[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9546-9547]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED AMERICAN CHILDREN: ASSESSING THE 
                 COMPLIANCE REPORT AND REQUIRED ACTION

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 12, 2015

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, 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.
  Every year, an estimated 1,000 American children are unlawfully 
removed from their homes by one of their parents and taken across 
international borders. Less than half of these children ever come home.
  The problem is so consequential and the State Department's previous 
approach of ``quiet diplomacy'' so inadequate, that Congress 
unanimously passed the Goldman Act last year to give teeth to requests 
for return and access. These actions increase 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 2008.
  But a law is only as good as its implementation.
  Broken-hearted parents across America waited four years for the 
Goldman Act to become law and still await full U.S. government 
implementation of the law.
  The State Department's first annual report that we are reviewing 
today should be a roadmap for action.
  The State Department must get this report right in order for the law 
to be an effective tool.
  If the report fails to accurately identify problem countries, the 
actions I mentioned above are not triggered.
  Countries should be listed if they have high numbers of cases--30 
percent or more--that have been pending over a year or if they 
regularly fail to enforce return orders, or if they have failed to take 
appropriates steps in even a single abduction case pending more than a 
year.
  Once these countries are properly identified, 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 actions 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 a non-
compliant.
  As we have seen in the human trafficking context, (I authored both 
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 
reforms.
  Accurate reporting is also critical to family court judges across the 
country and parents

[[Page 9547]]

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, erroneously conclude that a 
particular country is not of concern, and give permission to an 
estranged spouse to return to their country with the child for a 
vacation. The taking parent then abducts the child and the left behind 
parent then spends her life savings and many years trying to get her 
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 (NCMEC) that India has 53 open abduction cases--and that 51 
have been pending for more than 1 year.
  The report shows zero new cases in Tunisia for last year, 3 resolved 
cases, and zero unresolved cases. And yet Ms. Edeanna Barbirou 
testified to her more than 3-year battle to bring her children home 
from Tunisia. NCMEC's numbers show 6 ongoing abductions in Tunisia, all 
of which have been pending for more than a year.
  Nowhere is the report's disconnect with reality more clear than in 
its handling of Japan, a country that has never issued and enforced a 
return order for a single one of the hundreds of American children 
abducted there, and was not listed as a country showing failing to 
cooperate in returns.
  In March, nearly two months before the annual report was released, I 
chaired a hearing in the subcommittee which I chair featuring 
Ambassador Susan Jacobs in which it was made perfectly clear that, 
``Congress expects that Japan will be evaluated not just on its 
handling of new abduction cases after it joined the Hague Convention 
last year, but on its work to resolve ALL open abduction cases,'' 
including the more than 50 cases I and others have been raising with 
the State Department for the last 5 years.
  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 that the report contents will 
be based on our country's efforts.''
  In other words, Japan got a pass from the State Department and 
escaped 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 an offender in 
the annual report.
  It is disappointing, discouraging, and disgraceful. The report 
whitewashes Japan's egregious record on parental child abduction.
  Adding insult to injury, the report table that was to show the 
unresolved abduction cases in Japan failed to include a single one of 
the more than 50 cases, 36 of which have been dragging on for more than 
5 years, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children. Instead, the table listed Japan has having a 43% resolution 
rate.
  Japan has never issued and enforced a return order for an American 
child. These young victims, like their left-behind parents, are 
American citizens who need the help of their government.
  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. Nearly 100% 
of the abduction cases to Japan remain open; and the report's 
conclusion of 43% resolution is indefensible.
  Moreover, not a single left behind parent pursuing access was allowed 
in-person contact with their child over the last year.
  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?
  I appreciate the Department's presence at yesterday's hearing to 
discuss ways that we can improve the report and ensure that it fulfills 
the purposes for which it was intended--namely, the prevention of 
abduction and the reunification of the thousands of American families 
that have been suffering forced separation for too long.

                          ____________________