our ability to manage a robust
    prevention program which continues to be a key priority.
        In 2017, we enrolled over 4,000 children in the Passport
    Alert program, which is a 13 percent increase from the previous
    year, and thanks to the act, the department continues to meet
    biannually with the Interagency Working Group, which has had a
    daily direct impact on preventing abductions and has improve
    the U.S. Government's response to combating abduction.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, please be assured that the act
    has significantly reinforced our work to address international
    parental/child abduction around the world.
        We constantly strive to increase our effectiveness and
    always look for ways to collaborate with our partners,
    including you, Members of Congress, who have committed so much
    time and energy to addressing this very important and urgent
    issue.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lawrence follows:]
      [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. I thank you so very much.
        If I could, Ms. Lawrence, if you could tell us--you said
    you raised with India and Japan, other countries. What was
    India's response when you raised it? When you spoke in Japan
    not only about Hague cases since they have become--acceded to
    it but all the pre-Hague cases, the legacy cases, what was
    their response? What did they say they were going to do and did
    you do it by name? Did you raise specific cases?
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
    I'll start with India. So I was in India in February, and I met
    with a number of staffers before I went to India to discuss
    some of the issues that we have had.
        When I was there, I was joined, of course, by the team at
    our mission there, and I know that that has been a concern
    previously to have our chiefs of mission, our Ambassadors
    engaged, and I can assure you that Ambassador Juster has taken
    this onboard from the time he arrived to take up his
    responsibilities there through today, and he will continue to
    advocate on behalf of the families that are, tragically,
    affected by this issue.
        He had meetings with Minister Gandhi, who is the head of
    India's Ministry for Women and Child Development, and when I
    traveled to India it was, hopefully, to build on some of the
    momentum that we felt the Indian Government was showing with
    regards to accession to the convention and also with the
    willingness to work with us on those pre-convention or the
    current cases.
        I met with a range of individuals. I was in Chennai. I was
    in Delhi. I spoke with the attorney general for India. I spoke
    with members of the judiciary. I spoke with Minister Gandhi at
    the Ambassador's residence.
        I spoke with opponents to the convention, proponents of the
    convention. It is an issue that we will not stop advocating
    for.
        We have engaged with--as you know, the Chandigarh Committee
    was the committee that the Indian Government put together to
    investigate a recommendation that they would make to the Indian
    Government about accession to the convention.
        We have spent several hours answering questions with the
    Chandigarh Committee. I spent another hour-plus with the
    Chandigarh Committee via digital video conference, again
    addressing some of the myths that persist about the types of
    cases we are talking about and also about what the convention
    actually means.
        So we did have a range of meetings. We had them at the
    highest levels of the government. Ambassador Juster has raised
    this at the highest levels of the government, and we are told
    that they are still considering accession to the convention.
        With respect to the cases that we have now, we have offered
    to the Indian Government to sit down and meet on all of those
    cases individually and, again, in my conversations I have
    emphasized that if we sat down and looked through all of those
    cases, that in and of itself would inform them of the scope of
    the problem and perhaps open up some areas where they could
    work productively to resolve some of these cases.
        Without the convention or any other protocols in place for
    these cases, the parents are left to pursue their custody of
    abducted children in the Indian courts and typically the
    resolution of custody cases in India has been slow.
        Indian courts generally do not order the return of abducted
    children to the United States, and in general, custody is given
    to the taking parent and the parents are left really to pursue
    their matter in the court system which has not been a very
    effective method.
        So that is the short answer of my time spent there. I
    believe you also asked about Japan. In my travels there, again,
    I will say that Ambassador Hagerty has also been very engaged
    in this issue.
        He has raised this issue at the highest levels appropriate
    to him in the Japanese Government. I have myself met--I've been
    in this position for a little over 7 months. I've had four
    occasions to meet with the head of the Central Authority in
    Japan.
        And while, as I did in my opening statement, I have
    acknowledged that the number of cases has gone down since Japan
    acceded to the convention and that we have a very productive
    working relationship with the Central Authority, there are
    still problems with enforcement of judicial orders.
        When you cannot enforce those orders, it undermines
    confidence in the system and it does not bode well for the
    future of the convention with respect to Japan.
        So I met with, again, the Central Authority there.
        I met with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to talk about
    the pre-convention cases. They are well aware of which cases
    those are.
        We meet regularly with them to review that they have the
    correct cases that we consider to be open pre-convention cases
    and, again, we are in some--to some degree stymied by the
    fact--and I know the parents who are affected by these pre-
    convention cases are reluctant, under the convention, to even
    file an access case because they also feel that in the instance
    where there might a judicial ruling that would give them some
    sort of access that the enforcement of that ruling also would
    be ineffective or not take place.
        So I have made those concerns known. The Ambassador has
    made those concerns known. We also met with the officials from
    the Indian Embassy and the Japanese Embassy here in Washington
    to deliver those same messages.
        Mr. Smith. What's your take on the Foreign Minister saying
    how did the department respond to his comments that they are
    not going to be put on the list of noncompliant countries,
    there has been no enforcement, no sanctions meted out as they
    should be?
        You know, when a country shows such a pattern of
    noncompliance, the decision to enforce it ought to be almost
    automatic.
        There can be mitigating circumstances. We all know that.
    But in Japan's case, they are gaming the system. And so your
    answer to that, and also Mr. Cook's comment about the required
    voluntary compliance from the abductor for enforcement to
    occur, when the abductor says no he will write and say
    enforcement ends.
        That seems to be--I have to say when the previous
    administration kept arguing that if they just signed the Hague
    our problems will go away and the legacy cases would take care
    of themselves.
        There would be a good will that would be generated and
    would lead to resolution and not resolution by way of aging out
    so it's no longer a case that we look at.
        I traveled with Mike Elias' mother and father to Japan,
    raised all of these issues and said, look, to me it seems like
    the nose on my face it's so stark, looking in the mirror.
        You can't get away from it that, one, the past cases will
    be treated with even more prejudice than before if they sign
    the Hague and that when they get to enforcement they are going
    to do it in a way that it's like Swiss cheese and it won't
    happen.
        All of that has happened. I am not a prophet, but it seemed
    very clear from the conversations and from their past very
    quickly becoming a prologue.
        So this idea of required voluntary compliance from the
    abductor for enforcement, to me, that's outrageous that a
    country, a great country like Japan, would use that kind of
    impediment.
        That makes all the Hague cases, you know, moot. It's going
    to be, you know, a voluntary--you know, yes, you can have the
    children back. So why do you even need the Hague except for a
    nice backdrop to say, look, we have got a treaty and a
    convention.
        So if you could speak to those two, and again, when you
    talk about Michael Elias, one of the concerns that many of us
    have had, and we have this with several of our left-behind
    parents, as you know, these are military men and women who are
    deployed to Japan for the defense of Japan in Okinawa, in
    Yokohama, and other places.
        And then their child was abducted and then they ran into
    this buzz saw of opposition from a government that if Japan
    isn't put on the noncompliant list this year, I can't tell you
    how egregious that will be not to see that happen, and then
    followed very quickly thereafter with serious sanctions.
        You know, if President Trump--because Obama wouldn't do it
    so let's lay that aside--and I found that to be outrageous--but
    if President Trump can levy sanctions on China and talks
    sanctions, NAFTA--renegotiating NAFTA on economic issues and if
    our aluminum industry and steel and other things are so
    important, which they are, how about for people, for American
    children who've been abducted.
        That, to me, is in a class of its own, a league of its own,
    and there needs to be--if ever there was an America first, this
    looks like this is one of them--it's the children. It's their
    parents.
        So I would appeal to you because it starts with what your
    findings will be and then, obviously, it goes up the chain of
    command as to what they finally do.
        But it seems to me it's a no-brainer. It's been a no-
    brainer. This year it's got to be.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We share your concerns, as I said, about Japan's failure to
    enforce convention court orders and in many of my meetings I
    don't only talk about the convention writ large or the issue of
    parental-child abduction.
        But I do take it to that personal level. As you have
    referred to, these are people, these are their lives, and
    people need to be reminded that for someone who has not seen
    their child in a day, a week, a month, years, this is a life or
    death matter.
        This is a very important life-altering event, and we owe it
    to all of these children, all of these families, to continue to
    press where we need to press.
        When a Japanese parent--taking parent refuses to comply
    with the return order, we have found that Japanese authorities
    have very limited means to enforce the order and we have worked
    to broaden the discussion to different parts of the Japanese
    Government.
        But it will require some changes in their domestic
    legislation to give law enforcement the kind of power you're
    talking about in terms of enforcement.
        And we have--we have raised our concerns about enforcement
    failures at the highest level. This year, the relevant entities
    across the Japanese Government have heard our call to take a
    whole-of-government approach, and they have brought others to
    the table, and we have had a chance to talk to those agencies
    about the needed legislation to improve their enforcement of
    court orders.
        With respect to citations, we can't, of course, discuss the
    individual country citation before we give the report to
    Congress and it's published.
        But I can assure you that we have had a number of
    conversations about how those decisions are made and
    enforcement of convention court orders is a component of the
    Hague Convention.
        Your compliance with the convention also depends on your
    enforcement of court orders, and the department will most
    certainly take into account Japan's enforcement failures in
    this year's ICAPRA report.
        Mr. Smith. Patricia Apy, who is the brilliant lawyer who
    was the lawyer for David Goldman--the American lawyer who just
    did a wonderful job in helping to make his reunification with
    this son, Sean, possible, she's testifying today and in her
    comments notes, and I'd appreciate your reaction to this, prior
    to the enactment of the treaty--this is regarding Japan--
    parents who had pending abduction matters were sent from time
    to time urgent time-sensitive updates, repeatedly promised that
    the Hague ratification would enable them to at least secure
    access to their children. The promises were entirely
    illusionary.
        Now, those memos came from OCI, and I am wondering, how do
    you respond to that? I mean, here's what the parents tell me,
    and I meet with so many of them.
        They get frustrated. They know that there are good people
    working--you and the others are wonderful people. But you do
    have the tools with the Goldman Act and it seems like those
    tools stay in the toolbox.
        We were just talking about access here, not even
    reunification and bringing those children back home.
        Your thoughts on that?
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We have already discussed a little bit about the pre-
    convention cases. But, again, we do continue to work with the
    parents who are--there are approximately 20 preconvention cases
    that remain active and we work with the left-behind parents to
    see which methods or avenues they might have available to them.
        As I said too in my written statement approximately half of
    those left-behind parents have achieved some access. It's
    limited. Sometimes it's a Skype call. Sometimes it's an
    exchange of letters and gifts.
        We know of one parent who has had an in-person visit. Going
    back to what we just spoke about, if you're a parent, that's
    your child, is that adequate?
        That is not adequate. However, we continue to press, again,
    on this enforcement issue because I think a lot of parents are
    put off by the idea that even if they pursued an access case
    under the convention, their sense is there may be no effective
    mechanism to enforce the court order for access.
        And so, again, what I am saying to you here about access,
    about these parents, about their disappointment, is what I have
    said to Japanese officials and we will continue to say that,
    and I appreciate your support in carrying that method forward.
        Mr. Smith. Well, again, putting Japan on the list and then
    enforcing it with sanctions will send the message that none of
    our words can possibly achieve.
        So that the Foreign Minister, so that the Prime Minister
    cannot, in their meetings, or even as he did before the Diet,
    claim accurately that there has been non-enforcement and they
    are not on any list.
        I can't stress that enough. It would be negligence of the
    highest degree to leave them off the list, given their track
    record, which is abominable.
        I mean, if this were reversed and the U.S. was doing this,
    I could tell you I'd be holding hearings on that and pressing
    our own Government to, in the sense of reciprocity and good
    governance, to hold ourselves to account.
        And what we do in not putting them on the list has bearing
    with what the judges will do when they get a case before them.
    They will say, well, I guess Japan's not so bad.
        And what's your sense on that? So it's not only is the risk
    factor to a potential abduction very high if the judges get the
    wrong information about a specific country, including Japan.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I've had a lot of opportunity to consider the efficacy of
    the report in and of itself as I travel around, as I meet with
    other countries, and it's a really powerful tool. The
    convention is a powerful tool. The report is a powerful tool.
        As far as I am aware, we are the only country that produces
    a report like that, and I know what you mean by sanctions, but
    I can say that in my meetings very often the foreign
    counterparts will bring the report up.
        And I agree with you that the citations in the report can
    have very positive effects in terms of the actions that a
    country will take.
        Sometimes it takes a while. But I do think that the report
    is an extraordinarily valuable tool and for some countries they
    believe they are being sanctioned by having their--the citation
    in the report.
        And, of course, beyond the citations there are narratives
    in there that really talk about performance and countries are
    very keen to see how that will be characterized in the report.
        So I do believe that we have some tools at our disposal
    that are very meaningful to these countries.
        Mr. Smith. Ms. Jayapal.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
    me here. Thank you for having this hearing and I want to thank
    you for your years of work on this important issue.
        I think we all understand that there are many of us that
    are deeply concerned and we are grateful to the State
    Department for your efforts over the years and I want to
    especially just recognize the families in the room that some of
    you have traveled.
        I know, as a mother, I cannot imagine the pain of what you
    have gone through and I want to thank you for continuing to be
    here and continuing to push for us to resolve these situations
    to bring children home to their--safely into their loving
    families.
        I was introduced to this issue--I am new to the issue but I
    was introduced to it by my constituent, Jeffrey Morehouse, who
    has been fighting for the return of his kidnapped son, Mochi,
    since Father's Day of 2010, and that was the last time that Mr.
    Morehouse saw or heard from his son.
        And despite having custody of his son under Washington
    State law since 2007, a mutual agreement with his ex-wife that
    she would not travel outside of the state or get a passport--an
    agreement that the United States is actually Mochi's home
    country--that was all outlined in this agreement--and the
    jurisdiction for any custodial dispute, Mochi was still
    abducted.
        And Mr. Morehouse even took the preemptive step of
    notifying all of the Japanese consulates and their Embassy in
    the U.S. in writing that he was the custodial parent and
    requested that they deny any requests for a passport for Mochi.
        However, in June 2010, as you may know, his ex-wife was
    provided a passport for their son by the Portland consulate so
    he went over our state's border into Oregon. He was provided a
    passport after being denied one by the Seattle consulate and in
    2014 and 2017 Mr. Morehouse then went and actually defended
    successfully his custodial rights in Japan where the courts
    ruled that his U.S. sole custody order is legal in Japan.
        His ex-wife has twice been denied custody rights under
    Japanese law and during proceedings she admitted to committing
    passport fraud and forgery in order to abduct Mochi to Japan.
        Mr. Morehouse is the executive director of Bring Abducted
    Children Home. He's come to Washington, DC, over a dozen times
    on his own case and the more than 300 U.S. children that have
    been kidnapped to Japan since 1994 when the Office of
    Children's Issues was formed.
        And yet for nearly 8 years he's been shuttling back and
    forth between Seattle and Japan all in vain, and there have
    been some small victories but really nothing that has resulted
    in his actually reuniting with his son.
        And so I just wanted to follow up on the chairman's
    questions and I apologize if you said some of this before I
    walked in the room.
        But my understanding is that we have provided in the
    Goldman Act a number of steps that can be taken and, obviously,
    the first of that is, you know, using the diplomatic channels.
        But there are others, and they go all the way up to formal
    requests to the foreign country to extradite somebody. But
    there is other things around an official public statement that
    details the unresolved cases. I guess that's our report.
        I don't believe we have done a public condemnation in any
    of these situations but perhaps you can educate me if we have,
    and I guess I am just--it seems clear to me from reading these,
    and I am, as I said, new to the issue but it seems clear to me
    that voluntary is not--is not going to produce the results we
    are looking for and that we can continue using diplomatic
    channels and we should. But we have provided other tools here
    for the State Department to utilize.
        And so I am just wondering what brings this issue to the
    threshold where--because we have already crossed the thresholds
    that are outlined in the Goldman Act, as I read it, and so
    how--what can you do differently to ensure, for example, that
    Japan is going to reunite Mr. Morehouse's son because I--my
    deep concern is that the more these different countries see
    that the United States is not using the tools, the easier it
    gets for these countries to continue to just say, well, we will
    just work through diplomatic channels, which really means
    nothing would move forward.
        And so if you can just help educate me about how you see
    that. What is the threshold to move from one step to another
    within the tools that we have given to you and what can we
    possibly tell our families about what we are going to do
    differently than what we have been doing because, clearly, that
    has not produced the results we are looking for.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Again, with respect to Japan, as the chairman has pointed
    out, we pursued their accession to the convention--Mr.
    Morehouse's case is, clearly, pre-convention--and we have seen
    a result since they acceded to the convention in terms of a
    reduction in the number of reported cases and a resolution to
    the 2014 and beyond cases.
        We have actually, as a Central Authority to Central
    Authority, filed 18 cases with the Japanese Central Authority,
    and we have had resolution in 14 of those 18 cases. These are
    convention cases.
        Most of those have come through this voluntary mediation
    process. Again, we understand that enforcement of judicial
    orders is a failure, and it is something that we continue to
    work on.
        The Central Authority doesn't have, it seems, the power or
    authority to make changes that would make enforcements work,
    which means we have had to broaden--ask them to bring other
    people to the table.
        We do consider all the tools we have at our disposal, and
    we do that with our interagency partners and try to use the
    best tool at the best moment on a case-by-case basis.
        I hear your concerns about the use of the other tools, and
    we continue to speak with our interagency partners and the rest
    of the department who clearly have interests in our bilateral
    relationships with many of these countries, Japan included, and
    we know that we have those tools at our disposal and consider
    them when we think they will be effective.
        Ms. Jayapal. So what would--what would move--what would
    move the threshold in order to use those tools? I am still not
    clear on that, because I understand you're discussing with
    other agencies and maybe you could describe that a little bit
    more which are the agencies and departments that you routinely
    work with and are there some that have not engaged that need to
    be engaged?
        But I am just trying to understand what would be done
    differently now that has not been done before, because it's
    very difficult for us to go back to our constituents who
    actually have gone through everything that they could possibly
    go through, both here in the United States and, in some cases,
    in the country where their child has been abducted to.
        What more do we need to do to ensure that you utilize those
    tools and crossed that threshold from just pure diplomatic
    advocacy?
        And I do--I just want to, you know, echo and recognize the
    work that you all have done. I think you have made tremendous
    progress in a number of places and particularly on those post-
    convention cases.
        But I feel like some of these--some countries are hiding
    behind that specific date and we are not getting resolution.
        Ms. Lawrence. And again, I think, Congresswoman, that from
    many countries' point of view, citation in the report would be
    considered a serious step, and it has resulted in some profound
    changes in many places.
        As I said, we wouldn't be able to talk right now about what
    citations will appear in this upcoming report, but we have had
    a number of conversations with our Japanese counterparts
    explaining our frustration with the lack of momentum on
    enforcement of orders.
        And in the case of Mr. Morehouse, because I've had the
    opportunity to meet with him a number of times, we have--the
    characterization of the history of his case is something that
    we have directly spoken with them about.
        So, again, we do our best to use the tools at our disposal.
    I don't have a specific answer for you on what the threshold
    is. We are one voice, one part of the conversation, and I will
    take back certainly the frustration from Members of Congress on
    not utilizing the full range of tools.
        And we do feel that we are getting results from a lot of
    our engagement, certainly from the annual reports and certainly
    from the engagement by our chiefs of mission including
    Ambassador Hagerty.
        They are the President's personal representative in that
    country and the chief of our bilateral relationship with that
    country, and I think their voice on these issues carries an
    enormous amount of weight.
        So we are working in the avenues that we think will produce
    the best results, and I take on board your point that you
    believe that there may be results from the use of other tools.
        At this point, the tools that we have employed and continue
    to employ have shown some results.
        Ms. Jayapal. You mentioned earlier that Japanese
    authorities--I think I wrote this down--Japanese authorities
    have very limited means to enforce the orders.
        That seems to me to be--you know, if they are saying that I
    think it feels a little perhaps not fully forthright--that
    there are many more things that could be done and it seems to
    me that if they need to hear that this is critically important
    to us that that's where that list of tools--and I don't want to
    continue to harp on this point but I just think that at some
    point we need to move down that list.
        Otherwise, the act is not really being implemented the way
    I think the chairman and others had envisioned when we put it
    into place because it is working on some but I think we need to
    really look at that whole piece and I hope you hear our
    frustration in not seeing, particularly on certain cases that
    have been in process for a long time, not seeing any results
    there and not having anything to advocate for our children.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, again, for that question and also
    for expressing that level of dissatisfaction with the progress
    to date because it is useful when we sit down and talk about
    the lack of enforcement.
        Again, I think when the United States Government was
    pursuing Japan's accession to the convention we understood that
    there was quite a gulf in terms of the cultural norms and the
    way in which Japanese society viewed custody, and we knew that
    there would be a period of adjustment.
        When I say law, the Japanese Central Authority or the
    Ministry of Foreign Affairs is limited and also law enforcement
    is limited.
        It's the perspective of how they carry out these kinds of
    judicial decisions, and we have spoken about that, and I think
    the chairman referred to a letter earlier that a number of the
    EU countries sent.
        Again, there is nothing in existence even in their domestic
    law about these kinds of enforcements of judicial decisions
    with respect to custody that are useful at this moment and
    that's why, you know, we continue to implore them to look at
    ways to put into place domestic legislation that would also
    have an effect on these international cases and it's something
    that we continue to talk about and raise at every opportunity.
        So thank you again for sharing your perspective with me and
    your frustration on that level. It is helpful when we are
    talking to our counterparts to explain that this is felt
    throughout the U.S. Government and it is on behalf of our
    citizens and our--and your constituents that we bring these
    matters to their attention and ask that they do something to
    resolve the problem.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal.
        Let me just note for the record, and I know you know this,
    Jeffrey Morehouse has done it by the book. He is so
    disciplined, like so many of the left-behind parents, dotting
    every I, crossing every T.
        He testified in May 2015 before our subcommittee--very,
    very comprehensive testimony he made. So thank you for raising
    his case.
        I'll go to Dr. Harris in 2 seconds--as you may know I am
    the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. That has
    sanctions on it.
        When Israel and South Korea, two of our closest allies,
    had--were deemed to be Tier 3 egregious violators on human
    trafficking--they were worried about security assistance and
    other assistance, but particularly security assistance, being
    limited in some way.
        They change their laws. They enforced, in the case of
    Israel, existing law and they shut down the brothels and came
    into compliance within 1 year.
        Sanctions work, and if Japan doesn't get it through your
    persuasion--and I thank you for trying so hard--it is time to
    lower the boom, please, with respect, and say, you have failed
    utterly.
        These longer-term cases are egregious. These families are
    broken, and security assistance, as you know, in the Goldman
    Act is one of those sanctions that can be levied upon a
    country.
        Dr. Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for giving me the opportunity to be at today's hearing.
        And Ms. Lawrence, thank you for the work you do because,
    you know, there is some things where Americans have to look to
    the Federal Government as their one and only hope.
        There is just some issues that they--the Federal Government
    is the only thing that's going to solve their problems and this
    is one of those issues.
        So and we probably, you know, move a little broader than
    just Japan but, obviously, the Goldman Act lists a series of
    escalating actions that the State Department can take when an
    international child case--abduction case remain unresolved.
        But I am curious--just to run down some of these things to
    see if, you know, what tools in the toolbox have been used, has
    the State Department cancelled or delayed any state visits,
    bilateral working groups, or other official visits in response
    to any unresolved abduction cases in any country?
        Because that's one of the tools in the toolbox and that--
    you know, that seems like a pretty simple tool because some of
    these nations I think need a bilateral working relation.
        So has the State Department done that in any case?
        Ms. Lawrence. I've looked through the list of tools--thank
    you, Representative Harris, for raising that. I am sure that
    there have been some meetings or other events that may have
    been canceled, but I cannot speak to the fact if they were
    canceled directly related to the issue of international
    abduction.
        So I would have to go back and really----
        Mr. Harris. If you can get back to me, that's fine. And,
    you know, I sit on the Appropriations Committee so, you know,
    we want to make sure that American taxpayer dollars are spent
    appropriately and according to the law, including the Goldman
    Act.
        So has the State Department limited or suspended U.S.
    development assistance in response to any unresolved abduction
    cases since the act was passed 4 years ago?
        Ms. Lawrence. I am not--I am not aware of us having used
    that particular aspect of the act.
        Mr. Harris. Okay. How about foreign assistance?
        Ms. Lawrence. Again, I am not aware of any instance where
    we have suspended foreign assistance in relation to the act.
        Mr. Harris. Okay. Even though you, clearly, have the
    ability? And the Appropriations Committee has never, you know,
    said you have to do it. But you've had the ability over the
    years, right?
        Ms. Lawrence. Correct.
        Mr. Harris. What about security assistance, which I think
    the chairman has spoken about in terms of Japan? But there are
    other countries where that is important.
        Ms. Lawrence. Again, I am not aware of where we have used
    that.
        Mr. Harris. Okay. The reason I am asking that is because
    one of my constituents, Stanley Hunkovic, has been fighting for
    the repatriation of his children since 2011. It's a case, by
    the way, that's mentioned in your annual report.
        His children, Gabriel and Anastasia, are American citizens
    who were abducted by their mother, Leah, and they are currently
    wards of the state in Trinidad and Tobago. So the issue of
    noncompliance with orders is kind of rendered moot because they
    are actually wards of the state.
        Now, he's not been able to see or speak to them in years
    and until very recently the State Department could not even
    confirm the children's whereabouts, much less their wellbeing.
        And that's despite the fact that, again, the Goldman Act
    has been in place going on 4 years now. Can you commit to me
    today that the State Department will use any and all means at
    their disposal to pursue the return of any and all abducted
    American children, including Gabriel and Anastasia Hunkovic,
    from any country to which they've been abducted including
    Trinidad and Tobago?
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Harris, for that question and
    thank you for your interest in his case. I know that one of--
    several of my colleagues will be meeting with you later this
    afternoon to discuss with you the latest developments in that
    case.
        Of course, this is a pre-convention case. Trinidad did join
    the convention, and we have had a productive relationship with
    them which, of course, does not take away from the pain that
    your constituent has expressed to you as he has worked through
    this very difficult situation.
        I absolutely will pledge to you that we do look at all the
    tools available. We will continue to consult with you. We will
    continue to consult with our interagency partners, with all of
    the stakeholders in the Department of State and use the tools
    that are most appropriate to get the best result.
        Mr. Harris. Well, let me--and thank you. No, thank you for
    that and, yes, I have met with people months ago and there is
    still no resolution.
        Of course, pre-convention is irrelevant because the Goldman
    sanctions apply to that case regardless of whether it's pre-
    convention or post. Am I correct in that assessment?
        So that is--that makes no difference whatsoever, and the--
    these children--it's now 7 years since they were abducted. They
    are wards of the state.
        The state actually has the legal authority over them. So I
    just don't understand and, again, I can see where, you know,
    compliance with orders and things like that are different in
    other cases.
        In this case, Trinidad and Tobago has the ability to decide
    what's best for these children consistent with international
    law and have not.
        So is it going to take literally an act of Congress in an
    appropriations bill to get you ramped up through the escalating
    sanctions that can occur in some of these countries that the
    State Department has been unwilling to pursue despite--again,
    this a 7-year-old case.
        You can only bang your head against the wall so many times
    til you realize you got to try something else. Is that what
    it's going to take?
        I mean, I'd like to think the State Department is going to
    use the tools in the toolbox. But, honestly, we have gone down
    the list.
        You know, cancelling state visits--you know, that's not--I
    mean, I know it's something that would get someone's attention
    but said you don't--you're not sure if that's ever even been
    done.
        These are serious cases and I am sure the State Department
    takes them seriously. But I am not sure you use all the tools,
    and, I mean, we have the same tools, to be honest with you.
        I mean, we can limit anything we want to do because these
    are American taxpayers. Is that what it's going to take?
        Are you really honestly going to say look, we are going to
    look at cases like this--7-year-olds, wards of the state. We
    have tried everything with Trinidad and Tobago. Seven years
    gone by.
        You know, that developmental assistance that you have been
    getting from us, which I am sure goes a long way in your
    country or that foreign assistance or that security assistance,
    I guess you just don't need it.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Harris, again for bringing
    attention to this case in this venue.
        I know that my colleagues look forward to speaking with you
    a little bit more deeply later this afternoon to go through
    whatever options might be available to Mr. Hunkovic.
        It is a long time. As we have said before, these are not
    just issues. They are people and they are their children and
    it's their lives and we take--we take that with us every time
    we go into these meetings.
        I know that you have had conversations with our Embassy
    there. I know you've had conversations with our office in the
    Western Hemisphere Bureau. I know you've had conversations with
    my colleagues in the Office of Children's Issues.
        We are all working together to try and find a way forward
    and I hope that we will find a way to help resolve this case.
    It has gone on too long.
        Mr. Harris. I couldn't agree more. I thank you. All that--
    my point is, I guess, it may be time for conversations to end
    and, again, if we need to apply the tools that the State
    Department is unwilling to apply, I am more than happy to do it
    for Gabriel and Anastasia and with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        Just a few follow-on questions and then Ms. Jayapal has
    some additional questions as well. As you know, India is the
    country with the most long-standing abduction cases in the
    world.
        It has for many years been unwilling to join the Hague
    Convention. Close to 100 American children there are denied
    access to their American parent and suffer years in India's
    family court system.
        We have numerous left-behind mothers in the United States
    who suffered both domestic violence from their husbands as well
    as abduction of their children to India.
        Ruchika Abbi and Dr. Samina Rahman are among them. They
    continue to suffer for lack of a resolution mechanism in India.
        Earlier this year, H.R. 3512, as I mentioned in my opening
    comments, was introduced. It would remove countries like India
    from GSP benefits until India begins to work cooperatively to
    resolve the abductions.
        Do you think an additional bill might limit India's H-1B
    visas until abducted U.S. children are returned would also be
    helpful?
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    mentioning the mothers who are left-behind parents.
        When I was in India, again, part of that narrative and part
    of the effort to unravel some of the myths surrounding
    international parental child abduction is that the taking
    parent is always the mother, and as we know, there are a number
    of mothers who are the left-behind parents.
        So that was, in part, as I suggested would be a useful
    lesson in going through all of the cases one by one to start
    looking at what patterns are really there. I think what you
    will find is that the pattern is that people know that they
    have a safe haven and we have made that known.
        And I think the only way out of this, as we have said, is
    to at least accede to the convention. I know we have discussed
    this with respect to Japan.
        It won't cover the pre-convention cases in terms of
    returns, although there would be an access issue, but in the
    meantime to find a mechanism, whether that's a memorandum of
    understanding, whether that's a working group.
        We put all of these things on the table. We advocated for
    them. I think there is a lot to be gained by sitting down and
    looking individually at these cases and seeing what more can be
    done than to force the left-behind parent, whether it's a
    mother or a father, into the Indian court system where they are
    not going to see a resolution.
        So, you know, again, I hear the range of tools that you are
    talking about. We are--we are willing to sit down and talk with
    you about what your ideas might be.
        I don't know if our colleague from the Indian Embassy is
    still here. He was before. I can't see out the back of my head.
    But I hope that he has also heard a lot of these comments and
    will take that back to the Embassy today.
        Mr. Smith. And Bindu Philips from just outside of my
    district has a very similar case. Her husband not only--and the
    local police have reported this accurately--not only did he
    steal, she tried to visit her children.
        It was not a good experience. We are very concerned about
    this and if India is, again, not on the list, which I believe
    it will be, there needs to be a sanctions regime.
        I can't stress it enough. We do it to our best friends in
    trafficking. We can do it with our best friends when American
    children are abducted.
        Let me ask one final question. Nico Brann was abducted to
    Brazil 5 years ago by his mother, Marcelle Guimaraes, with the
    help of her parents, Carlos and Jemia.
        In February, the parents were arrested in Miami, as you
    know, and then indicted by a Federal grand jury for
    international parental-child abduction and conspiracy.
        They now face 8 years in prison if convicted. But Marcelle,
    a dual U.S.-Brazilian national, remains a fugitive at large in
    Brazil with Nico.
        Under the Goldman Act, the Secretary of State has the
    authority, as you know, to ask for her extradition. While
    Brazil's constitution forbids the extradition of Brazilian
    nationals, Brazil could denaturalize and extradite her just
    like they did in another case this year involving a dual
    national who was indicted for allegedly murdering her husband
    in Ohio.
        Given this precedent, will the U.S. now request that Brazil
    denaturalize and extradite Marcelle Guimaraes to the United
    States to face similar criminal charges?
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I haven't had the opportunity to let you know that I'll be
    traveling to Brazil in a couple of weeks and many of the issues
    that you raised about Brazil will be on our agenda.
        Of course, as you know, a request to return a child under
    the convention is separate from the filing of criminal charges
    against a parent, and criminal charges are not generally
    initiated in order to influence the outcome of the civil
    matter.
        Mr. Smith. But as you know, it's already been done toward
    the grandparents.
        Ms. Lawrence. Correct. And we remain in contact with the
    Department of Justice and I would have to defer to the Office
    of International Affairs there to speak on extradition because
    they do have lead on extradition.
        Mr. Smith. Could you make that request or at least an
    inquiry as to whether or not this process can be followed?
        Ms. Lawrence. We will certainly--we will certainly follow
    up with the Department of Justice on this particular case and
    the issue, more broadly, and get back to you, of course.
        Mr. Smith. Ms. Jayapal.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just wanted to--I forgot that I wanted to raise, and
    perhaps the chairman did in his opening statements, but the
    statements of the Japan's--Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs,
    Fumio Kishida, who observed recently that--and this is his
    quote--until now, there is not a single example in which the
    United States applied these actions, and he's talking about the
    Goldman Act sanctions, toward foreign countries.
        And then he went on specifically to note that we had not
    labeled Japan as noncompliant, and 3 days later the Osaka High
    Court overturned a final return order for Mr. Cook's four
    children.
        And so I just wanted to reiterate that and ask you
    whether--how you read that comment, because to me that comment
    goes back to what I said in my opening statement, which is that
    we are not being taken seriously.
        Nobody thinks that we are actually going to do anything
    with the tools that have been provided, and I think that's
    extremely harmful because I do think that it also affects what
    happens in these courts in--around these cases in these various
    countries.
        And so I'd be interested in how you read that comment and
    what do you see as the--as the remedy to the idea that the
    United States is not actually going to do anything about these
    cases.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you again, Congresswoman, and thank you
    for raising Mr. Cook's case. I know he's on the next panel and,
    again, in his case he did everything right.
        So, again, we have made that point to our Japanese
    counterparts. I don't know the context with which the Foreign
    Minister spoke.
        I don't know why he chose to say what he did. I am not
    going to answer on behalf of the Japanese Government. I will
    leave that to them.
        What I can say is that when we have discussed their failure
    on enforcement and the shortcomings in terms of compliance with
    all aspects of the convention, we have discussed citations.
        We have discussed the full range of tools available, and I
    think there are many people that I have met with, certainly
    that Ambassador Hagerty has met with, that we have met with
    here in Washington who do understand the severity of what we
    are talking about.
        So, again, I can't answer for that comment specifically. I
    don't know why that comment was made or in what context. But I
    can say that the people that I have met with have heard our
    message and, again, I thank you for this time to speak about
    all of this openly and publicly.
        I think, in my almost three decades of serving the United
    States and working as a diplomat both here in Washington and
    overseas, we are most effective when we speak with one voice
    and when people know that we are serious and together on the
    issue.
        And so I appreciate the opportunity to have this dialogue
    and hope that this will reach some of our colleagues so they
    understand the seriousness with which Members of Congress view
    this issue.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
        But I think I know why he said that, because it is true
    that Japan has not been designated as noncompliant. Do you
    think that there is a high likelihood that Japan might be
    designated as noncompliant?
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you.
        Again, as I stated earlier and I think I've said a couple
    of times, I have been very clear with the head of the Japanese
    Central Authority and with all of the people that I have met
    with who have told us all of the things that they have done as
    a Central Authority and as a country to be a good partner under
    the Hague Convention and also to address pre-convention cases.
        My response has been we appreciate the development of the
    Central Authority. We appreciate whatever they have done to be
    a good partner.
        However, when we are looking at the full measure of their
    performance we must take note of the fact that they cannot
    enforce the court orders, and what we have said previously--and
    that gets to this comment--is that it undermines the confidence
    that people have in their seriousness with which they approach
    the convention.
        And so, again, there is no mistaking what we think about
    that aspect of their performance and, hopefully, they
    understand where we are.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Ms. Lawrence. I am going to yield
    back.
        But I do think it also undermines our credibility on--and
    our seriousness. It's not just the Japanese Government's
    seriousness. It's the United States' seriousness about how we
    approach these cases.
        And so I recognize that yours is a very challenging
    position and a very difficult job, and but I think what you're
    hearing is we would like to see our seriousness reinforced
    around these cases.
        We'd like to bring these children home, and we'd like to
    make sure that the governments that we are interacting with
    understand that we do mean that.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Congresswoman. We have many shared
    objectives.
        Mr. Smith. One just final question. As you know, we have
    talked a lot about enforcement or the lack thereof in Japan.
        Another threshold for a country being found noncompliant is
    judicial decisions inconsistent with the Hague Convention. As
    we will hear from Mr. Cook next, the courts in Japan reversed
    the final return order in his case because they thought it
    would be bad for the children to live in an apartment in the
    United States.
        Do you believe this public decision by Japan is consistent
    with the Hague Convention's exception to return Article 13-B,
    grave risk of psychological or physical harm or an intolerable
    situation? How Japan's de novo best interest determination here
    affects future cases? I mean, it's an awful precedent but I'd
    appreciate your thoughts and response.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think that one of the areas that we work on very
    carefully is education through seminars, through workshops,
    through exchanges of information, through our Hague network of
    judges.
        We have had many discussions with many partners about the
    exceptions in the convention and the use of those exceptions.
    Again, I think Mr. Cook did everything he could in the correct
    way, and so, we do look to improve always the consistency of
    the decisions over time and the application of the convention.
        That's the purpose of the convention. And, I also would
    mention, because this case has gone on for some time, that the
    purpose of the convention is to bring a quick resolution.
        It's to return the child to the country of habitual
    residence unless the case falls within those very specific
    exceptions. That's the purpose of the convention.
        As you mentioned at the outset, time is not a good thing in
    these cases. This is not to our advantage for the child, for
    the family, for anybody.
        And so again, we are looking for application of the
    convention, correct implementation. We are looking for speedy
    results. That is in the best interests of all the people
    involved in these tragic circumstances.
        And so, I have heard your concerns, and we share your
    concern for----
        Mr. Smith. But publicly on the issue of living in an
    apartment, and the only reason he lives in an apartment is all
    the money he has spent in adjudicating this case--paying the
    lawyers' fees and everything else.
        So he's been drained by the process and now that's used
    against him by a court in Japan. Do you find that outrageous?
        Ms. Lawrence. As I said, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cook did
    everything he could and----
        Mr. Smith. But it's not a viable----
        Ms. Lawrence. We have pointed that out to----
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. Point for Japan to take, is it?
        Ms. Lawrence. Correct. We went and talked specifically
    about this case as well. Again, we are looking for consistent
    implementation of the convention, which will give people
    confidence in the convention and that's to everyone's
    advantage.
        And, again, these should be speedy resolutions. The
    children should be returned to the case of--to the country of
    habitual residence, and the courts are the place to properly
    decide custody of children. It is not a unilateral action by
    one parent. That is not the way to do this.
        So thank you again for those comments and that will be
    helpful to us.
        Mr. Smith. Just for the record, could you tell us how many
    cases were resolved last year in Japan?
        Ms. Lawrence. I don't have the exact number. As I said, I
    only have a number from when they acceded to the convention.
        We, as I said, had filed 18 cases officially.
        Mr. Smith. How many children does that----
        Ms. Lawrence. And I don't know the total number of children
    affected but 14 of those cases were resolved. Again, they were
    resolved through voluntary means, perhaps mediation. None were
    resolved through enforced court orders.
        Mr. Smith. None were resolved. So, again, all the more
    reason why, in neon lights, Japan isn't on the list.
        I remember in the journalism class, the first one I took--
    and I wish it was followed by many of our journalists today--
    was the three A's of journalism--it's accuracy, accuracy,
    accuracy. Get the book right.
        I mean, what we do in terms of what you do, because you do
    have discretion in terms of following the prescribed potential
    sanctions. Reasonable men and women have to decide what is the
    best way to get from here to there.
        By just stating the clear truth with the backdrop of the
    Goldman Act as the criteria, I don't see how Japan can be
    anywhere but is my complaint.
        Thank you. I appreciate your testimony and your service.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Smith. I'd like to now welcome our second panel,
    beginning first with Patricia Apy, internationally well known
    expert, an attorney practicing international and interstate
    family law.
        Among many countries in which she has litigated, been an
    expert witness or served as a consultant on international
    family disputes are the United Kingdom, Brazil, the United Arab
    Emirates, Italy, Pakistan, Australia, India, Japan, South
    Africa, Israel, Lebanon, and Canada.
        She is frequently sought out by both family law attorneys
    and litigants nationwide to serve as an expert co-counsel in
    their own state courts on international matters. Notably, Ms.
    Apy is an attorney--was the attorney for David and Sean
    Goldman, successfully resolving the 5-year abduction case with
    Brazil with Sean's return to the United States in 2009.
        Ms. Apy consulted very broadly with us, provided expert
    counsel while we were writing the Goldman Act and I am forever
    grateful to her for that, which passed into law and is now the
    subject of part of this implementation hearing.
        I'd also like to introduce Mr. James Cook. As the father of
    four children, two sets of twins, who were abducted and are in
    Japan. At this time, he has only been allowed one visit with
    his children and has not been allowed any access to them since
    August 2015.
        Mr. Cook works for Boston Scientific Corporation, a
    manufacturer of medical devices in Minnesota. Mr. Cook
    testified before this committee before twice during his ordeal,
    beginning with the--begging, asking, appealing to the State
    Department to take action.
        Ms. Apy, the floor is yours.

      STATEMENT OF MS. PATRICIA APY, INTERNATIONAL AND INTERSTATE
               FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY, PARAS, APY, AND REISS

        Ms. Apy. Thank you, Chairman Smith and distinguished
    members of the committee. It's a privilege to return.
        My first testimony before the subcommittee in support of
    the Goldman Act was actually in 2009. So I've been living with
    this act and its implementation, particularly in the context of
    private practice since that time.
        I would respectfully request that my written statement be
    included in the formal record.
        Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
        Ms. Apy. Thank you.
        I had the opportunity to listen to the prior testimony and
    I think it would be most helpful if I addressed some of the
    issues and the questions that were raised at that testimony
    from a practical perspective.
        The very first thing that I want to say is that the work of
    this subcommittee in--which went on for a number of years with
    extensive hearings with a great deal of work, created an act
    which has had an immediate impact on the prevention of child
    abduction.
        The report that was--that is a strong part of the act was
    actually opposed by the United States Department of State along
    with the body of the act when it was originally preferred.
        The opposition was that it would not be effective, that it
    would--that it would be met with a response diplomatically that
    would not foster the return of children, that it was not
    consistent with the abduction convention.
        All of those criticisms proved to be untrue. In fact, the
    number that you've been given for the reduction in the amount
    of cases of child abduction is a direct result of American
    judges who have had the opportunity to review the report and to
    make a determination whether asked by individual parents for
    preventative measures to make a determination objectively based
    on that information as to whether or not there exist obstacles
    to recovery of children systemically in a country. This is
    without necessarily consideration of the individual
    characteristics of the parties.
        So, for example, if a judge is looking at a report and it
    indicates that there is a noncompliant state, the judge then
    knows that there needs to be a broader and more protective
    aspect of parenting and access protections, which is why
    language is so important.
        One of the things what concerns me about the report and
    concerns me about the testimony that we have heard today is
    that language has been used very loosely, and I want to point
    out some of the places so that this committee can appreciate it
    and consider it in some of the questions that have been raised
    in some of the legislative actions which may need to be taken.
        First of all, you keep hearing the word resolved--cases are
    resolved. Let me remind the committee that the--under the
    convention--we are talking about convention cases--there is one
    remedy that is provided with respect to an abduction and that
    is return.
        The Hague Convention does not address custody. It doesn't
    address jurisdiction. It addresses the return of a child
    wrongfully removed or retained outside of the child's habitual
    residence.
        With respect to the organization of rights of access, there
    is one remedy. It is that there is an identifiable opportunity
    for actual access between a parent and their child.
        In the reports that went along with the original
    identification of the organization of rights of access, access
    was supposed to be the ability of a child, for example, to
    return and visit the other country of the parent, whether it's
    a left-behind parent or a parent in a case in which the parties
    just live in other countries.
        That's not what you're hearing in either the testimony or
    in the reporting. When you hear resolution, a careful follow-up
    question is how many returns have there been, and the answer is
    there have been none.
        When you're asked how many--what are the--there was a
    reference to half of the cases that were filed when Japan
    ratified the convention, providing an opportunity for access.
        The careful follow-up question, and I believe I did hear
    some response to this, is that the access that provided is not
    an identifiable access order.
        It might have been one Skype call. They are including the
    definition of access the ability to send packages to a child
    without any contact whatsoever. Nothing in the convention
    contemplates that as access.
        So the first piece that has to be addressed is that the
    report has to be accurate because an American judge had to know
    that in fact there is no ability to obtain an access order if a
    child is retained in Japan, for example. There is no ability
    for a U.S. order in any state to be provided an opportunity for
    enforcement.
        The Hague Abduction Convection is a reciprocal treaty
    which, of course, means that both parties have to be signators,
    have to have provided the responsibilities under the treaty and
    to afford those responsibilities.
        It is not a situation in which you can merely assert a
    treaty is applicable whether or not it is actually--there is
    actually been any type of treaty relationship.
        I need to point out that in the written remarks that you've
    been provided there is reference, for example, to a number of
    countries and work on the part of the Department of State with
    respect to those issues.
        I have to caution that that information is inaccurate. In
    fact, Jamaica, Pakistan, and Tunisia have deposited their
    accessions with the Hague Conference but their accessions have
    not been accepted by the United States Department of State.
        So there is no treaty relationship right now that exists
    with respect to those countries. With respect to Fiji, I agree
    that we--they reference it as having been welcomed as a
    partner. But you should know that the accession was deposited
    in 1999 originally, and it's taken until now.
        And again, that there could be very good reasons for the
    failure to accept the accession of a country that has indicated
    that they are filing it.
        In the prior testimony, you heard repeated reference to
    Japan acceding to the convention. So we are clear, Japan did
    not file letters of accession.
        Japan, once it ratified, became immediately affected. The
    United States had no oversight or--and there was no ability to
    accept the accession.
        Why that is important is that there--the idea that they
    would need some time to get up to speed, as you have heard,
    referenced that there was no way to place any conditions or to
    impact on the way the treaty was going to be applied in Japan.
        As I've testified in prior hearings, I was deeply concerned
    that Japan would ratify the treaty and what would follow is
    exactly what we have and that is it is in name only.
        One of the most important aspects of the report has to be
    its accuracy and its transparency. If a country is listed as
    compliant, then a judge sitting in Washington State is going to
    look at the report and believe that a parent requesting the
    opportunity to visit that country will be doing so under an
    effective and existing mechanism for the return of the child.
        Without accurate information and accurate language, it
    creates the impression that there is a reciprocal active
    relationship. Same with if we are talking about context of
    countries in which there are difficulties going on with their
    treaty partnership.
        There has to be transparency about where the difficulties
    are even if it's a circumstance in which the State Department
    is reticent to list them as noncompliant. You still have to
    identify oh by the way, they are not going to enforce an order.
    They are not going to provide rights of access. You're not
    going to be able to have a child returned.
        That, to me, the unapologetic identification of actual
    issues in the report has got to be--has got to be the number-
    one issue that the United States Department of State does as it
    addresses and provides the information in this report.
        The second issue that was addressed and questions were
    asked that I think is extremely important is accurately
    describing what steps are being taken when you have identified
    that a country is noncompliant, there are a number of standard
    phrases that are found in the report that are not descriptive
    and not helpful.
        For example, talking about we are working with, we are
    talking with, we are trying to find practical solutions, we are
    working on educational opportunities are not responsive, very
    frankly, to the issues of the particular difficulties that you
    would find in the country.
        For example, if we were talking about a country where the
    problem is the enforcement of orders where the mutual
    recognition of orders depended upon the nature of the problem,
    you might want to seek the entry of a mirror order in that
    country so there are orders in both places before a child is
    permitted to visit.
        You might have additional passport and border restrictions
    that you would not otherwise have. There was reference in
    testimony to India. I think it's very important that this
    committee understand that India has taken a formal position
    against the execution of the treaty.
        There is--a study was commissioned in 2009. During the time
    period of that study, which took a number of years, most
    lawyers and judges supported the India joining the convention.
        However, the Indian Government, when that issue was pressed
    and it was provided to public comment, strongly took the
    position that they believed, rightly or wrongly, that the
    treaty would not be a benefit to their citizens.
        In particular, it focused on the ability to permit, as they
    said, women to return to India without the necessity of having
    to respond or return children to their habitual residences.
        That's a formal position. It's not an educational problem
    at this point, especially given the length of time which, of
    course, gets us to the systemic problem of diplomacy.
        There is a reference in the--in the written remarks of the
    Special Advisor that is a little bit concerning and that is a
    reference to diplomatic efforts.
        She indicates much of the day-to-day diplomatic engagement
    on abduction matters is handled by country officers in the
    Office of Children's Issues.
        There is no question that country officers work individual
    cases. But the Goldman Act was designed to go beyond the
    particular issue of any individual case and to broaden the
    concept of fighting child abduction by looking at diplomatic
    tools in an objective matter.
        The point is, as I've testified before, no individual
    parent should have to become, if you will, an officer of the
    United Stated Department of State and engaged on a state level
    basis in determining what the problems are with compliance or
    reciprocity.
        I could not hear in the testimony and I am unaware of any
    objective process that has been instituted by the United States
    Department of State with respect to any of the tools as we have
    called them addressing noncompliant countries.
        The last time I am aware of there having been any of
    actions like the tools that have been described were before
    this act was in place and that was in the case of David Goldman
    when, based on individual effort and effort of the chairman and
    effort of members of the Senate in addressing this issue.
        Those elements were done from the congressional side. They
    were not recommended by the United States Department of State
    and they were not supported by the United States Department of
    State.
        Nevertheless, they were incredibly effective in the return.
    When you have countries like we have had in the report since
    its inception that have remained on the noncompliant list,
    there has to be an objective process and you have to have, as
    Members of Congress, an objective report as to was a
    recommendation made that certain of these tools be employed.
        And I didn't hear that there is even a process in place for
    OCI--Office of Children's Issues--to identify what steps they
    have taken and what the responses are so that you can not only
    address the problems with respect to your constituents but so
    that you can address in the committees in which you sit and the
    legislative determinations that you make, whether or not that
    is a consideration you have to have available.
        In my discussions with attorneys and judges throughout the
    world who address these issues, particularly in countries that
    have been identified as noncompliant, they are almost
    unanimously in support of the concept that understanding that
    pressure will be placed upon the country on a systemic basis
    will make a difference in treaty compliance and will make a
    difference in looking at these issues seriously.
        With respect to, for example, the use of memorandums of
    understanding, their ideal for the circumstances in which there
    is an educational issue, you can identify where are the
    problems.
        You can identify what actions have to be taken and what
    time frame, and until they are, you can then notify judges and
    lawyers in the United States that there does not currently
    exist a reciprocal treaty relationship.
        Again, when this was originally--when this act was
    originally addressed, the concern was that it would somehow tie
    the diplomatic hands of the United States Department of State.
        Well, to my knowledge, since this act was--has been
    enacted, other than a demarche, there has been no diplomatic
    action taken, no requests or any objective process employed or
    recommendations that I am aware of for the imposition of any of
    the tools that you've identified.
        My final point that I would like to address is the issue of
    border control, and I do note that in the--in the report that
    was provided by Ms. Lawrence, there is a reference to the
    Department of State working closely with U.S. Customs and
    Border Protection and referencing numbers.
        May I tell you that the number 200 children being enrolled
    in the program, Homeland Security's program, which is
    authorized by ICAPRA, is woefully low.
        We have had thousands of orders for protective measures.
    There are significant difficulties in getting families onto
    this list. The review process that's been employed with an
    extra step by the Department of State has been difficult. There
    has been a lack of communication back to judges as to whether
    or not children are on or off the list, creating abduction
    risk.
        So that number is not a positive. Two hundred is woefully
    low. It evidences that there is a lack of implementation that
    needs to be looked at, seriously.
        I'd be happy to take any of your questions or address any
    of the countries that are referenced with which I have
    experience that might be helpful.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Apy follows:]
     [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

     STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES COOK, FATHER OF FOUR CHILDREN ABDUCTED
                                IN JAPAN

        Mr. Cook. Thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman Smith and the committee members for
    this opportunity to speak about Japan, Hague compliance, and my
    experience in the process, and I request that my written
    statements be entered into the record.
        When I last testified it was last April before this
    committee, 2 months after Osaka High Court had revoked the
    return order of January 2016.
        In May 2017, I appealed this ruling and in December 2017
    Japan's Supreme Court ruled that the Osaka High Court was
    correct and affirmed the order and closed my case.
        A few weeks ago, the Osaka High Court cancelled the
    previous enforcement orders and all penalties due to me, which
    grew to $132,000--$84,000 of which at the time when the Osaka
    High Court originally ruled and said that I had no financial
    means, they had already ordered $84,000 paid to me.
        This is how Japan executes the perfect Hague abduction.
    After over 2\1/2\ years in this process, I have nothing. This
    process has cost me everything.
        Japan relitigated our Hague case as a successful ploy to
    avoid compliance with the Hague. The Hague is specific in its
    intended objective--a ruling to determine habitual residence
    and legal jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is the venue to
    evaluate a child's best interest and custody. Japan
    intentionally conflates Hague jurisdictional decisions as
    custody decisions.
        When Article 16 of the Hague explicitly prohibits custody
    determinations, the Osaka High Court's February ruling
    basically was a best interest custody hearing. For further
    details on this and other statements, please refer to my
    written testimony.
        Japan's court system is corrupt and must not be respected
    by the USA. There are groups and organizations that control
    much of the family law in Japan. Federation of Lawyers of
    Japan, whose members include Yoko Yoshida, Yoriko Nishimura,
    and Takayo Amata is one such group.
        Yoko Yoshida, vice chairman of the Committee on Gender
    Equality, an organ of the Federation of Lawyers of Japan,
    opposes Japan's ratification of the Hague Convention.
        Most of the attorneys who advise and help child abduction
    are communists--members of Japan's Communist Party. See the
    written testimony for further details and evidence that
    communist attorneys control family courts and advocacy of
    abduction.
        A large piece of Japan's corrupt family court system is a
    network of governmentally funded domestic violence shelters,
    referred to as Shelter Net in Japan.
        An attorney, like Yoko Yishida, will tell a woman seeking
    divorce and sole custody of her child, to report to a DV
    shelter. The shelter will receive money for this woman and
    child.
        It is obvious this situation is ripe for collusion between
    federation attorneys and Shelter Net member shelters.
        At the divorce hearing, applying the continuity principle,
    the judge rules the child is to remain with the abducting
    parent.
        An important point about the continuity principle--it's
    illegal. Civil Code 766 took effect in 2012 specifically
    instructs judges to use abduction against a parent in
    determining custody.
        There is no--there are no consequences for judges
    disregarding the law. Judges are rogue and create legislation
    from the bench.
        The jurisprudence of judges even at the Japan Supreme Court
    in the Hague cases and even in Hague cases as so-called
    continuity principle whereby abductors keep children.
        We know this principle is operative based on empirical
    evidence of many rulings including my Supreme Court ruling of
    December 2017. Taking a child permanently from one parent is
    crazy and inhuman.
        More information on this issue is within my written
    testimony. As a result, Japan's Supreme Court's noncompliant
    ruling of December 21st, 2017, on April 6th I submitted through
    legal counsel in Japan a petition for impeachment to Japan's
    Diet of the following Supreme Court justices: Atsushi
    Yamaguchi, Masayuki Ikegami, Naoto Otani, who is now the chief
    justice of Japan's Supreme Court and his elevation is a
    curious, almost quid pro quo nature with relation to when my
    order or decision came out; Judge Hiroshi Koike, whose opinion
    at the end of my ruling illustrates at least one justice has a
    complete disconnect with the elements and the intention of the
    Hague; and finally, Katsuyuki Kizawa.
        The 52-page impeachment petition plus supporting evidence
    details illegal practices by the judiciary, collusion by
    attorneys, and ties to politicians in Japan's Diet and details
    the several ways that Japan's Supreme Court's decision 2017
    ruling is in direct violation of the Hague. Such wilful
    malpractice must only be resolved through impeachment.
        This petition is available to the 26 EU member countries,
    Canada, and U.S. Department of State to aid in their unified
    efforts against Japan regarding international parental-child
    abduction. The original Japanese language petition is available
    from Kisna Child Parent Reunion, an NGO in Japan.
        Japan must be held accountable. Diplomacy on this issue
    with Japan has not been successful for decades. More than 400
    children, supported by DOS statistics, have been lost to U.S.
    parents in this time.
        Children are not bargaining chips or pawns because their
    rights are non-negotiable. For reasons outlined above,
    including the noncompliant Japan's Supreme Court Hague ruling,
    Japan's corrupt judiciary, and Japan's unrepentant abduction
    practices, I recommend the following actions be taken.
        One, placement of indefinite tariffs upon strategic
    Japanese imports until the following occur: A, revocation and
    invalidation of the Osaka High Court's February 2017 ruling and
    Japan's Supreme Court's December 2017 ruling, and the immediate
    return of my four children without delay or condition; B,
    criminalization of parent-child abduction to Japan; C,
    criminalization of denial of access to pre-Hague abducted
    children; D, creation of a quick legal path to criminalization
    and prosecution and contempt of Hague return orders that
    include forcible arrest of abductor, prosecution of harboring
    individuals, and physical remove of children by law enforcement
    or the left-behind parent; E, recognition and enforcement of
    all previous and future U.S. court custody and return orders;
    and F, extradition of U.S. or court ordered persons by any
    means including arrest, physical force, and arraignment of
    harboring individuals.
        Suggestion number two: The Department of State to issue
    indefinite travel alert in caution to parents travelling to
    Japan with minor children of Japanese descent due to extreme
    abduction risk and Japan's history of noncompliance.
        This alert can be rescinded at some point when Japan shows
    2 years with perfect Hague compliance. More recommendations are
    found in my written testimony.
        Finally, Japan has ignored demarches and similar toothless
    diplomatic efforts for years. Japan, at its core, is an
    economic nation that relies on asymmetric trade. That is, they
    sell far more than they buy.
        Effective strategies will use tactics that affect trade,
    not diplomatic talk. Tariffs, not talk. Deadlines, not debate.
    Progress, not promises.
        I ask this committee and fellow lawmakers to make laws as
    I've outlined above. I ask judges across the United States to
    heed my testimony when contemplating joint custody arrangements
    between U.S. and Japanese parents and, certainly, any
    consideration of allowed travel out of the U.S. There is no
    such thing as a harmless vacation to Japan.
        I ask President Trump to make the call, write the executive
    order, or take the action that returns my children immediately.
        When you are with P.M. Abe next week, tell him he must do
    it and he will. Please refer to my written testimony for
    recognition of groups and individuals who have helped. I am not
    short on gratitude but I am limited on time before this
    committee.
        Thank you again, Chairman Smith, and I am forever grateful
    for your years of work, the opportunity to speak, and most of
    all, I thank you for caring, which you have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]
      [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Cook, and I think your point
    about upcoming meetings with Mr. Abe is an excellent
    opportunity for the President to raise these issues.
        In previous meetings, we have given detailed memos to the
    White House in the hopes that he would raise it in a way that
    was significant and detailed.
        We'll do it again, so thank you, and your testimony, I can
    assure you, will be clear and hopefully as well as a summary of
    it that we will convey to he and others within the
    administration.
        These are great opportunities. As a matter of fact, when in
    a previous meeting, obviously, there's always been concerns
    about abductions from Japan to Pyongyang to North Korea and the
    President has spoken out, as I have and so many others have,
    for years.
        Congressman Honda had a resolution years ago on that and I
    was the Republican co-sponsor on it, believing that too is an
    egregious violation.
        Well, Japan itself needs to be held to account as well. So
    we did ask that he raise it with Abe. We will do it again, and
    I appreciate that.
        If I could, Ms. Apy, if you could, when a judge is dealing
    with a case before him or her, do they read the report to get a
    sense of what that country's potential risks are? Do they often
    contact, for example, the State Department or the Office of
    Children's Issues to get a further delineation of how good or
    bad?
        Because a report is always dated except for the first few
    weeks when it comes out and even then they might want to get an
    update if there's been any turn of events. How does that
    actually work?
        Ms. Apy. Of course, as you mentioned, the report is
    retrospective in that it tells us about the numbers for the
    prior year, which is why the classifications of noncompliance
    versus compliance are so important because it means you don't
    have to deconstruct what's happening yesterday.
        In most family court cases, of course, a judge doesn't do
    independent fact finding. The information is presented to the
    court subject to the rules of evidence, which is why the report
    is so important.
        Because it's been generated by the United States Department
    of State, it can be taken--judicial notice can be taken of the
    content of the report and it can be used then by the court in
    assessing risk, which places the burden on someone who is--who
    is arguing that the classification of the Department of State
    should not be accepted. It places the burden on that person to
    come forward.
        So, for example, in a circumstance like Japan that we've
    been discussing, because Japan has heretofore not been listed
    as noncompliant, it places the burden on the parent who wishes
    to provide protections against travel in bringing--in hiring an
    expert and having that expert come and testify specifically to
    the very issues that you have heard testimony on today and I've
    served in that capacity.
        So the problem with that is, of course, it's an expensive
    process. It involves having to find an expert and to present
    that information to the court and, of course, the court is
    looking at a report issued by the Department of State saying
    that, in the case of Japan, as we've been discussing, they're
    compliant. So it's extremely problematic.
        The court doesn't get--it wouldn't have the opportunity, as
    I said, to get updates, but the counsel can and in fact if
    they're on--if on the State Department Web site and on other
    identifiable State Department sources of information their
    updated data, that would be something that the attorneys could
    reference and would look at and when, in fact, we do.
        Mr. Smith. If I could just ask you on the necessity and
    efficacy of MOUs, which I know you have spoken to many times.
    We included it in the Goldman Act.
        I know prior to Japan's accession to the Hague the view
    from the State Department, not only for the Goldman Act itself
    because the official position was against, until it was
    reversed later by John Kerry.
        I didn't get any sense today that the department is any
    closer to pursuing an MOU with Japan or anyone else. What is
    this reluctance to find a durable predictable means to resolve
    cases? Is it the effort that it----
        Ms. Apy. The Department of State took a position early on
    that they would not support any memorandums of understanding
    related to child abduction on the theory that by setting up
    MOUs that they would somehow dilute the pressure upon countries
    to become signatories to the Hague abduction convention.
        What it misses, unfortunately, is the opportunity to use an
    MOU to address specific problems and to provide diplomatic
    solutions.
        So, for example, if you're talking about a convention
    signatory like Brazil, you could use an MOU to identify the
    areas that there are problems and then set objective goals
    while at the same time saying, A, you're noncompliant, and B,
    until the following things happen we are going to announce and
    make it clear that there is no reciprocal relationship, which
    means, for example, that American children would not be
    returned unless the treaty process was back in place.
        That's an example. The advantage of doing MOUs in non-Hague
    countries can be seen by--if we look at Pakistan, who has filed
    their accession, I am looking forward. Hopefully, the accession
    will be very soon accepted.
        Pakistan is one of the very only Sharif-based systems
    that's a common law system. We have high court judges prepared
    to apply the treaty and part of the reason they're prepared is
    there's been a memorandum of understanding between Pakistan and
    the United Kingdom that has been working for a number of years,
    establishing the legal culture that allows now the treaty to
    become part of a normalized concept of the law there.
        That's an example when an MOU, especially when we have
    religious-based legal systems, can be used to bridge the
    culture so that we don't run into a problem where a country--
    the accession is accepted and there's nothing in place.
        You have no underlying law. You have no underlying process.
    But you have on paper a reciprocal treaty agreement. I can only
    assume that the reason that MOUs haven't been used, now that
    you have got the numbers and the report that provides for them,
    is that there's just not been the diplomatic will to do the
    hard work to do that.
        And I--and, frankly, it's a, from my perspective at least,
    I know that member of the bench and bar in the United States,
    members of organizations like the International Academy of
    Family Lawyers and the American Bar Association have been
    willing to work with the State Department as private
    practitioners providing technical assistance in drafting MOUs,
    in providing model orders, in doing things that would, if you
    will, advance the ball.
        Again, it's nowhere on the radar screen because there is no
    process employed for moving beyond a demarche. There's just--I
    don't see how the--the whole point of considering MOUs was to
    provide objective information so that we were not talking about
    speculative subjective reviews of countries.
        We had objective information so that if we were talking to
    our friends we could say, look, I am sorry--you know, we have a
    valued relationship with you but the following numbers need to
    be addressed and here's how.
        I just don't see that there's been the diplomatic will or
    the political will to do that on the executive side and I--
    since I've been doing this for a very long time I am hopeful.
        Again, the work of this committee cannot be overstated in
    that when you look at those--the reduction and the preventative
    numbers it's only because of the work of this committee and
    it's made a huge impact on American families.
        Mr. Smith. Suzanne Lawrence did talk about redoubling our
    efforts. We worked tirelessly both in the U.S. and in our
    Embassies.
        It seems to me that working tirelessly and redoubling our
    efforts--since we are at the threshold now where MOUs are--
    should be a given as a remedy to--as a means to a remedy of
    these cases.
        So we'll redouble our efforts to try to get them to do it
    because I think it's just missing by a mile. You know, nice
    conversations, diplomatic meetings are all fine. But they
    should not be a substitute for a durable mechanism that could
    employed with predictability and, hopefully, with success.
        Just a couple final questions and I deeply appreciate
    both--the subcommittee deeply appreciates both of your
    testimonies. It helps us to know what to do next and how to go
    forward, and I thank you for that.
        Ms. Apy, if you could maybe speak to countries that you
    have found to be more Hague compliant. Do you find that it's a
    problem worldwide that everyone seems to have serious problems
    or are there countries that you have found that really seem to
    be on the ball and really want to do the right thing?
        And, again, if you could, Mr. Cook, I said it to Ms.
    Lawrence. You, obviously, said it in your testimony. But the
    whole idea that seems to be missing--people say what about
    Japan--oh, we've brought some people back.
        Well, as you have pointed out, when the abductor says no,
    enforcement ends. That is absolutely absurd to think that the
    veto power is vested in the abductor--the person who has
    committed this egregious action.
        So perhaps you might want to speak to that again because I
    think the Japanese Government needs to know that we find this
    outrageous. You know, you cannot convey that kind of veto power
    to someone who has committed such a terrible act.
        Ms. Apy. I would just reference, on countries that are
    particularly successful, keep in mind, of course, that the
    Hague abduction convention was executed in 1980. The United
    States ratified it in 1988.
        So for 8 years, a number of countries had already begun the
    process and begun the--the body of case law began to be
    established. And so you have, frankly, leadership in that
    regard. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada
    would be places that have continued to apply the convention.
        I would note one common element to their success, however,
    and that is that in virtually all of those countries where the
    success rates are extremely high, left-behind parents are
    provided support in having legal representatives to assist them
    in having their children returned.
        In--for example, in the United--in cases for Sweden, if a
    child is removed from Sweden to somewhere else in the world,
    the Swedish Government assists in underwriting the costs of the
    return and repatriation of those children.
        The result is that their numbers are far higher in the
    return of children. The same in the United Kingdom. There are--
    there are particular judges that have been denominated as Hague
    judges. Legal aid is provided for left-behind parents who are
    specialists in the issue of the Hague abduction convention.
        Of course, the United States took a reservation to that
    portion of the treaty that provided for assistance in legal
    services for the return of abducted children.
        So members of the family bar throughout the United States,
    those of us who do this work volunteer our time as pro bono
    lawyers, like the Elias case, keeping in mind that the average
    length of time for these cases--for treaty cases run between 18
    months and 2 years from beginning to end if they're successful.
        For nontreaty cases and treaties in countries that are
    noncompliant and nonreciprocal the average is closer to 5
    years. That's a long time to have to pay a lawyer. It's a long
    time to have to do travel and repatriation and expenses, and
    the crippling impact of those resources cannot be overstated.
        In the Goldman case, there were over $\1/4\ million of
    expenses in--direct expenses that Mr. Goldman had to find and
    borrow and do whatever he could in order to accomplish the
    repatriation of this child and it would not have been enough
    but for the assistance of the Congress of the United States in
    taking direct diplomatic action.
        Mr. Smith. Okay.
        Mr. Cook. I resemble that comment. [Laughter.]
        I recognize that situation of having--of spending
    everything you have and it's still not enough. In fact, one of
    the recommendations I had is that the respective governments
    who sign the treaties are the ones that foot the bills for the
    two--their respective citizens for this so that way--like I
    wrote--it'd be important for the--for the State Department to
    have skin in the game.
        If they had to pay off--if they had to pay left-behind
    parents, which was myself, all of the awarded penalties as a
    result of this, they might have a little bit different view on
    doing this.
        But with respect to the--your question or talking about
    permission to enforce in Japan, the--it is accurate to say that
    you need the consent, which is a little different than
    permission--consent of the abductor to have access to the left-
    behind--to have the--to the stolen children.
        It's also you need to have the consent of the abductor or
    those that are found guilty of abducting to comply with the
    order because in Japan there is no contempt, or there is
    contempt--there are no consequences for contempt.
        So even though my children were ordered twice returned, my
    wife, he told me, was able to be in contempt for no
    consequence. Meanwhile, she accrued, as I said in one instance,
    $132,000 of per diem fines and enforcement fines that after the
    court had done its magic and flipped this order and revoked it
    they then also just--like I said, 2 weeks ago took away any of
    the--the contempt fines.
        So I am absolutely left with nothing, and this isn't just
    about me. This is--this is how Japan operates absent some
    external effort.
        And a little thing I wrote in here is when--you know, we
    asked numbers of--Ms. Lawrence about the returns of children.
    We keep pretty close tabs on each other, everybody in this
    community, okay, and the numbers that I am told is that there
    have been now seven total children returned to the United
    States.
        Of those seven, three of them were U.S. children returned
    to U.S. parents, none of which were done the result of Japanese
    enforcement powers because they don't have any. One was the
    death of the taking parent--the father in Japan--and so the
    child was reunited with the mother at the funeral.
        The--another one was--well, I can't use the words here--it
    was a mess of how that she reneged at the last second and
    chased the man out of the country. There's a third, and then we
    have the case of four children--four children returned--
    Japanese children returned to a Japanese mother living in
    Oregon.
        Now we have another case that was just decided with four of
    the five Supreme Court justices that were in my case--just
    miraculously understood that alienated children's opinions many
    not--should not be taken seriously and being in contempt of a
    court order is a crime.
        So they're going to allow the possibility of this child to
    be returned to the left-behind parent in the United States, who
    is also a Japanese citizen.
        So by using the State Department's own metrics, five of the
    eight children returned under the Hague will be from one
    Japanese parent in Japan to a Japanese parent living in the
    United States.
        The Hague is not working for U.S. children. It's just an
    extension of the Japanese family law system, and our State
    Department does nothing about it.
        And I have dealt with Japan for over 30 years and there
    is--we, as people in the cause, trying to get our children
    back, have to battle through our State Department over into
    another land, and I believe there are forces within the State
    Department that are going to prevent or, I should say, are
    going to give a pass to Japan almost permanently with the
    exception of someone like President Trump or maybe the future
    Secretary of State stepping in and saying, ``We are done.''
        Anybody that--anybody that--you know, we cannot allow Japan
    to continue to be noncompliant. These are children. I don't
    care what deals were done, what agreements were made,
    whatever--whoever. They were sold out for whatever donations to
    whatever foundations.
        We need to get these kids back and it has to change, and
    whoever is left from that mind set needs to be blown out of the
    State Department so we have people that actually follow the
    rule of law and follow, particularly, the Goldman Act because
    these are--this is the only way we are going to get kids back
    is to exert some sort of force upon Japan, some economic pain,
    because at the end of the day they're an economic country.
        They're excellent at the diplomatic rope-a-dope. They'll
    listen to you and they'll make promises all day long and, oh,
    they seem sincere. They're not. But they have to experience
    some pain.
        Mr. Smith. Just one final question before I go to Ms.
    Jayapal. India has been noncompliant, pursuant to the Goldman
    Act and on the reports since 2014. No penalty whatsoever.
        It seems to me this needs to be the year of getting the
    report accurate with regards to countries like Japan and also a
    year of significant sanctions. What are your thoughts on that?
        Again, a regimen that goes without--you know, it's all on
    paper and nobody does anything with it. It has a perverse
    outcome of countries saying it's a paper tiger and this law was
    meant to be a game changer.
        Ms. Apy. Well, and this is a good example of needing to
    look at the country that we are talking about and identifying
    what the problem is to find a diplomatic remedy that matches
    it.
        In India, as I've mentioned, the significant portion of the
    judiciary and the lawyers, particularly in this area, support
    joining the Hague, support taking those steps and there have
    been constant bar reports in support.
        The government has pushed back for political reasons and
    has indicated they will not do so. So----
        Mr. Smith. Does that have anything--if you don't mind me
    interrupting--to the fact that so many of those who are left
    behind are mothers--are women? Because we've had testifying
    here a number of women who have had their children abducted to
    India.
        Ms. Apy. The push back came--was led by the Ministry of
    Women and Children that indicated that they did not think that
    the treaty provided adequate protections and--for women and
    that they did not want the return to--which was, again,
    considering the limitations of protection of women in India
    under Indian law was sort of interesting to me.
        But the real--but looking--focussing on the issue of India,
    we have a tremendous diaspora of Indian--Americans--those of
    Indian descent in this country. There's regularly going back
    and forth and in a--actually covers the entire subcontinent.
        That's something where, for example, as you mentioned
    earlier, consideration of those issues in sanctions, whether
    it's dealing with visa issues, dealing with the circumstances
    under which someone can easily go back and forth in
    circumstances in which we have a country that's going to--
    that's creating an environment where there is no ability to
    enforce U.S. orders--where there is an ongoing problem--where
    we do want to find a way to encourage them that--to look at
    what their own judiciary and judges are saying needs to happen
    in their country. That might be one of the ways to creatively
    look at it.
        I would also say that this would lend itself to an MOU,
    identifying that we are going--we need to see these changes in
    this period of time. If you don't do that, then we are going to
    look at the circumstances under which we place our citizens at
    risk in going back and forth and under what circumstances.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am actually one of
    those Indians--people of Indian descent and actually proud to
    be the first Indian-American woman here in the U.S. House of
    Representatives, and so I am looking forward to just
    understanding more about the situation with India. I think I
    know quite a bit about the treaty piece of it but in terms of
    this specific issue.
        I just wanted to go back to what you said about other
    countries being more successful in negotiating for the return
    of some of these abducted children.
        Have you found that countries have had success with the
    very countries that we are having the most challenges with? For
    example, have other countries been successful at negotiating
    real resolutions with Japan?
        Ms. Apy. My experience with Japan is that the rest of the
    countries that deal directly with Japan have the same problems
    we do.
        I've had a number of meetings with a consul general from
    other--representing other countries having these kind of
    conversations, all of which, I think, would be led by and
    encouraged by joint activity in diplomatic activity whether
    it's a joint MOU and signing on to a joint MOU, looking at
    identifying the problems and treaty reciprocity together, which
    is why it's so disheartening when you don't see the United
    States Department of State signing on with or joining in joint
    activity.
        So I would say my experiences even with countries in the
    Pacific Rim--and there are challenges there throughout the
    Asia--but we have those--we have those issues. But we've got
    the real leverage----
        Ms. Jayapal. Yes.
        Ms. Apy [continuing]. Is the issue. We have status of
    forces agreements that we regularly negotiate. We are talking
    about a disproportionate number of our military members
    involved.
        We have the ability to take leadership in that area where
    we haven't. So in that context I would say everyone's sort of
    in the same boat but we have the best leverage to be able to
    address it.
        With respect to some of the other parts of the world and
    particularly India and Pakistan, I will tell you that the U.K.
    has had a significantly better opportunity of negotiating and
    working through some of these cases than we have and they've
    been willing to, in some of these countries, enter into
    bilateral agreements that they work very hard in making sure
    work.
        And of course, as I mentioned, they--the government in that
    case provides a lot of skilled leadership in assisting those
    cases both on an individual negotiated basis as well as in
    assisting in litigation.
        Ms. Jayapal. So you mentioned in your earlier testimony
    just sort of ways that we should clarify the language, in
    particular, the categories within the report.
        What other--and Mr. Cook, thank you for your--for your
    testimony. I just--I just listen to you and it--I can't--I
    don't have any words to express how this must feel for you and
    for other families.
        I've sat with Mr. Morehouse and it's heart-breaking. So
    thank you for being here in spite of that.
        Just in terms of the specific recommendations of what we
    might push for, we can--you know, we can make amendments to the
    legislation.
        We could work on those pieces. But just in terms of
    immediate actions that if you had the magic wand and you were
    in control of the State Department tomorrow, Ms. Apy, what
    would----
        Ms. Apy. I will take a pass on that. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Jayapal. What would--maybe just this portion of it.
        Ms. Apy. Right.
        Ms. Jayapal. What would you--what would you recommend that
    Congress do to push for those actions that you think would be
    most effective?
        Ms. Apy. Well, first of all, I believe that there are
    adequate tools in this--in this act as it's written. I do not
    believe that it needs to be amended.
        I think that the problem is that there has not----
        Ms. Jayapal. You don't--you don't think that the report
    language should be clarified or----
        Ms. Apy. I think that the--I think that the act absolutely
    provides what should go in the report. I believe that the
    United States Department of State has to be--has to actually
    comply with the law as it's written and I don't believe that
    they have enthusiastically been doing that in the sense that
    they need to be, as I said, unapologetic and they need to be
    objective.
        The language is already there. I would add, however, that I
    think that there needs to be an identified process for the
    circumstances under which they must move the diplomatic
    remedies that are provided in the act from a--the lowest
    levels.
        When you have a country--I don't know whether it's the
    objective test of a country has been on in a noncompliance role
    for a year or 2 years that at that point certain things have to
    be done.
        But I have to reiterate by saying a careful reading of the
    existing law provides the test for a noncompliant country.
    They're just not applying it.
        Ms. Jayapal. Right.
        Ms. Apy. And the existing law provides the circumstances
    under which you have to move to diplomatic sanctions and
    they're not being done.
        So at some point, the mechanism is to come back and say, as
    was alluded to, do we have to then look at whether or not the
    State Department is accurately applying it and if they're not,
    put additional steps in that force them to do that, which
    seems--we have enough--the issues here are urgent.
        Time is not a neutral for these families, and the idea that
    there would be push back when you have given the State
    Department objective ladder that they can climb is
    extraordinarily frustrating. Pushing back at the 90-day report,
    for example--they have a 90-day report process.
        When the report first comes in and comments are made, they
    should come back with direct response as they're required to do
    under the act as to what steps they've taken in individual
    country cases. They're just not doing it.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I have nothing else.
        Mr. Smith. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Jayapal. Yes, I would.
        Mr. Smith. And on that point, that's why we have had so
    many hearings, not only to hear from left-behind parents and
    experts like Patricia Apy but also to try to hold them to
    account, to say listen to both spirit and letter of the law and
    just follow it, which is why, again, this year we are having
    this hearing before the report is issued.
        We will have another afterwards and then probably another
    one after that in this calendar year just to keep the pressure
    on our own people just to do the right thing.
        And but thank you. It was a great question.
        Ms. Apy. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. And I thank you both for your testimony and for
    your leadership and, Mr. Cook, know that our prayers and hopes
    are with you and other left-behind parents.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]