[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11168-S11169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EXTRADITION TREATIES INTERPRETATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 196, S. 1266.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1266) to interpret the term ``kidnaping'' in 
     extradition treaties to which the United States is a party.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1523

   (Purpose: To provide substitute language for the text of the bill)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Helms has a substitute amendment at 
the desk, and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Helms, for 
     himself, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment No. 1523.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Extradition Treaties 
     Interpretation Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) each year, several hundred children are kidnapped by a 
     parent in violation of law, court order, or legally binding 
     agreement and brought to, or taken from, the United States;
       (2) until the mid-1970's, parental abduction generally was 
     not considered a criminal offense in the United States;
       (3) since the mid-1970's, United States criminal law has 
     evolved such that parental abduction is now a criminal 
     offense in each of the 50 States and the District of 
     Columbia;
       (4) in enacting the International Parental Kidnapping Crime 
     Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-173; 107 Stat. 1998; 18 U.S.C. 
     1204), Congress recognized the need to combat parental 
     abduction by making the act of international parental 
     kidnapping a Federal criminal offense;
       (5) many of the extradition treaties to which the United 
     States is a party specifically list the offenses that are 
     extraditable and use the word ``kidnapping'', but it has been 
     the practice of the United States not to consider the term to 
     include parental abduction because these treaties were 
     negotiated by the United States prior to the development in 
     United States criminal law described in paragraphs (3) and 
     (4);
       (6) the more modern extradition treaties to which the 
     United States is a party contain dual criminality provisions, 
     which provide for extradition where both parties make the 
     offense a felony, and therefore it is the practice of the 
     United States to consider such treaties to include parental 
     abduction if the other foreign state party also considers the 
     act of parental abduction to be a criminal offense; and
       (7) this circumstance has resulted in a disparity in United 
     States extradition law which should be rectified to better 
     protect the interests of children and their parents.

     SEC. 3. INTERPRETATION OF EXTRADITION TREATIES.

       For purposes of any extradition treaty to which the United 
     States is a party, Congress authorizes the interpretation of 
     the terms ``kidnaping'' and ``kidnapping'' to include 
     parental kidnapping.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is today 
acting on the Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act. I appreciate the 
cooperation of the chairman of the committee, and the cooperation and 
assistance of the executive branch, in moving this bill forward.
  The bill is very short, and I will not take the Senate's time to 
review it at length. In brief, the bill is designed to remedy a 
disparity in U.S. extradition law and practice. The disparity is this: 
under certain extradition treaties, the crime of parental abduction--
when one parent takes a child in violation of law or a custody order 
and against the wishes of the other parent--is not extraditable. That 
is so for two related reasons.
  The criminalization of parental abduction is a relatively recent 
development in U.S. criminal law. Prior to the mid-1970's, parental 
abduction was generally considered a family law matter not covered by 
criminal law. In the last two decades or so, U.S. criminal law has 
evolved significantly. All 50 states

[[Page S11169]]

make the act a crime, as does the District of Columbia and the Federal 
Government.
  As a consequence of this development in the law, a disparity has been 
created in U.S. extradition law. The disparity occurs in a subset of 
extradition treaties referred to as ``list'' treaties--so named because 
they specifically enumerate, or list, the crimes under the treaty that 
are considered extraditable. Thus, because the act of parental 
abduction was not a crime when these older list treaties were ratified, 
it has been the practice of the executive branch to interpret the 
treaties as excluding parental abduction. This concern does not arise 
in more modern ``dual criminality'' treaties, which avoid the limiting 
nature of the list treaties by allowing extradition in any case where 
both countries make a practice a felony.
  Seeking to remove this disparity, the Clinton administration has 
requested authority to adopt a new interpretation of the term 
``kidnapping'' in the list treaties so that it encompasses parental 
abduction. The Foreign Relations Committee strongly supports this 
request, and voted unanimously last month to report the bill to the 
Senate.
  The chairman and I have offered a substitute amendment which makes 
several changes to the Committee-reported bill which were recommended 
by the Justice Department after it gave closer review to the 
legislation. The changes are modest, and mostly technical. I would 
highlight only one: the committee-reported bill provided, in the 
operative section of the bill, section 3, that the Congress authorizes 
the interpretation of the term kidnapping to include international 
parental kidnapping. The substitute omits the word ``international,'' 
for an important reason: the crime of international parental abduction, 
which includes as an element the taking of a child out of the country, 
is a Federal offense. But the practical reality is that most 
extradition cases will involve crimes prosecuted at the state level, 
where the offense does not include the aforementioned element of 
removing the child from the country. Thus, the substitute ensures that 
the bill has the broadest possible reach.
  Mr. President, the abduction of children by their parents is a 
heartwrenching crime. This bill will ensure that there is no disparity 
in U.S. extradition law and practice with regard to this crime, and, I 
hope, will help lead to the extradition of individuals wanted for this 
crime. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the amendment be agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1523) was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed, as amended; that the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to 
the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 1266), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________