[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1086-E1087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED AMERICAN CHILDREN: ENSURING ACCURATE 
                   NUMBERS AND ADMINISTRATION ACTION

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 21, 2015

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of 
everyone--especially all of the left-behind parents I saw in the 
audience--for joining me at a hearing I held last week to discuss how 
the U.S. Department of State's first annual report under the Sean and 
David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act 
can better correspond with the mandate set by Congress and achieve the 
return of abducted American children, which is the ultimate objective 
of the Goldman Act.
   Every year, an estimated 1,000 American children are unlawfully 
removed from their homes by one of their parents and taken across 
international borders.
   International parental child abduction rips children from their 
homes and families and whisks them away to a foreign land, alienating 
them from the love and care of the parent and family left behind.
   Child abduction is child abuse, and it continues to plague families 
across the United States.
   For decades, the State Department has used ``quiet diplomacy'' to 
attempt to bring these children home. But we know that less than half 
of these children ever come home--even from countries that have signed 
the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child 
Abduction.
   In a hearing I held on this issue back in 2009, former Assistant 
Secretary of State Bernie Aronson called quiet diplomacy ``a 
sophisticated form of begging.'' Thousands of American families still 
ruptured and grieving from years of unresolved abductions confirm that 
``quiet diplomacy'' is gravely inadequate.
   Last year, Congress unanimously passed the Goldman Act to give teeth 
to requests for return and access. The actions required by the law 
escalate in severity, and range from official protests through 
diplomatic channels, to extradition, to the suspension of development, 
security, or other foreign assistance.
   The Goldman Act is a law calculated to get results, as we did in the 
return of Sean Goldman from Brazil in late December, 2009.
   But the new law is only as good as its implementation.
   The State Department's first annual report that we reviewed last 
week is the first step in moving past ``quiet diplomacy'' to results. 
The State Department must get this report right in order to trigger the 
actions above and for the law to be an effective tool.
   Countries should be listed as worst offenders if they have high 
numbers of cases--30 percent or more--that have been pending over a 
year: or if their judicial or administrative branch, or central 
authority for abduction fail in their duties under the Hague Convention 
or other controlling agreement, or; if their law enforcement rarely 
fails to enforce return orders or access rights.
   Once these countries are properly classified, the Secretary of State 
then determines which of the aforementioned actions the U.S. will apply 
to the country in order to encourage the timely resolution of abduction 
and access cases.
   While the State Department has choice of which tools to apply, and 
can waive actions for up to 180 days, the State Department does not 
have discretion over whether to report accurately to Congress on the 
country's record, or on whether the country is objectively non-
compliant.
   As we have seen in the human trafficking context--I authored the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 as well as the Goldman Act--
accurate accounting of a country's record, especially in comparison 
with other countries, can do wonders to prod much needed reform.
   Accurate reporting is also critical to family court judges across 
the country and parents considering their child's travel to a foreign 
country where abduction or access problems are a risk.
   The stakes are high: misleading or incomplete information could mean 
the loss of another American child to abduction.
   For example, a judge might look at the report table filled with 
zeros in the unresolved cases category--such as in the case of Japan--
and erroneously conclude that a country is not of concern, giving 
permission to an estranged spouse to travel with the child for a 
vacation. The estranged spouse then abducts the child and the left-
behind parent spends his or her life savings and many years trying to 
get the child returned to the U.S.
   All of which could have been avoided with accurate reporting on the 
danger.
   I am very concerned that the first annual report contains major gaps 
and even misleading information, especially when it comes to countries 
with which we have the most intractable abduction cases.
   For instance, the report indicates that India, which has 
consistently been in the top five destinations for abducted American 
children, had 19 new cases in 2014, 22 resolved cases, and no 
unresolved cases. However, we know from the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children, or NCMEC, that India has 53 open abduction 
cases--and that 51 have been pending for more than 1 year.
   While the State Department has shown willingness to work 
constructively on making the report better--for example, meeting last 
week with staff--our June 11 hearing left many questions unanswered as 
to why this report failed to hold countries accountable for unresolved 
cases.
   We wrote the law with the belief that the State Department was 
formally raising these cases by name with the foreign ministries of 
destination countries, and asked that cases still pending one year 
after being raised would be counted as ``unresolved.''
   But these cases were not included in the report. A few parents who 
reported their cases to the State Department years ago and who have 
been consistently begging the Department for help were told by their 
case officers recently that the cases were formally communicated to 
India in May of 2015.
   May of 2015--delay is denial.
   The Goldman Act also requires the State Department to take actions 
against countries such as India and Japan if they refuse to resolve 
abduction and access cases.
   The Goldman Act also requires the State Department to begin 
negotiations with countries like India and Japan for a bilateral 
agreement to secure the resolution of the more than 100 open cases we 
have pending with those two countries--cases that are not listed as 
``unresolved'' in the report.
   The Goldman Act requires an end to the status quo--but the first 
step toward change is telling the truth in the report.
   Which is why I am so concerned that Japan was not listed as showing 
a persistent failure to work with the U.S. on abduction cases. Japan 
has never issued and enforced a return order for a single one of the 
hundreds of American children abducted there.
   It holds the world record on the abduction of American children 
never returned.
   And yet it got a pass on more than 50 open cases, most of which have 
been pending for 5 years or more.
   Among such cases is that of Sgt. Michael Elias, who has not seen his 
children, Jade and Michael Jr., since 2008. Michael served as a Marine 
who saw combat in Iraq. His wife, who worked in the Japanese consulate, 
used documents fraudulently obtained with the apparent complicity of 
Japanese consulate personnel to kidnap their children, then aged 4 and 
2, in defiance of a court order, telling Michael on a phone call that 
there was nothing that he could do, as ``my country will protect me.''
   Her country, very worried about its designation in the new report, 
sent a high-level delegation in March to meet with Ambassador Jacobs 
and explain why Japan should be excused from being listed as ``non-
compliant,'' despite the fact that more than one year after signing the 
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 
Japan has ordered zero returns to the U.S.
   Just before the report was released in May--two weeks late--Takashi 
Okada, Deputy Director General in the Secretariat of the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs, told the Japanese Diet that he had been in 
consultation with the State Department and ``because we strived to make 
an explanation to the U.S. side, I hope

[[Page E1087]]

that the report contents will be based on our country's efforts.''
   In other words, Japan understood it would get a pass from the State 
Department and escape the list of countries facing action by the U.S. 
for their failure to resolve abduction cases based on what Mr. Okada 
euphemistically refers to as ``efforts,'' not results.
   Sgt. Michael Elias's country has utterly failed to protect him. He 
has seen zero progress in his case over the last year--the 7th year of 
his heart-wrenching ordeal--and yet the State Department cannot even 
bring itself to hold Japan accountable by naming Japan a worst offender 
in the annual report.
   The Goldman Act is clear: All requests for return that the State 
Department submitted to the foreign ministry and that remained 
unresolved 12 months later are to be counted against Japan--and 
followed up with action.
   The Goldman Act has given the State Department new and powerful 
tools to bring Japan, and other countries, to the resolution table. The 
goal is not to disrupt relations but to heal the painful rifts caused 
by international child abduction.
   The question still remains, will the State Department use the 
Goldman Act as required by law?

                          ____________________