[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3564-H3568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page H3564]]



      URGING COMPLIANCE WITH HAGUE CONVENTION ON CIVIL ASPECTS OF 
                     INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 293) urging compliance with the 
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 
as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 293

       Whereas the Department of State reports that at any given 
     time there are 1,000 open cases of American children either 
     abducted from the United States or wrongfully retained in a 
     foreign country;
       Whereas many more cases of international child abductions 
     are not reported to the Department of State;
       Whereas the situation has worsened since 1993, when 
     Congress estimated the number of American children abducted 
     from the United States and wrongfully retained in foreign 
     countries to be more than 10,000;
       Whereas Congress has recognized the gravity of 
     international child abduction in enacting the International 
     Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 (18 U.S.C. 1204), the 
     Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C. 1738a), and 
     substantial reform and reporting requirements for the 
     Department of State in the fiscal years 1998-1999 and 2000-
     2001 Foreign Relations Authorization Acts;
       Whereas the United States became a contracting party in 
     1988 to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 
     International Child Abduction (in this concurrent resolution 
     referred to as the ``Hague Convention'') and adopted 
     effective implementing legislation in the International Child 
     Abduction Remedies Act (42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq.);
       Whereas the Hague Convention establishes mutual rights and 
     duties between and among its contracting states to expedite 
     the return of children to the state of their habitual 
     residence, as well as to ensure that rights of custody and of 
     access under the laws of one contracting state are 
     effectively respected in other contracting states, without 
     consideration of the merits of any underlying child custody 
     dispute;
       Whereas Article 13 of the Hague Convention provides a 
     narrow exception to the requirement for prompt return of 
     children, which exception releases the requested state from 
     its obligation to return a child to the country of the 
     child's habitual residence if it is established that there is 
     a ``grave risk'' that the return would expose the child to 
     ``physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child 
     in an intolerable situation'' or ``if the child objects to 
     being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity 
     at which it is appropriate to take account of [the child's] 
     views'';
       Whereas some contracting states, for example Germany, 
     routinely invoke Article 13 as a justification for nonreturn, 
     rather than resorting to it in a small number of wholly 
     exceptional cases;
       Whereas the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
     Children (NCMEC), the only institution of its kind, was 
     established in the United States for the purpose of assisting 
     parents in recovering their missing children;
       Whereas Article 21 of the Hague Convention provides that 
     the central authorities of all parties to the Convention are 
     obligated to cooperate with each other in order to promote 
     the peaceful enjoyment of parental access rights and the 
     fulfillment of any conditions to which the exercise of such 
     rights may be subject, and to remove, as far as possible, all 
     obstacles to the exercise of such rights;
       Whereas some contracting states fail to order or enforce 
     normal visitation rights for parents of abducted or 
     wrongfully retained children who have not been returned under 
     the terms of the Hague Convention; and
       Whereas the routine invocation of the Article 13 exception, 
     denial of parental visitation of children, and the failure by 
     several contracting parties, most notably Austria, Germany, 
     Honduras, Mexico, and Sweden, to fully implement the 
     Convention deprives the Hague Convention of the spirit of 
     mutual confidence upon which its success depends: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That Congress urges--
       (1) all contracting parties to the Hague Convention, 
     particularly European civil law countries that consistently 
     violate the Hague Convention such as Austria, Germany and 
     Sweden, to comply fully with both the letter and spirit of 
     their international legal obligations under the Convention;
       (2) all contracting parties to the Hague Convention to 
     ensure their compliance with the Hague Convention by enacting 
     effective implementing legislation and educating their 
     judicial and law enforcement authorities;
       (3) all contracting parties to the Hague Convention to 
     honor their commitments and return abducted or wrongfully 
     retained children to their place of habitual residence 
     without reaching the merits of any underlying custody dispute 
     and ensure parental access rights by removing obstacles to 
     the exercise of such rights;
       (4) the Secretary of State to disseminate to all Federal 
     and State courts the Department of State's annual report to 
     Congress on Hague Convention compliance and related matters; 
     and
       (5) each contracting party to the Hague Convention to 
     further educate its central authority and local law 
     enforcement authorities regarding the Hague Convention, the 
     severity of the problem of international child abduction, and 
     the need for immediate action when a parent of an abducted 
     child seeks their assistance.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Concurrent Resolution 293.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
293. This resolution urges compliance with the Hague Convention on the 
civil aspects of international child abduction. It is regrettable that 
we are in a position in this resolution of the need to criticize by 
name several nations with whom we have otherwise had friendly 
relations: Germany, Austria, Sweden, Honduras, and Mexico.
  It is obvious from the circumstances, that it is necessary to do so, 
and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of 
our Committee on International Relations, who, on behalf of 132 
cosponsors, introduced this measure.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), 
who is the chairman of the Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. He 
has devoted a great deal of his time to raising our level of awareness 
of the growing problem of international child abduction.
  We are taking action on this measure on behalf of the parents of our 
abducted and wrongfully-retained children. These left-behind parents 
have put their faith and trust in an international agreement, the Hague 
Convention, which is clear and explicit on the obligation of signatory 
governments to return an abducted or wrongfully-retained child to his 
or her country of habitual residence. Nevertheless, we found that in a 
number of nations, for a variety of reasons, this does not occur and 
the resultant frustration, the heartbreak, and outrage has led us to 
act on the measure before us today.
  I should also add that we need to have our State Department do more 
to promote compliance with the Hague Convention. The return of an 
abducted or illegally-retained child should be on the top of the 
Secretary's meetings with any official of a country involved in such 
cases.
  This is not a problem that should be handled as a routine exchange of 
diplomatic notes or by phone calls by any junior U.S. official to their 
foreign counterparts. We need to see some concern and some concrete 
actions by the highest levels of our government to redress what is 
evidently a growing international problem.
  It is our hope, Mr. Speaker, that by adopting this resolution we will 
be sending a strong signal to those governments which fail to honor 
consistently their international commitments. This is an issue that we 
care deeply about. We need to focus the attention of the governments of 
Germany, of Sweden, Austria, Mexico, and Honduras on this issue to make 
them understand that they cannot expect the Hague Convention to be a 
one-way street.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to unanimously agree to 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Many of us 
have read press accounts of children stolen from their American mothers 
or fathers and whisked away to a foreign country by the noncustodial 
parent. The heartbreak of the left-behind parent is too often 
compounded by the realization that the country to which the abducting 
parent has fled is actually helping

[[Page H3565]]

that parent to hide the children. This assistance to the abductors by 
countries like Germany, Austria, Sweden, and Mexico is contrary to the 
letter and spirit of the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of 
international child abduction.
  In at least 30 cases in Germany, for example, German judges have 
flouted the basic tenets of the Hague Convention and have allowed the 
fleeing parent to continue to hide the children from their American 
parents and even to deny them the most minimal contact with their 
children. Germany is a signatory to the Hague Convention.
  Resolutions like the one we have before us, and I compliment the 
chairman of the committee for expediting this matter and the fine work 
done by my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Lampson). Resolutions like the one we have before us 
today are one way that Congress can send a message to these countries, 
most of which are friends and allies of the United States, that we will 
not be silent in the face of these tragedies.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, these cases are tragedies, tragedies of 
broken families, traumatized children, bereft mothers and fathers who 
are left behind with precious little hope of ever seeing their children 
again. These cases are, sadly, not rare. Every year it is estimated 
that at least 1,000 boys and girls are taken from their American 
parents. There are as many as 10,000 cases of children wrongfully 
retained by their noncustodial parents currently on file. The Hague 
Convention clearly states that custody disputes should be decided in 
the country in which the child habitually resides, but time and again 
foreign courts have intervened and decided custody cases, even though 
the children in question are American-born and have spent their lives 
up to the point of their abduction in America.
  In the case of Joseph Cooke, whose story was so movingly described 
recently in the Washington Post, German courts even gave the German 
foster parents of his children greater rights than they accorded Mr. 
Cooke himself, the children's father.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us urges our friends, neighbors, 
and allies to live up to their commitments in signing the Hague 
Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. It 
asks countries to enact effective implementing legislation; to educate 
their judicial and law enforcement authorities; to return abducted and 
wrongfully-retained children to their place of habitual residence 
without reaching the merits of any underlying custody dispute; and to 
ensure parental access rights by removing obstacles to the exercise of 
such rights; and to further educate its central authority and local law 
enforcement authorities on the Hague Convention, the severity of the 
problem of international child abduction and the need for immediate 
action, when a parent of an abducted child seeks their assistance.
  This is the very least we can do to address the heartbreak of 
thousands of American left-behind parents, and I strongly urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot), the original sponsor of this measure.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, first let me express my thanks to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his long-standing leadership 
in this issue. He has been a real advocate for those families who have 
been victimized by international parental child abduction. All of us 
who have worked on this issue appreciate his stewardship.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for 
his leadership on this very important issue; and I want to particularly 
thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the principal 
cosponsor of the bipartisan resolution. As the founder and chairman of 
the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, he has 
worked tirelessly on behalf of abducted children. He comes down here 
every single day and gives a speech on a different particular case that 
has happened and he has devoted a lot of time and a lot of effort on 
this issue and to the families and he has been a very effective partner 
in this legislative effort.
  More than 130 cosponsors have joined in this effort to bring 
attention to the tragedy of international parental child abduction. I 
know the families of those children appreciate the support of Members 
of Congress like the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler); the 
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson); the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman); the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose); and so many 
others.
  I would also particularly like to thank my legislative director Kevin 
Fitzpatrick who spent many, many hours working on this issue and 
talking with someone in my district who has been hit with this on a 
personal basis.
  I first became aware of this issue on a personal level when a 
gentleman by the name of Tom Sylvester from my hometown of Cincinnati, 
his daughter Carina was abducted by her mother in 1995 and taken to 
Austria where she remains today. Despite a number of court orders in 
both the United States and in Austria, including an order by the 
Austrian Supreme Court that clearly ruled that the child should be 
returned to Tom Sylvester, Carina has not been returned to her father.
  During the last 5 years, he has only been able to see her briefly and 
in a supervised setting. Every attempt to bring Carina home has been 
met with rejection by Austria.
  Every attempt to seek justice from the Austrian government has been 
stonewalled, and it is time that Tom Sylvester got his daughter Carina 
back to the United States. That is where she belongs.

                              {time}  1300

  During a hearing on the Committee on International Relations in March 
of this year, I had the opportunity to discuss Tom Sylvester's case 
with Secretary of State Madeline Albright. The Secretary promised to 
bring up the case during her discussions with the Austrian government, 
and she committed to a meeting with Mr. Sylvester, myself, and my 
colleague, the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Portman). 
Hopefully, that meeting will take place soon.
  By personally engaging in this issue, the Secretary will be 
expressing her solidarity with all of those parents throughout the 
country who face the same painful ordeal that Tom Sylvester faces every 
day, and she will be sending a strong message to those offending 
countries who fail to honor their obligations under the Hague 
Convention that the United States Government is serious about bringing 
our children home.
  House Concurrent Resolution 293 is very straightforward. We are 
urging all contracting parties to the Hague Convention on the Civil 
Aspects of International Child Abduction to comply fully with both the 
letter and the spirit of their international legal obligations under 
the convention; to ensure their compliance by enacting effective 
implementing legislation and educating their judicial and law 
enforcement authorities; and to honor their commitments and return 
wrongfully abducted children to their place of habitual residence and 
ensure parental access rights by removing obstacles to the exercise of 
those rights.
  Mr. Speaker, thousands of American parents wake up each morning with 
a glimmer of hope that they will soon be reunited with their abducted 
children. Most of those parents go to bed again that night broken-
hearted. Sadly those left-behind parents all too often believe that 
they have nowhere to turn and that is truly a tragedy.
  Today, we are sending a message to our State Department that the 
return of our children is a national priority. Today, we are saying to 
those nations who routinely ignore their obligations under the Hague 
convention: send our children home.
  Mr. Speaker, those long suffering left-behind parents need to know 
that their government is behind them, and that their government will 
keep fighting for them until the last stolen American child comes 
safely home.
  Let us have a resounding show of support for this resolution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged and honored

[[Page H3566]]

to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lampson), who has been a tireless worker in this effort to bring this 
matter to fruition.
  (Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 293. As chairman and founder of the Congressional 
Missing And Exploited Children's Caucus, I am very, very pleased that 
the House Committee on International Relations and the gentleman from 
New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) have recognized the importance of an issue that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Ose) and I have been pushing on for quite a long time of international 
parental child abduction.
  The bill that this body will vote on today calls on the signatories 
of the Hague Convention of Civil Aspect of Child Abduction to abide by 
the provisions of the Hague Convention.
  Three months ago, I came before that committee, with a number of 
parents, to announce to Congress and to the American people that it was 
time for America and our foreign counterparts to sit up and take notice 
of the 10,000 American children that have been abducted overseas, and 
that time has come.
  We are pointing fingers today at those countries who have not lived 
up to their side of the deal, and I know that the United States is not 
perfect, that we still have much educating to do of the judges who deal 
with this issue, but the return rate by the United States to other 
Hague countries is upwards of 89 percent. We know that American 
children are returned at a rate far less than what the United States 
returns, only about 24 percent.
  These parents' children have been abducted to Hague countries all 
over the world. This issue is one that is nonpartisan and one that none 
of us can afford to ignore. I am truly pleased to have introduced this 
resolution with my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). Our 
resolution urges all contracting parties to the Hague Convention, 
particularly European civil law countries, that consistently violate 
the Hague Convention, such as Austria, Germany and Sweden, to comply 
fully with both the letter and the spirit of their international legal 
obligations under this convention, in addition to urging all 
contracting parties to ensure their compliance with the convention by 
enacting effective implementing legislation and educating their 
judicial law enforcement authorities.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that this is making a difference. We know that 
our voices are being heard. I know that last Friday, a gentleman whose 
name is Paul Marinkovich, had a case in the courts in Scotland after he 
had followed his child from Sweden to Norway to Spain and finally to 
Scotland; and Mr. Marinkovich won his case last Friday in Scotland 
after 3\1/2\ years on the run. His child was located with the child's 
mother there in Scotland, and it was only after involvement by this 
government, by this Congress, by our State Department and high-ranking 
administration officials that this case, his case, took a turn for the 
better.
  It was televised in Sweden; someone saw it and recognized Gabriel, 
who had moved to Spain. The case was investigated in Spain, and he was 
located in Scotland. His ex-wife was arrested. Gabriel was in the care 
of social services, and Paul won the Hague case on Friday. That is a 
thrill to me to know that this Congress made a difference.
  Another gentleman named Jim Rinaman, Jim was a father who I met back 
in February and March. He saw his daughter for the first time in 5 
years in Germany. The pressure that the German government is feeling is 
becoming apparent. The German press has picked up on this issue and is 
putting pressure on families over there.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to read a part of an e-mail that came. While it 
was directed to me, I share and feel that it should be shared with 
every Member of Congress who has touched this issue in the last several 
months. He says: ``Thank you so much for all of your help. I really 
admire you and the other Members for the way that you have taken on 
this issue. You can count on me for any assistance I might be able to 
provide for your continued efforts. As difficult as my situation still 
is, I am very much relieved, and I know there are solutions still to be 
found for other parents and children and Catherine. I believe that the 
German government, for one, is learning a new kind of respect for the 
United States because of the principal people like you and other 
Members of Congress who have presented and refused to compromise. There 
will be many parents and children who will always deeply appreciate 
what you are doing. I have attached photos of Julia. As you can see, 
she is well, and, thankfully, she will grow up with the opportunity to 
be equally proud of being American and German.''
  Well, to me, that is what this is about. And I want to take just a 
minute to commend the people like John Herzberg on the committee and 
Abby Hochberg Shannon on my staff and others on the staff like Khristyn 
Brimmeier and so many others who have spent so much of their time and 
effort. This issue would not have been brought to where it is today 
without so much work on the part of our staffs.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this and only ask to bring our children home.
  As I stated in my press conference three months ago, we need to raise 
awareness--parents from across the country have been contacting their 
Members of Congress. And we must continue to put pressure on other 
countries that are Hague signatories, that are not abiding to the Hague 
Treaty. This resolution does just that. As I said in March, I would 
like to issue a challenge to each of you to help carry this message 
forward and help us ``Bring our Children Home.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). Does the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose) seek to claim the remaining time of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman)?
  Mr. OSE. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose) will control the remaining time allotted to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) to speak to the issue because we 
have a considerable amount of time, but more importantly because the 
gentleman has been tireless in his efforts to bring this matter to 
fruition.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) for their efforts here. I also want to 
memorialize the efforts of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) in bringing this matter to the 
attention of the Congress.
  What we are really talking about here is how one defines a country of 
habitual residency and putting the children in the position where they 
can live in those countries.
  As others have spoken so eloquently about the fact of this matter, 
about the relative rates of return by our country to others as opposed 
to those of other countries to us, I will not spend a lot of time on 
that.
  But I do want to make a couple points, and that is I am new here, if 
you will. I have asked for recognition from the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) from the other side of the aisle, and I have come to the 
lectern that is typically reserved for Members of the other side, to 
highlight that this issue is not a partisan issue. This is an issue 
that touches every single district in this country. It touches 
constituents from Portland, Maine; to San Diego, California; to 
Binghamton, New York; to Seattle, Washington. Every single district. 
That is why it is important.
  Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) highlighted a success 
story that we recently had. I am hopeful that that gentleman and his 
child are home now. I am hopeful that the second case that the 
gentleman mentioned comes to a successful fruition, also. I am willing 
to take these cases one at a time, just case by case. I want to start 
on June 2 and June 3 by having the President of the United States speak 
to the chancellor of Germany about specific cases in Germany that they 
can both together reach out and change, the Cooke case in particular.

[[Page H3567]]

  It is possible for two people, President Clinton and Chancellor 
Schroeder, to get together and change the course of the future of that 
family for the positive, consistent with the treaty that both countries 
have our adherence to, consistent with the case law and the family law 
in both countries.
  Before I came to Congress, I once heard that it takes a village to 
raise a child. I do not say that in any means to belittle it, because 
it is true. We collectively raise our children. There are times when I 
am not home, and my neighbor helps raise my kids.
  What we need to have is for the President to stand and speak for the 
parents and children who are Americans.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and note that 
she, too, has been tireless in her efforts and is a cosponsor of the 
measure before us today.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, thank 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and the great work that I have 
enjoyed, him leading out on and being able to be part of the Caucus for 
Missing and Exploited Children, as it has worked with the caucus that I 
have chaired, the Congressional Children's Caucus.
  I wanted to rise today because this is such an important piece of 
legislation to advocate for the importance of children in America and 
the importance of the sanctity and the sacredness of our children.
  Let me briefly suggest that America has watched over the last couple 
of months the unfolding of an enormous drama of a child and his parent. 
With that emphasis, I can understand the pain that has been experienced 
by so many American parents who have asked the question, why not us? If 
not now, when?
  So this is an important resolution to say to countries like Germany 
and Austria and Sweden and other countries around the world that we 
pride the children of American citizens who have been abducted and 
kidnapped around the world; we will not stand for their misuse and 
abuse and not having them reunited with their families.
  I simply say that the Hague Convention is an important part of the 
international arena; and, therefore, it is enormously important that 
the Hague Convention is adhered to to ensure that the custody rights 
and the laws of one contracting state are effectively respected with 
other contracting states. This is all that the parents ask for. This is 
all that Joseph Cooke wanted, to be able to see his two children that 
were abducted from him and from this country and taken as strangers to 
Germany.
  I would simply ask my colleagues to allow this opportunity for this 
legislation to be our resounding statement that we pride and love our 
children and that we will work with America's parents to ensure their 
safe return to them.
  Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 293, I 
rise in support of urging member nations of the Hague Convention on the 
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to comply with this most 
important treaty.
  This Resolution urges the United States and member nations to 
implement legislation in the International Child Abduction Remedies Act 
and establishes reciprocal rights and duties between contracting states 
to expedite the return of children to the state of their habitual 
residence.
  The purpose of the Hague convention is to ensure that the custody 
rights under the laws of one contracting state are effectively 
respected in other contracting states.
  Although the Hague Convention provides a narrow exception to the 
requirement of the prompt return of children that releases the member 
state from its obligations, but this is only if it has been determined 
that returning the child would impose a ``grave risk'' of ``physical or 
psychological harm'' among other things.
  Unfortunately, member states have abused this exception and are 
condoning the illegal separation of children across the country from 
their biological parents.
  For example, Joseph Cooke of New York, lost his two children to 
strangers in Germany after his ex-wife abducted them and placed them in 
the care of the German Youth Authority.
  The fact that Joseph was awarded custody by a U.S. Court and the fact 
that the Hague Convention, of which Germany is a member, requires that 
custody be determined in the child's home country, the German courts 
awarded custody to the foster family.
  The State Department claims that is cannot enforce the Hague 
Convention or interfere in decisions overseas, but there are ways in 
which the United States can urge compliance with this treaty and I, 
along with the 132 co-sponsors of this resolution, hope that the 
Secretary of State will make the commitment to help rectify this 
continual tragedy occurring across the world today.
  The State Department has 1,148 open international custody cases, 
including 58 in Germany. But that number represents only a fraction of 
the children abducted abroad because most families never file their 
cases with the State Department.
  The discrepancy between the United State's compliance and that of 
other countries like Germany is alarming!
  From 1990 to 1998, the State Department received 369 Hague 
applications from parents whose children had been abducted to Germany. 
Yet, only 80 children, including those that have been voluntarily 
returned by the abducting parents, have come back. On the other hand, 
U.S. courts return 90 percent of the children in Hague cases.
  The National Center for missing and Exploited Children has done a 
tremendous job in assisting distraught parents retrieve their children, 
but they need help.
  Since Article 21 of the Hague Convention obligates member states to 
cooperate with each other to promote the ``peaceful enjoyment of 
parental access rights,'' there is no excuse for countries such as 
Germany, Austria and even Sweden for allowing such a travesty of 
justice to take place.
  I urge my fellow members of Congress to pass this most important 
resolution that urges compliance with the Hague Convention.
  We can no longer stand idly by as American parents are subjected to 
the torture of not being allowed to see the most precious gift God has 
given them, their children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Houghton) will control the remaining time of the majority 
side.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) 
has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 6 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like simply to thank the majority staff 
of the Committee on International Relations for their handling of this 
matter, and, of course, the minority staff, with specific reference to 
Sean Carroll and Kathleen Moazed, and my legislative director, Fred 
Turner, and all of us that are associated with this matter.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
House Concurrent Resolution, H. Con. Res. 293, which calls on parties 
to the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child 
Abduction to abide by the provisions of that agreement.
  The State Department reports that nearly 1,000 children a year are 
abducted by a parent and taken outside of the United States. According 
to a report recently released by the General Accounting Office, despite 
the efforts of the Federal Government, Americans have little chance of 
regaining custody of children abducted by a parent and taken to a 
foreign country. Success in these tragic situations is often elusive 
because it largely depends on the willingness of foreign governments to 
cooperate.
  The 1980 Hague Convention outlines procedures for resolving 
international child abduction disputes among 54 countries. However, 
international child abduction remains a serious problem. The denial of 
parental visitation of children, and the failure of several contacting 
countries to fully implement the Convention, deprives the Hague 
Convention of the spirit of mutual confidence upon which its success 
depends. Countries that deny parents access to their own children 
merely reward abducting parents and endangers the well-being of 
abducted children for the rest of their lives.
  Several families in my Congressional District in New York have 
personally experienced the terrible psychological and financial strains 
of international child abduction. The wrongful retention of American 
children abroad touches not only left-behind parents and their families 
but also our entire Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that we all focus our collective attention on 
missing children and support H. Con. Res. 293

[[Page H3568]]

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
293, which calls on nations that are signatories to the Hague 
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to 
live up to their treaty obligations. I am an original cosponsor of this 
legislation, and I commend the gentlemen from Texas [Mr. Lampson] and 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot] for their work on this issue.
  This issue was brought home to me by one of my constituents, Tom 
Sylvester of Blue Ash, Ohio. Tom's daughter Carina was taken by his 
Austrian-born wife on October 30, 1995. Although both the Austrian 
Central Authority and the Austrian Supreme Court ruled that Carina 
should be returned to the United States and to Tom's custody, the 
ruling was never enforced. The only contacts Tom has had with his 
daughter are a few brief supervised meetings in Austria, and his phone 
calls to her are always placed on a speaker phone, undoubtedly being 
monitored.
  Although the Hague Convention has helped in getting a just decision 
rendered, the United States currently has no way to force another 
country to enforce its own laws and judicial decisions within its own 
borders. In fact, the United States has no recourse if another 
participating member country does not live up to its obligations under 
the Convention.
  I have been working with the State and Justice Departments on Mr. 
Sylvester's behalf since July of 1998, and I can tell you that it has 
been a difficult and discouraging process. What is most frustrating is 
that Mr. Sylvester has done everything correctly under the terms of the 
Hague Convention, and still, more than four years later, he has been 
able to spend only a few precious minutes with his young daughter. He 
cannot even get the Austrian authorities to grant him an agreed upon 
visitation schedule, and have instead subjected him to a number of 
indignities.
  We owe it to Tom Sylvester and thousands of other parents who have 
suffered the same difficulties as he has to pass this resolution today. 
And I urge my colleagues to let this be the first of many steps needed 
to return these American children to their rightful homes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. 
Res. 293, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule 
XX, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this 
motion will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________