Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: ONGOING PROJECT: Int'l Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009 - H.R.3240  (Read 63503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline M.Capestro

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2247
  • Twitter: @Capestro
I'll be starting a new project thread to solicit support for Congressman Smith's Int'l Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009 - H.R.3240.
 
Library of Congress Thomas site is reporting that there are already 7 co-sponsors to the bill:
 
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] - 7/16/2009
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 7/16/2009
Rep Mollohan, Alan B. [WV-1] - 7/16/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 7/16/2009
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 7/16/2009
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 7/16/2009
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 7/16/2009
 
LoCT site also indicates that the act has been referred to the following House committees:
 
House Foreign Affairs
House Ways and Means
House Financial Services
House Judiciary
House Oversight and Government Reform
 
In the meantime, when calling your congressman/woman, please include a request for them to co-sponsor BOTH bills.
 
More to come on other important representatives we should be reaching out to regarding this bill.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 09:38:51 AM by LukieD »

Offline M.Capestro

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2247
  • Twitter: @Capestro
Press release from yesterday's press conference:


Reps. Smith, Wolf & Left Behind Parents Unveil Bipartisan Bill to Fight International Child Abduction
 
WASHINGTON, DC, Jul 16 -
 
Left behind parents from across the country joined Congressmen Chris Smith (NJ-4th) and Frank Wolf (VA-10) at a press conference today to unveil the “International Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009” in front of the U.S. Capitol Building.
 
David Goldman, the father of kidnapped American boy Sean Goldman who is being held in Brazil, and other left behind parents who traveled from as far as California and Florida, spoke about the pain of not seeing their children for years, if ever, after an abduction, and expressed support for the bill.
 
Over 2,800 American children are being held in a foreign country against the wishes of their American parent,” said Smith, who in June pushed legislation through the House to require the Department of Defense assist left-behind U.S. service members, and has legislation pending to revoke U.S. trade preferences favorable to Brazil until they comply with international child abduction law. “Most of these cases have been dragging on for years—years of loving relationship and happy memories that these parents will never get back even if they do see their child again someday.
 
“Abducted children loose their relationship with their Mom or their Dad, half of their identity, half of their culture, are at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems and have been found to experience anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt and fearfulness, and as adults may struggle with identity issues, their own personal relationships and parenting,” Smith said.
 
Original cosponsors of the bill include Frank and U.S. Reps. Alan Mollohan (WV-1); Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-5) Bob Inglis (SC-4) and Loretta Sanchez (CA)..
 
Goldman explained how challenging his five-year fight to be reunited with his son has been.
 
The bill is critical because it provides the State Department the tools it needs to assist us,” Goldman said. “Sadly, Sean is just one of 65 kidnapped children in Brazil. We need this bill to help all the left behind parents of thousands of kidnapped American children in countries all over the world.
 
Another parent, Patrick Braden of Los Angeles, spoke about his three year fight to see his daughter, Mellissa, age 4.
 
I’m here because I love my daughter,” Braden said. “If your child gets taken to Japan, you may never see them again. We are left to go bankrupt—emotionally, physically and financially—and still not ever be reunited. But we are unable to stop trying to bring our children home. We can’t give up on our kids. They are American citizen kids with U.S. constitutional rights that are stripped from them.
 
###

Offline jl2saint

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Quote from: M.Capestro;42562
Press release from yesterday's press conference:
 
 
Reps. Smith, Wolf & Left Behind Parents Unveil Bipartisan Bill to Fight International Child Abduction
 
WASHINGTON, DC, Jul 16 -
 
Left behind parents from across the country joined Congressmen Chris Smith (NJ-4th) and Frank Wolf (VA-10) at a press conference today to unveil the “International Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009” in front of the U.S. Capitol Building.
 
In talking to a rep at my congressman's local office, he suggested that we email or call the head of the Ways and Means committee, Charles Rangel........

He said that ultimately, he would be the one to push this through faster or if at all. He said that so many bills DIE in the committees and that if it didn't get passed in a certain time frame ( he didn't elaborate ) that it would have to go thru the whole process again....

Should we be letting Mr Rangel know how important this is to us?
Lastly - David, there are many prayers across the world going out for you and Sean. When I got my son home - regardless of all the attempts of parental alienation that were forced on him - he said "Father, I always knew you loved me." I am certain Sean feels the same way.
 
Peter

JL

Offline rachelle4

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) [Chairman]DC Phone 202-225-4365Fax 202-225-0816

Offline BrazilianForJustice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
Quote from: M.Capestro;42561
I'll be starting a new project thread to solicit support for Congressman Smith's Int'l Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009 - H.R.3240.
 
Library of Congress Thomas site is reporting that there are already 7 co-sponsors to the bill:
 (...)
That second link wasn't working. Try http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:3:./temp/~bdQ7Ic::|/bss/d111query.html|

Offline tenorplus

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
In review of the information provided on the Thomas link ~ is there anyone else in DC working besides Rep Chris Smith??? I can hardly get the Reps (or Senators) in PA (and a elsewhere) off their **&^&*))__+(*&^( to do ANYTHING. Seems to me we pay them pretty well (and excellent bennies) for doing little or nothing. I think getting to Rangel is good - it certainly cannot hurt our efforts at this time!!!!

Offline M.Capestro

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2247
  • Twitter: @Capestro
Quote from: BrazilianForJustice;42629
That second link wasn't working. Try http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:3:./temp/~bdQ7Ic::|/bss/d111query.html|

Seems the search links are temporary. I've replaced the link with one for the Thomas home page. You can locate the legislation by selecting Chris Smith from the drop down menu of representatives. H.R.3240 is number 18 on the list. H.R.2702 is number 15.

Offline BrazilianForJustice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
Quote from: M.Capestro;42646
Seems the search links are temporary. I've replaced the link with one for the Thomas home page. You can locate the legislation by selecting Chris Smith from the drop down menu of representatives. H.R.3240 is number 18 on the list. H.R.2702 is number 15.
Thank you M.

Offline JamesJosephs

  • Bring Sean Home Foundation
  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 850
Here is the link to the legislation.  It is a very good lead.
 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3240IH/html/BILLS-111hr3240IH.htm
 
 

If a country remains non-compliant after a cure period of 90 days, the President is required to take certain specific actions (paragraph 10-16) of Section 204. Paragraph 15 is suspension of GSP Status, which Smith currently proposes for Brazil in HR 2702.
    • (10) The restriction of the number of visas issued to nationals of such country pursuant to subparagraphs (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)).
    • (11) The withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of United States development assistance in accordance with section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n).
    • (12) Directing the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or the Trade and Development Agency not to approve the issuance of any (or a specified number of) guarantees, insurance, extensions of credit, or participation in the extension of credit with respect to such government or the agency or instrumentality of such government determined by the President to be responsible for such pattern of noncooperation.
    • (13) The withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of United States security assistance in accordance with section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304).
    • (14) In accordance with section 701 of the International Financial Institutions Act of 1977 (22 U.S.C. 262d), directing the United States executive directors of international financial institutions to oppose and vote against loans primarily benefitting the such government or the agency or instrumentality of such government determined by the President to be responsible for such pattern of noncooperation.
    • (15) The denial, withdrawal, suspension, or limitation of benefits provided pursuant to title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.), relating to the Generalized System of Preferences.
    • (16) Ordering the heads of the appropriate United States agencies not to issue any (or a specified number of) specific licenses, and not to grant any other specific authority (or a specified number of authorities), to export any goods or technology to such government or to the agency or instrumentality of such government determined by the President to be responsible for such pattern of noncooperation, under--
      • (A) the Export Administration Act of 1979;
      • (B) the Arms Export Control Act;
      • (C) the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; or
      • (D) any other statute that requires the prior review and approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export or re-export of goods or services.
    • (17) Prohibiting any United States financial institution from making loans or providing credits totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period to such government or to the agency or instrumentality of such government or determined by the President to be responsible for such pattern of noncooperation.
    • (18) Prohibiting the United States Government from procuring, or entering into any contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from such government or from the agency or instrumentality of such government determined by the President to be responsible for such pattern of noncooperation.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 09:01:34 PM by JamesJosephs »

Offline M.Capestro

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2247
  • Twitter: @Capestro
OK gang. TWO WEEKS!! Let's make those operators earn their keep.
 

CALL, CALL and CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN!

Offline JamesJosephs

  • Bring Sean Home Foundation
  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 850
Talked to Holt's office today.  He is definitely aware and I'd be shocked if he didn't co-sponsor.   Pallone's office was more frustrating.

Offline aac

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Wii this also help parents that already lost their Hague Case in the country where their children where kidnapped???

Offline tweinstein

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Quote from: aac;42992
Wii this also help parents that already lost their Hague Case in the country where their children where kidnapped???
I imagine it would depend on the reason they lost their case. If the judge legitimately used a clause from the Convention to avoid ordering a return, then "No". If the judge made a bogus ruling, then "yes". The president decides on an annual basis if a country is worthy of sanctions. I'm sure that his advisors would tell him the facts.

In Brazil, I can't think of any rulings from a federal court that ordered the children to stay in Brazil. The pattern there seems to be that judges either rule for a return (which is then NOT enforced) or they never make a ruling.

Offline tweinstein

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
I just looked at the list of co-sponsors for both Resolutions 2702 and 3240. It has been less than a week, yet Resolution 3240 already has 7 co-sponsors while 2702 has only 4 since it was presented in early June.

I also noticed that two representatives co-sponsored 2702 yet are not listed as co-sponsors of 3240. They are Scott Garrett (NJ) and Eric Massa (NY). I think it is reasonable to assume that if they supported 2702, they would support 3240. In my mind, this means there are already 9 co-sponsors to Resolution 3240.

Keep the pressure on as it seems like 3240 is the one that will be called for a vote first.

Offline JamesJosephs

  • Bring Sean Home Foundation
  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 850
Quote from: tweinstein;43043

Keep the pressure on as it seems like 3240 is the one that will be called for a vote first.

I agree with that, and 3240 will give President the authority to implement the sanctions required by 2702 anyway.