[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3679-S3681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL KIDNAPPING

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening 
because I want to draw my colleagues' attention to a very important 
editorial that appeared in this morning's Washington Post. This 
editorial concerns international parental kidnapping. I also call my 
colleagues' attention to a feature article that appeared on the same 
subject in Sunday's Washington Post.
  Both Sunday's article and today's editorial are very critical of the 
way the Federal Government has been handling international parental 
abduction cases. In fact, the editorial today characterizes the 
Government's response to these cases as ``incomprehensibly 
lackadaisical.'' I could not have said it better myself.

  This is an issue that I have spoken on this floor about on several 
different occasions. It is a matter on which our committee has held 
several hearings. But despite those hearings and despite those 
speeches, I do not think there has been anything that has explained it 
in as great a detail and in as heartbreaking a way as the article that 
appeared in Sunday's Washington Post.
  That story involves the heartbreaking story of Joseph Cooke, who, for 
the last 7 years, has been unable to retrieve his three children from a 
German foster home. In Mr. Cooke's case, his German-born wife had taken 
their three children on what was supposed to be a 3-week vacation to 
her homeland to visit her parents.
  One day, though, during the trip, Mrs. Cooke took her children, 
boarded a German train, and essentially disappeared. She called her 
husband and only gave him a cryptic explanation as to where she was 
going and what she was doing with their children.
  Joseph contacted his wife's parents in Germany, but they gave him 
little help or information. What Joseph eventually discovered was that 
his wife had checked into a German mental health facility and had 
placed their children in the care of the German Youth Authority, who, 
in turn, put the children in a foster family. And even though Mrs. 
Cooke eventually left the mental health clinic and returned to the 
United States, the children remained with the German foster family.
  With very little information as to the whereabouts of his children, 
Mr. Cooke tried desperately to get his children back. But despite the 
fact that the children are U.S. citizens, and were living in the United 
States when they were taken--despite the fact that Joseph was awarded 
eventual custody of the children by a U.S. court, and despite the very 
plain terms of the Hague Convention, an international treaty setting 
forth a process for the timely return of children wrongly removed or 
retained from their home country--German courts, in spite of that, 
ruled that the children were to remain in Germany.
  The Cooke case is a perfect example of how the Hague Convention, of 
which I point out Germany is a signatory, just isn't working. It isn't 
working because the nations that have agreed to it, including the 
United States, refuse to make it work.
  The United States complies with the Hague Convention. When another 
country makes an order, the United States, in over 80 percent of the 
cases, complies. That is not what I am talking about. What I am talking 
about is we make no attempt to enforce it. It isn't working--let me 
repeat--because the

[[Page S3680]]

nations that have agreed to it, including the United States, refuse to 
make it work.
  Member countries are not complying, and, tragically, our State 
Department and our Justice Department are not doing anything about it. 
The State Department is too reluctant to use the appropriate diplomatic 
channels to encourage foreign nations to comply with the treaty.
  As the Washington Post article pointed out on Sunday:

       The State Department says it cannot enforce the Hague 
     convention or interfere in decisions overseas. ``There are no 
     consequences for noncompliance,'' said a U.S. official with 
     the embassy in Germany. ``I look at it as a voluntary 
     compliance sort of thing.''
  ``I look at it as a voluntary compliance sort of thing.''
  With that kind of attitude on behalf of our State Department, is it 
any wonder no country pays any attention to us?
  ``. . . a voluntary compliance sort of thing.''
  As a Senator and as a parent and as a grandparent, I find that kind 
of approach to treaty enforcement appalling and unacceptable. The fact 
of the matter is, international parental abduction goes far beyond 
Joseph Cooke's tragic situation.
  Currently, the State Department has on file at least 1,100 cases of 
international parental kidnapping, when one parent illegally takes his 
or her child out of the United States and right out of the life of the 
parent left behind.
  These kidnappings and ensuing custody battles devastate families. 
They are devastating not only for the left behind parent but also for 
the child who is denied what every child should have; that is, the love 
of one of his or her parents.
  Equally devastating is that during the media hype surrounding the 
Elian Gonzalez case, the State Department tried to use that case as a 
public relations opportunity to boost their own miserable record on 
getting our kids back from international parental abductions.
  Amazingly, in one media account a State Department official actually 
said that in cases of international parental kidnappings: ``We don't 
take no for an answer.'' That is simply not true. The sad reality is 
that both our State Department and our Justice Department are, in fact, 
taking no for an answer. Their actions or inactions are speaking a lot 
louder than their words.
  For example, the Justice Department rarely pursues prosecution under 
the International Parental Kidnapping Act, and, in the last 5 years, 
just 62 indictments and only 13 convictions have resulted from 
thousands and thousands and thousands of cases of abductions.
  Every parent who has been left behind when a spouse or former spouse 
has kidnapped their children knows that our Government is not making 
the return of those children a top and immediate priority. The message 
this Government--our Federal Government--continues to send to these 
parents is that once their children are abducted and taken out of the 
United States, they just don't matter anymore.
  When I have asked the State and Justice Departments about this, when 
I have asked repeatedly about why they are not doing more to help these 
parents get their kids back, all I get are excuses.
  Contrast that message and that inaction toward American children with 
the dramatic and very different message that those same officials sent 
by forcing, at gunpoint, the reunion of Elian Gonzalez with his dad. 
That, indeed, paints a very different picture.
  The excuses are endless. State and Justice blame their inaction on 
complicated extradition laws. Other times, they say these cases are 
private disputes between parents so the Federal Government should be 
left out of such matters. They figure, too, that these children are 
really not being kidnapped by strangers --they are with a parent, after 
all, so what is the big deal?
  Taken all together, these factors suggest that the State Department 
is more interested in maintaining positive relationships and diplomatic 
ties with foreign governments than in helping American parents. In 
essence, these agencies are saying: You may steal American kids and get 
away with it.
  Quite frankly, when it comes to a stolen child, there should be no 
excuses. Our Federal agencies must make these abductions a top 
priority. They need to coordinate efforts to offer more assistance to 
distraught parents seeking a safe return of their children from abroad. 
They should begin a training program for U.S. attorneys and designate 
one attorney in each of their offices across our country to be 
responsible for these international abduction cases.
  Additionally, I am writing to President Clinton about his upcoming 
meeting with the German Chancellor and am encouraging him to discuss 
Joseph Cooke's case, and the other cases that we have pending in 
Germany, as well as the overall pattern of German noncompliance with 
the Hague Convention.
  Further, with regard to the Hague Convention, specifically, in March, 
I submitted a resolution which now has the support of 35 Senate 
cosponsors to encourage all of the countries that have signed the Hague 
Convention, particularly those countries that consistently violate the 
convention--namely, Austria, Germany, and Sweden--to comply fully with 
both the letter and the spirit of their obligations under the 
convention that they signed.
  This resolution we have introduced urges countries to return children 
under that convention without reaching the underlying custody dispute 
and to remove barriers to parental visitation. I am pleased to report 
that the resolution has been approved by the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee and is awaiting floor consideration.
  Governance is about setting priorities. Policymaking is about setting 
priorities. Yes, our State Department has a lot to do and, yes, our 
Justice Department has a lot to do and, yes, there is no real teeth in 
the Hague Convention, other than international opinion, other than 
good, hard negotiations between countries. What I am asking the State 
Department and the Justice Department to do is begin to prioritize 
these cases.
  The Attorney General of the United States should say to every U.S. 
attorney across this country that parental kidnapping cases should be 
at the top of the list of your priorities. Pay attention and deal with 
these cases. The Secretary of State should say to our embassies 
overseas, to our ambassadors, yes, trade is important; yes, immigration 
issues are important; yes, whatever is the topic of the day is 
important as you sit down and discuss these issues with the President 
of the country you are dealing with, or the Prime Minister; these are 
all important things; but also don't forget the children who have been 
stolen from their parents in the United States are important, also, and 
they should have a high priority.
  So it is not an excuse that should be accepted by the parents of 
these children, nor by this Senate, by this Congress, nor by the 
American people, that we just don't have time to do this, or it just 
can't be enforced or other things are going on. This should be a 
priority.
  I am calling on our Government today to make judgments and set 
priorities. Our children should always be our first priority. I think 
it is ironic that it is easier today to get our ambassadors and our 
State Department engaged on a trade matter than it is on a matter 
regarding the stealing of one of our children. The stealing of our 
children is important, and it is equally as important, I hope, and 
would be so considered by the Justice Department and by the State 
Department as a trade matter or the enforcement or the prosecution of 
any number of other types of cases.
  In the end, we are succeeding in bringing parentally abducted 
children back to their homes in the U.S. Our Federal Government must 
take an active role in their return. Ultimately, our Government has an 
obligation to these parents and, more important, to the children who 
have been kidnapped. It is time our Government agencies put American 
parents and their children first.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S3681]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________