we get. i would also note we will have a japan specific hearing especially surrounding issues of the hague extension and whether or not in the small print this duplicity and to address the left behind parents who would be left out once again should they not be included in some other mechanisms to provide inclusion and resolution of the particular issue. would you like to add anything quickly before we close? >> no thank you. >> think you for your service. >> i will also just ask unanimous consent that additional statements that individuals have requested be submitted for the record be made a part of the record, and if left behind parents who are here would like to submit their testimony or statement we will include that as well but it needs to be done rather quickly and it needs to be eight pages

or less, and finally, we will be reaching out to you again for another hearing because this issue has to rise in its visibility and not add or diminish. thank you. [applause] talking to reporters today senate minority leader mitch mcconnell proposed changes to medicare for being considered as part of an agreement to raise the federal debt ceiling. he also discussed the recent house special election in new york and a resolution on libya the congress might consider next

week. this is 20 minutes. >> good morning everyone. a good place to start looking back at this is what have we done to move us into the direction of doing something about debt and deficits. we know there's a co-chairman of the president deficit-reduction commission said this is the most predictable crisis in american history. we know that admiral mullen has called it the biggest national security threat or debt, not some military adversaries. so what have we done to advance and to try to begin to do what we all know we need to do? well, this week we had a vote on four different budgets proposals. the president's budget proposal back in december received no votes at all, not one. the house passed but received

the votes of almost all republicans as did a creative proposal by one of our own members and not a single democrat. so i think we have to ask at this point what is the senate democratic plan to do something about the most divisible crisis in american history? some have reported to the president speak as their plant in the more recent speeches we've asked the parliamentary if you can vote on a speech and the answer is you can't vote on a speech so when do they plan to step up and help us deal with the most predictable crisis in history? the good news is there is a discussion underway with the president of the table led by the vice president on a bipartisan basis, and i remain

hopeful in connection with the decision to raise the debt ceiling we will do something significant about the deficit and debt. that is our best opportunity. it's the only discussion in town going on with the most important democrat in the country at the table and that's the president of the united states. he's also as we know one of the three and 70 million of those that can sign a bill into law that for the senate democratic perspective, there is no plan at all. with that let me throw it open for what you all might want to talk about. >> vice president biden said that he thinks the goal of the talk should be at least a trillion dollars in deficit reduction and potentially bring it up to 4 billion. >> i'm not going to put a number on. let me say this, all this silly talk about how medicare is not free to be part of the solution is nonsense. let me just quote president

clinton. i believe it was yesterday. i don't think the democrats or the republicans said president clinton should conclude from the new york race no changes can be made in medicare. it is a similar position to the congressman hoyer. i believe the vice president also says similar things. medicare will be a part of any agreement to begin to reduce our long-term debt. so i'm not going to put a number of the overall package, but we all know what the driver of the debt is. the only vote every year on about 40% of the budget. medicare, social security and medicaid are the drivers and has said when asked by why willie

sutton robbed a bank is that's where the money was used simply cannot get a comprehensive solution or pathway to the solution on the debt and deficit problem and lisa donner demint aside so i'm not been to put a number on what we are going to achieve but i've said repeatedly risk of waiting let me say again to get my vote from me its way to take short term that is meaningful caps at least on 12 to 13, i am in favor of the caps, too but sometimes it's sort of a promise to do something someday maybe. you know for sure if you get the caps on discretionary 12 and 13 they are going to hold up. that's short term which by the way gives you enormous savings in the out years because you have adjusted the baseline. and medium and long term entitlement if you been to the

line down since we do not vote on it every day it is credible and it does hold up in the best example of that is the generational social security and tip o'neill did in 1983 needs to be fixed again. social security ran a 50 billion-dollar deficit this year. but didn't hold up for a quarter of a center, mr. reza visited, never changed, so those are the kind things that would take to get might vote. >> are you pleased there won't be any more recess appointments next week that it will be the pro forma session and did the majority leader agree to that, was there any kind of agreement between you? >> those discussions go on between myself and the administration. i was confident there would not be any recess appointments. but all of us did feel leading without having voted on a budget was a mistake and that was a letter that all 47 of last signed to senator reid coming

and that was the reason senator sessions objected to have any adjournment but i was confident there would not have been a recess appointment this week based on conversations. >> there is talk about bringing uprising in libya. do you think that is necessary for the senate to land? >> senator mccain and senator kerry and the administration have been talking about some sort of resolution. i'm going to take my leave from senator mccain. he's been the most involved in this issue and he's been to been zazi as you know. he mentioned to me yesterday that he's spoken with senator reid and anticipated based on what senator reid told him and other people which i usually don't do but i think this is fairly safe to do that we would likely turn to such a resolution within a week or two after we get done.

>> i would like to ask about the wrong about it since you voted on it to this week. in the new york 26 the might be the liability? >> iso? >> didn't result of the new york special collection, new york 26 that the budget might be a lawyer devotee -- >> i can only quote president clinton again. you cannot deal with our biggest crisis. standard and poor's sent us the signal. the united states is on the verge of having its credit downgrade it. the united states of america. so all of this talk about how you can do anything about the big crisis that admiral mullen is talking about without medicare is nonsense. medicare will be a part of the solution. and so i think the 2012 election will take care of itself a year-and-a-half from now. i would think that we will hopefully have done something significant in this area and the

american people can decide whether they want to punish both sides for having done that because i will take both sides to do it. it will come out of the conversations that have gone on now led by the vice president. >> like to follow-up on that. you discussed the political challenges us the medicare given that the democrats settled on the ec message which is the republicans want to take medicare away from seniors. >> when president clinton, saying what he did yesterday when congressman hoyer, the number two in the house democrats were saying what he did yesterday who is the argument with? is on among themselves. everybody in this town and devotee in this room of you know you can't do anything about the single biggest problem that we have without impacting medicare. the good news is for current medicare beneficiaries we are not talking about them we are

talking about the count down the road so i think we will have done something significant to the long term on medicare before the election so we don't what the issues will be in next year's election. >> the need to do a better job of communicating this in a way that gets support. >> i'm trying to do that. [laughter] i'm going to quote steny hoyer and you'll have been writing that stuff. i think everybody in america is concerned about whether or not we are going to have the same kind of country for our kids that our parents left behind for us so there's a whole lot of

things that are going to be impacted. frankly if it were up to me we would be discussing social security as well. it ran a deficit this year, not way off in the future. but the important thing to remind people who are currently on the beneficiaries of a pilot programs that it's not talking about them, we are talking about having sustainable programs for future generations and once you introduce that fact into the discussion i think the political anxiety that people feel it's got to go down so drawling a whole lot of conclusions of a three-way race of new york a year and a half before the election. i don't want to put you down but it's kind foolish. in what will happen between now and the fall of 12.

>> just to clarify, if this group comes up with big numbers cuts, trillions of worth with that substantially address medicare it won't get your vote? >> right. >> some other republicans have introduced the legislation basically saying that if the congress doesn't vote to increase the debt ceiling that wouldn't necessarily lead to the people in the room there any agreement on that? >> what i think it is is that this is actually a great opportunity. one of the problems of a complex legislative system like we have which i'm all in favor of checks and balances i think the founders did a good job there's always the issue how you get something done nothing focuses the attention of both branches of government on one place like

the decision to raise the debt ceiling. it puts everybody on the table, everybody at the table on a bipartisan basis and everybody knows something must be done. so that's why this is the critical element of opportunity to come together and that is all the hearing about the politics of let me remind you that after ronald reagan and tip o'neill came together and all of the trajectory of social security which included raising the age limit in 1983 ronald reagan and eked out a national election carrying only 49 out of the 50 states. anything we agree to do together will not be an issue in next year's election to read the public will look at that and they will conclude if both sides felt this was necessary i might not have liked this part or that part but if both sides thought

this was necessary to do i don't think that either side will have to worry about political fallout next year. >> senator, on medicare do you think with the premium support plan for medicare in the house budget resolution or in favor of some other kind of change to curb the growth of medicare? >> why not going to tell you what i think we ought to do in here. i expect that to come out of these discussions >> secure boehner said he's only going to vote for a debt if the cuts are more than the debt ceiling rate and they are only at 1 trillion now. do you agree with that? >> i'm not going to put a number on that i have a sense of what i think is significant and i'm not going to get more specific than what i've told you.

we need the top line for 12 and 13 for the discretionary spending downward and we need significant in time of reform so i'm not going to put any numbers. >> in the concept and the senate race -- >> i'm not going to put a number on it myself. i'm telling what would get for the vote but not irrelevant will be the reaction of the market to this. >> they need to look at this and conclude this is and blue smoke and mirrors, this isn't a promise to do something someday maybe. these guys have come together understood that at oral mall in was correct and doing something important and sustainable to get our house in order. that's what it would take to get my vote. the details of it i'm not going to share with you. i love you all but i'm not going

to negotiate this deal with you. and so, i would encourage you to ask your question and a different way. >> [inaudible] -- you are insistent on putting medicare to include -- >> medicare is on the table. >> why not include also a comprehensive tax reform? >> you're still trying a to get me to negotiate a deal which i'm not going to do. on the tax issue we don't have this problem because we tax too little we have it because we spent too much. and i'm confident taxes are not going to be a part of this. medicare has been on the table. that is acknowledged by the people participating in the talks. it's when to be part of any

final agreement. >> putting the extension across the finish line isn't it to the white house and i wonder are you comfortable that it won't pass the legal muster with a judge and jeopardize the case is? >> it's a question better addressed to them. they did their research and their lawyers apparent advise them this is permissible. i therefore don't have an opinion to express. >> senator mccaul -- >> of the recess appointments, in your conversations with the white house could you see that you are comfortable with this no longer on the table -- the pittard beano -- >> our talks were about the issue of recessing appointments and they were confident --

>> we didn't talk of a particular individual talks. >> the last big thing that was done together senator sununu, jordan smith, norm coleman might disagree with you that he's in the political fallout you yourself into that facing ads against you for taking a revolt in that. how do you think in this environment today -- >> i was talking about entitlement reform, and i think the 83-84 decision in the election were pretty close and allergies to what we are in the process of considering doing here. it was entitlement reform. it could clearly have been argued it intended benefits because social security age is

going under that agreement over a portilla time no question it impacted the beneficiaries long term, not short term but long term. that's a clear analogy, clearer analogy to what we are involved in now as opposed to some kind of immediate financial meltdown which is what we are confronted with inouye. >> this oh-la-la of crisis with u.s. military across-the-board -- federal law was he was utterly crestor. >> i haven't given any thought frankly to the question you asked and therefore i think i will probably not respond. >> senator mcconnell, i wonder why you voted for a grand paul -- the votes on the floor for much deeper cuts than the of

their budgets. i'm wondering what you're thinking was. >> i believe my kentucky colleague is extremely serious about reducing government spending. he has made his issue. i think that he is serious about it. he has my respect for continuing to press us to do more. he did a lot of work on the budget, and i think it deserved my support. >> now that you have your version of the defense authorization bill coming your way, the white house is not talked about the possible issues of the authority over the detainee's and also talking about reduction of nuclear weapons into the final version of the bill where do you stand on it and what is it going to look like when it's all said and done? >> i haven't even looked at the details of the house passed a version nor have we crafted in the senate, so i just think i

want to answer a hypothetical like that there's too many -- >> what about the -- >> to follow the question about the taxes, you're willing to say that medicare is on the table. or how your taxes or the prospect of new revenue wagers on or off tater? mlat? >> as i said repeatedly we don't attack the problem, we have a spending problem. everybody knows that. that is what we need to be talking about. how to get spending down. >> are the taxes on or off the table? >> yeah. >> to follow on that if there is tax reform, if there's any of the revenue that is used not to reduce the rate to go towards the deficit reduction, would that be something you would object? >> in my never ending quest to frustrate all of you -- [laughter] i'm really not one to sit down and -- will not going to negotiate the deal with you. but what i have said is to get my vote -- i am not trying to

exaggerate my own importance here i'm just not going to speak for anybody else. i am saying to get my vote we have to do significant in title that reform. the president doesn't seem to want to social security even though it ran a 50 billion-dollar deficit this year. so i am assuming we won't do that. we should, but i'm assuming we won't. everybody has conceded including the people what the table, including the president, congressman hoyer, that medicare is on the table. so all i'm doing is stating the obvious and saying to get my vote we would have to do something long term that makes sure that people on medicare still have a program. the president's own trustees of medicare and social security which include two of the members or maybe more, at least two of them declared just last week this is the president's own

cabinet. just last week that medicare is in trouble soon come and to suggest that it's not a part of the discussion when i say it is part of the discussion i am just stating the obvious. >> but biden is saying the revenues are on the table. >> the vice president can speak for himself. i'm talking about what it would take to get my vote. how many more? [laughter] >> if there's an emergency supplemental bill for the fund would you insist that there would be a spending cut to go off with it? >> the house found a way to pay for it and i think it is always desirable to pay for the programs if you can and it looks like they found a credible way to pay for it. thanks a lot, everybody. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

presidential candidate new gingrich recently spoke to a republican women's group in portsmouth hampshire. the former house speaker discussed the 2012 presidential campaign, healthcare, tax reform and immigration. this is the first visit to the state since announcing he was running for president. it's a little over an hour. >> the republican presidential candidate's campaign are beginning to take form and building excitement. in less than eight months to hampshire will hold its first presidential primary. helping which candidate has the best chance to beat barack obama

and in the era of big government and big spending. the citizens of new hampshire take this will seriously. new hampshire people tend to be well versed on the issues facing the nation and how these issues affect their personal lives. the critically evaluate their potential leaders numerous local events. you can certainly account for that. the take measures of each person not based on the policies of the various news outlets and the pundits, but based on personal interaction and observation. we are very fortunate to have such an opportunity today. we are especially honored to have one of our party's most experienced and qualified candidates, the former u.s. speaker of the house of representatives newt gingrich.

speaker gingrich's history evidence in life dedicated to public service. perhaps no one knows better his way around congress. newt has been a representative, a minority leader and the speaker of the house. he heralded revolution in the 1990's ending four decades of democratic rule in the house. he coauthored the contract with america, congress balanced the nation's budget in the 1990's. his resume of the pre-and post congressional life is an extensive and impressive. it includes the college professor, forming a network of successful business and not-for-profit groups, writing and numerous genres, producing many award winning documentary films, and working as a political consultant and

commentator for many news network's. let's welcome a true american leader, newt gingrich. [applause] [applause] >> thank if you all very much, thank you, corrine, for that introduction. i am delighted to be here, and i want to talk to you about what i believe will be the most important election of your lifetime, a decisive moment of choice for america. but to do that, i want to ask you to questions that i think will help explain why i'm running: cao many of you believe that america is seriously in the

wrong direction? okay. how many of you agree that getting washington, forcing washington to change to the right direction will be an enormous fight? you just explained why i'm running. [applause] ..

>> the first is it has to be somebody who can articulate our values and our policies so clearly and so decisively that they understand that the crossroads we're at has, from my perspective, left and a right that are fundamentally different. and has to do it so well that in october of 2012, our candidate has to be able to debate barack obama and decisively clarify for the country how big the choice is and how beside the last four years have been. but that's not enough. because winning by defeating obama isn't enough. it's important. it's a vital step. but changing washington is a lot

more than changing the president. the bureaucracies, the judges, the policies, will remain wrong unless we change them. and so the second thing you have to have, i think, is somebody who actually has the knowledge and the experience to run a system in washington once they win. in the 1990s, we reformed welfare. people talk about entitlement reform. two out of three people went back to work or went to school. the most successful entitlement reform in your lifetime. i also chaired in 1996 the medicare reform task force, and we saved medicare at a time when people thought it was going to good broke. we passed the first tax cut in 17 years, 16 years, including the largest capital gains tax cut. the result was unemployment went from 5.8% when i was elected, to below 4% shortly every left.

finally, having reformed an entitlement, having cut taxes to create economic growth, which also, by the way, not only meant less money on medicaid, less money on food stamps, less money on unemployment, and meant more money coming in because more people were paying taxes bass they had jobs. as a result of that the policies we initiated led to four straight years of a billioned budget and we paid off 405 billion in debt. the problems are bigger today and will need even bigger solutions, but i can offer you a track record of having successfully managed a large scale change with a liberal democrat in the white house. so i can assure you if you have president gingrich, speaker boehner, and majority leader

mcconnell, you'll be amazed how much we get done. plawts applause -- [applause] >> in order to get that done we have to run a campaign that is so decisive, where the choice is so clear, we pick up at least a dozen u.s. senate seats and another 30 or 40 house seats so we have the momentum and the drive to truly govern. this is not about electing a caretaker to reside over the obama disaster. it's about defeating obama and replacing many of the institutions of the left in the first months in 2013. third, bass the challenges are so large, we need solutions that are equally large. and what i've done for the last 12 years since i left office, i eave worked at the center for health transformation, the american enter prize institute, at the national defense university, the hoover institution, the defense policy board, and a variety of health

agencies. i worked as an adviser, thinking through the scale of change we need. and i think i can offer americans a fundamental choice. on the one hand you have the most effective food stamp president in american history. on the other hand i would like to be the best paycheck president in american history. [applause] >> on the one hand you have a man who goes to brazil and praises the brazilians for drilling offshore. i'd like to be an american president who implements an american energy poll circumstance keeping the money in the united states and creating jobs in america. [applause] >> on the one handow have an obama, somebody who says we would like be your best customer, the brazilians. that's exactly wrong. the president of the united states should not go around the world as a purchasing agent for foreign countries. president of the night is a salesman for american products

and american companies, to creating american jobs. i would like the brazilians to be our best customers. [applause] >> you have today a president of the united states who cannot control the american border but lectures the israelis on their border. first of all, i believe -- have no intention of lecturing the israelis how to survive in a region where there are people that want to kill them every morning. second, i want you to know that as an putt -- historian, i am absolutely convinced we have ever right to and ability to control our own border if we have the will and the determination, and my goal would be, by january 1, 2014, to have

100% control of the american border, and to give you sense of scale, if that required we took have the bureaucrats from the department of homeland security and moved them to texas, new mexico, and arizona, i am prepared to ensure that no one will be able to say that the gingrich administration did not control the border, and the president's speech was an attempt to fundamentally mislead the american people, and i wish that president obama would for a few months quit being a candidate and try to be president of the united states and try to tell the truth about the challenges america faces. >> this campaign will focus on three areas, economics, which includes jobs, health care, the def circuits all -- deficit, all the things people are concerned about. the nature of america, i believe

in american exceptionalism and i believe president obama has a totally different vision of america. i think this is the central defining election of whether the declaration of independence still matters and the constitution still matters, and i think that's a fundamental choice for america, and third, national and homeland security. let me talk just very briefly about american exceptionalism, and then i want to talk about economics. actually they're directly related. >> we are the most extraordinary country in human history. the reason is simple. not because we're personally lead and, not because we're bigger, smarter, more powerful. we are the only society in history whose founding political document, the declaration of independence, starts by saying we hold these truths truths to e self-evident. very important concept. founding fathers weren't developing a philosophy. they weren't developing an ideology. they were trying to understand the truth about human nature and the truth about how people can

operate and govern themselves and so they were digging very deeply into the very nature of being human. every american should have a waiver from obamacare. nobody should get a waiver or everybody should get a waiver. picking and choosing is a violation of the declaration of independence. we are endowed by our creator. this is the crux of the american system. we're endowed by our creator, with certain unalienable rights. what does that mean? it means that power comes from god, to each one of you personally. you are personally sovereign.

you loan power to the state. the state never loans power to you. obama believes in the european model. washington decides we obey. we believe in the american model, which is the power ultimately rests with the citizen, which is why the constitution begins, "we the people." doesn't say, we the judges or bureaucrats or politicians. doesn't even say we the news media. and that means that as the republican nominee, i will have a contract with america. it will have seven bills and a tenth amendment enforcement act to take the constitution and return power to the states and the people thereof and move it become out of washington. [applause]

so, obamacare is a fundamental violation of the basic rights of the declaration of independence and should be repealed in its entirety in the first 30 days of the new republican president and gnaw republican senate, period. then we can start over but we should repeal every single page of obamacare in the first 30 days of the gingrich presidency. [applause] >> now, the rights we're endowed with include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. two parts to the pursuit of happiness. that meant wisdom and -- not, a we acquisition. the founding fathers fought a wise people would stay free. second, they don't guarantee

happiness. they guarantee the right to pursue happiness there is no -- fundamental debate with obama, no provision for a federal department for happiness. no provision for happiness stamps for the underhappy. there's no provision for a right to sue if you're unhappy. and if you told the founding fathers that a politician would be so arrogant that they would walk in this room and say, i'm going to take from the overly happy and redistribute the under kerrly happy, they would have said it's corrupt, dictatorship, and a violation of america. it was the pursuit of happiness that led to welfare reform because people concluded that in fact, giving people money for doing nothing crippled them. taught them dependency. week ended their ability to

stand up and pursue happiness. taught their children a terrible role model. and the result was two out of every three people on welfare went to work or went to school. their incomes improved. their lives improved. their future improved. apply this principle straight out of the declaration of independence to unemployment compensation. it's fundamentally wrong and destructive to give people money for doing nothing for 99 weeks. and what we should do is replace the current system with an unemployment system that says, for the first four weeks, we'll help you buy time to look for a better job. you can't find none four weeks, to get any money after the fourth week, you must sign up for a training program with a business so that we are paying you to do something to improve the human capital of the united states, and we the people are getting something for me money we're giving you, but we're not

giving people money for doing nothing. [applause] >> last year we gave away $140 billion in unemployment compensation at the state and federal level combined. $140 billion invested in worker training would make us one of the most competitive countries in the world. the germans pay 50% more for manufacturing labor and the lowest unemployment rate in 19 years. their government favors manufacturing. they retrain their workers to remain productive. and their government goes overseas to sell german goods. now, put that in, now turn to economics and health care in the context of american exceptionalism. first of all, america only works when americans are working. the current economic policy is a disaster. this is the longest period of unemployment since the great

depression. in every recession since world war 2, we would right now be in the second year of a recovery. and yet the obama policies -- i can't get the white house to understand. a simple phrase. job-killing policies kill jobs. and this administration and regulation in tax policy, in psychological attitude, is the opposite of reagan. reagan came in at the end of the carter years we had 22% interest rates, 13% inflation and sliding into the deepest recession until the obama recession. in that pared reagan arrived. he had four goals. an american energy program, tax cuts, deregulation, and praising entrepreneurs and business people, particularly small business people that got up every day and went to work. so reagan wanted to make people feel good about creating jobs.

obama wants to attack people for creating jobs. reagan wanted to say it's terrific if you're successful in america. obama says you shouldn't be that successful. let me take your money. there's a fundamental disjoint psychologically where obama is consistently on the side of a european socialist model which in europe has led to a disaster. so in january we had 45% african-american teenage unemployment. that's a disaster for this country. we want every paper to get a job. our goal should be getting back down to 4%, and at 4% we take a huge step toward balancing the budget because we have million office people leave food stamps, leave unemployment, go back to work and be paying taxes. no single step with move you towards a balanced budget fast faster. you can't solve 27% of our homes being worth less than their mortgages until you get jobs. people have to be earning money to raise the price of houses.

and washington keeps trying to fine a solution without solving things. it's not possible. so creating jobs is our first goal. and the first step there is an american energy plan because if we had $500 billion a year staying home, we'd be vastly better off. so i am for drilling. i am for using oil. i am for using gas and coal and a safe and effective nuclear program and wind and solar. if you use all of our energy resources, we have more energy than any other country in the world, despite years of the government opposing drilling for oil we're the third largest oil producer in the world behind saudi arabia and russia. imagine if they liked having oil and gas in america. [laughter] >> second, we need a totally new bold tax plan. i will outline five steps, and i look forward to the controversy.

i believe we can create enormous economic growth and i believe if you take the obama tax policy of $2 trillion in increased taxes and the obamacare increased taxes, versus the gingrich plan, the economy gets to be dramatically bigger very fast under the gingrich plan. so i want to argue whether you want a big economy with everybody at work or a small economy with a huge deficit and everybody on food stamps. those are the two futures we are faced with. i would do five things on taxes. first, i would freeze and make permanent the current tax rates so that there would be no in crease in tacks in 201 because it's wrong to race taxes in a recession. second, i would abolish the capital gains tax. we have a worldwide market. the morning we abolish the capital gains tax, cash would be

transferred into the u.s. and you would create many new jobs, many new factories, many new companies because we would be the best place in the world to invest. the new york stock exchange is now in amsterdam. 40 american companies have now moved to amsterdam because our tax code size destructive. obama drives companies away. i want to bring companies here. fundamental difference in approach. third, we should go to 100% expenses for all new equipment, whether you're a farmer, a factory, doctor, hospital, business. if you buy new equipment, write it off in one year. the goal is direct. we want american works to have the most modern equipment in the world so we can compete with china, india, germany, or anybody, because our workers can be more productive than theirs if we have tax policy which

favors them. fourth. we should take the highest corporate tax rate in the world, 35%, at which level general electric pays zero, because at 35%, it's worth their while to hire 375 tax lawyers to find every loophole. i look forward to debating liberals on this. the gingrich tax plan 12 tax rate will get more money out of general electric than the liberals' tax plan, because under mine, they'll fire the lawyers and write a check. [applause] >> finally, we should permanently abolish the death tax. the death tax is a fundamentally immoral tax, that says you can

do everything right your whole life, and some politician can take half the money away from you. there's no justification for a politician taking money from people when they die. no one should have to visit the undertaker and the irs in the same week and we should abolish the tax permanently. [applause] >> let me just talk briefly about two more components. part of what reagan did was deregulation, and then i want to talk about a project. on deregulation, i would abolish sarbanes-oxley, which is a destructive bill which particularly hurts small and medium size companies and has produced no useful information. i would also abolish the dodd frank bill, which is a disaster for the banking and finance industry and cripples job creation. i would fundamentally replace the environmental protection agency, which is an antijobs,

antilocal control, ideological set of radicals trying to impose their views on america and create an environmental solutions agency which uses science, technology, incentives, innovation, and entrepreneur to solve problems and would cooperate with local communities to apply common sense to have beth a good economy and a good environment and not to impose from washington a set of rules written by radicals. [applause] >> finally, on deregulation, i would create a 21st century food and drug administration, which was assigned the task of collaborating from the scientific laboratory all the way through to the patient, to maximize the speed with which we bring new solutions to save lives and a 21st century fda will save lives, increase

independence in living, lower the cost of health care, create american jobs, all of which are the right thing to do. you cannot get it done today because the food and drug administration has become so bureaucratic and so hostile to developing new ideas and new approaches, and so once again, this kind of change changes the whole underlying pattern. last thing is we have -- then i'll take questions. we have a project on our web site, newt.org, and i'd be thrilled if anybody signs up. i would be very grateful and since it's my first name, it's reasonably easy to remember. we're going to have a project called, on the first day. and everybody gets to participate. everybody gets to submit what they -- here's hough it works. on inauguration, january 20th, after the inaugural address, i'll take an hour go to a roomy

c-span2 will cover it and any other tv that wants to, and i will sign between 50 and 200 executive orders. decisively changing the direction of government within hours of being sworn in. now, we don't know what most of them are yet. that's why they're an open process and you can look around and see what you wish we do. the promise is this. we'll take in ideas all of this year and for the first nine months, ten months of next year, -- i'm sorry. nine months of next year. on october 1st, during the election, we will post all of the executive orders so they can be part of the final debate of the campaign. so people can understand, here's where obama is, and here's where newt would be. i can tell you what the first four executive orders are. those four we have thought through. the rest have to be developed. you're going to be invited to help us.

the first executive order will abolish all of the white house czars as of that moment. >> no taxpayer money will be used to pay for book abortions overseas. the third executive order will reinstate president george w. bush's policy of enforcing the conscience provision that no doctor, no nurse, no pharmacist, no hospital, can be compelled to undertake a procedure which is against their religious beliefs. [applause] >> and the fourth executive

order will direct the state department to accept the capital as designated by the host company and to place the united states embassy in the capitol. the only country supplies to in the world is israel because the u.s. state department has refused to move our embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem. so you can be the most corrupted dictator on the planet and we accept your capital. if you're the only state of law in the middle east, we humiliate you by insisting our embassy remain in tel aviv. this will change as of that date and i hope we can find somebody as strong as john bolton be secretary of state to decide we're going to fundamentally overhaul the state department and finally get a state department which wants to implement american foreign policy on american terms, not represent the world to us but represent us to the world. [applause]

>> want your help, need your help. i need lots and lots of grassroots support. ill be glad to answer questions. come the microphone here. anybody who wants to can ask any question you want. we start with all the citizens and at the very end we'll let the media ask questions. >> where do you think george sauer fits in this administration? >> i think he is an enormous influence. if you read the book, "the

argument," he outlines clearly how big a role he played in organizing the left wing interest groups that one or two defamed george w. bush and one that defined a left-wing candidate for president. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, mr. speaker. i'm kate and i'm one of the three county commissioners in this county. i have said a big part of our job is managing $6 million in health insurance costs for our employees. another million and a half dollars in healthcare costs for the prisoners in our county jail, and this doesn't even get to the costs of workers comp, disability and the rest of it. been very frustrated and disappointed that in all the discourse from obamacare to unfortunately the ryan plan, there's little or no discussion

about getting on top of the actual costs of healthcare. it's all about who is going to pay for it and, frankly in my opinion, rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic that is the cost of health care in this country. i've been following for years your health care transformation, and i wonder if you have a few comments this morning on the subject of the actual costs and control of the costs of the health care we all need. >> that's a great question. you're exactly right. [applause] >> i got involved -- when i stepped down as speaker, i decided -- i spent a year and a half studying science and technology to get my head clear and get back in understanding intellectually what was developing. i thought i would focus on two big areas, health and national defense. i concluded after a while that health is ten times more complicated than national

security. and it was so big and so complicated i knew i could personally never master it. it was too much. so we created an entire center for health transform make, and you can see it at health transformation.net. and i start with a very basic premise, that there are two fundamental things wrong with the current system. the first is that it tends to deal with acute care. so people talk about health care when in fact you ought to talk about health and health care. i learned this from necessary nestles, and i was talking about patient care, and they said that's exactly wrong. you want to catch people before they're a patient. and they said there are three things to change patient status. attitude, activity, and nutrition. so the first thing say, because

you have several different groups you're trying to deal with, i would say, for your employees, i would design a health centered insurance program, and in a worst case i would insure separately from the insurance companies and then reinsure for extra cost things. i would start with the attitude. there's a company in green bay , wisconsin, and the center people can get you things in. they have a program where there are four levels of insurance costs. and if you can do an annual checkup and you quit smoking and you exercise and you take care of your diabetes or whatever your condition is you get the least expensive. and you work your way up to where, if you refuse to do anything to take care of yourself, you pay the most expensive. the opposite of liberalism. because it implies responsibility, not victimhood. and so i would start with that.

second, you should contract for cash. you go out and talk to doctors and your community and say if we just paid you on the spot no red tape no time value, no money, no hanging around and we audited you after the payment, what would you charge us? prices dropped dramatically. i have a good friend who is a reconstructive surgeon which is what plastic surgeons call themselves. a really good friend. he said to me the other day, about half of his patients are cash. and about half of his patients are insurance. he said, there has been no increase in price for his cash payment patients since 1993 because they call everybody in his town to get a price before they come in. now, you can't do that for a stroke, you can't do that for a car wreck, but you can do it for -- i'll give you another example. reward people if they go to a

minute clinic and charge them extra if they unnecessarily go to an emergency room. and medicaid, shy be scandals you in medicaid the number of people who abuse emergency rooms, which is the most expensive way to get care there are practical steps to take that can dramatically reduce the cost of care and i'm sure the folks at the center would love to work with you on that project. yes, sir? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm representative ken weiler. there's no society that it has heavily burdened as ours by the cost of litigation. not just in the medical field but everything we do is burdened by excessive defensive things and so on. what can we do about all this litigation and all the costs that all of the rest of us pay for the parasites, the lawyers. [cheers and applause] >> well, let me just say, first of all, i think civilization

does require some lawyers. [laughter] >> remember, in shakespeare when he says first we kill the lawyers, that was the guy that wanted to establish a dictatorship. it wasn't an antilawyer comment. it was meant as an end of the rule of law comment. it's one thing to have the rule of law where you need lawyers and the other thing to have the exploitation and abuse of law, which is what have right now. give you an example. jackson health and gallup, working with the center for health transformation, did a study of doctors and said to doctors across the country, what percent of your medical practice and your friends' medical practice is defensive medicine? their estimate was that defensive medicine, unnecessary tests in order to defend a lawsuit, costs $800 billion a year. even of you assume it's off by half, $400 billion a year in absolutely unnecessary tests,

procedures, et cetera, just to have the paperwork in case you good to court. here's the challenge. i have good friends in texas who spent seven years and beat the trial lawyers and passed litigation reform. and it was a big project. they actually wrote litigation reform into the texas constitution because they did not trust the texas supreme court. which is made up of lawyers. and so they -- 100,000 doctors a year moving into texas. they now have daughters in areas that haven't had a doctor in 20 years, and i was in oklahoma, 18,000 doctors moved into texas. i was in oklahoma about a year ago. and they said to me, we now have the worst of all worlds. our doctors are moving into texas. and the texas trial lawyers are moving into oklahoma. [laughter] >> this is a good example, though, of why i always tell

people, i am not running for you to send me to the oval office and good home. -- go home. no one person can change these things. i'm running to recruit millions of people to china -- join in a long, hard effort, because particularly in the senate -- i think we could pass litigation reform in the house, but particularfully the senate, the trial lawyers have a number of republicans who are also favorable to them. a huge grassroots movement to convince those lawyers that maybe, you know, maybe you're not going to get re-elected if you don't vote for litigation reform. i think this is one of the three or four things we have to do in order to be successful, and you put your finger on it. [applause] >> i have a related question. i know you have been divorced so your familiar with the family court system. my question is related to family value issues.

family courts generally allow loving fathers only a few days a month with their children, which is harmful to children but it's also a terrible civil rights violation when the government dictate how much time a father or mother can spent with his or her children. what are your thoughts on family court reform? >> i'm actually in favor of fathers having rights, and i've been approached by a number of fathers rights groups. the laws grew over a period have an extremely female bias and are not right. and second they're not economically right. we live in an age that's different than 50 years ago and i think it's very often very important, as you know i was divorced eye. very close to my two daughters and to our grandchildren, and that required a conscious effort with my ex-wife to work together to make sure that the children weren't very victims of our problems. and i think it's very important we have a much greater

sensitivity, that both parents have rights rights right respond just as we should insist that the male pay their fair share of raising then, we should also insist that there be some opportunity for the children to truly know who their fathers are. [applause] >> hi, mr. speaker. tim green from new hampshire, and i had a couple of questions for you. i'm really concerned with the debt. i think it's 25% of the taxes goes to the interest on the debt. that really has me concerned. i'm sure you as well. and also, would you be in favor of raising the debt ceiling, which is something that is an event today, and very good speech. thank you. >> this are great questions. my first principle would be, you want to set as your goal balancing the budget, paying off a large part of the debt and buying back the $3 trillion in bonds the chinese are holding. when we set tout do it in 1995,

we thought it would take seven years. in that particular period it took three and we turned the corner and balanced the budget in three years. given the scale of the mess obama is going to leave, i can't promise you, you can make it in three but you can do it in the first year or two if you're serious. on the diet ceiling, speaker john boehner had a very good idea. think of it as a rio stat and not an on-off switch. he only wants $100 billion in spending cuts? only gets $100 billion debt ceiling, which means he'll be back in three months for another debt ceiling increase, and he gets an increase for every dollar he accepts spending cuts. there are no. >> we should be bluffed into giving them blank check of additional borrowing power with

fundamentally changing the spending pattern of the united states. and it would be a dr. -- a bigger doctors for this driven down the road for us to give them a blank check debt ceiling than to have a confrontation this summer and refuse to raise the debt ceiling until they're prepared to bear some financial responsibility for the united states. [applause] >> yes, ma'am? >> mr. speaker, thank you for being home. i'm win -- wendy jones. i'm a business owner and also a nurse. while they're lot office parts of obamacare that are not very good, it's not just insurance but may we talk about health care, and i don't often hear that at the national level two things that are pollstive that -- positive that occurred and up to 27 yours of age you can go under your parents health insurance if you didn't have health insurance elsewhere. i wish you would look at that

versus just getting rid of all obama care. the second thing is parity in health care, that means oral, mental, and physical health care. it's very important. community health, which i work at, deliver $3 of care for every $1 spent. so, as we have this discussion, i hope you'll look at healthcare and look at our needy that really do need that parity, not just the dollars. thank you. >> those are both really good questions. let me start by explaining my view about obamacare. i think out of a 2800 page bill, there are probably 200 pretty good pains. -- pages. i distrust the washington staff so deeply that i would never let them partially repeal the bill. because you have no idea at 3:00 in the morning what they're going slip into it. and so i would say, repeal the whole bill, and then start hearings, and there are pieces

that are worth looking at. and we ought to look at them. and i think there are things -- frankly there are other ways of solving these things. so, my only goal is -- i carry around a slogan i think inose important governing slogan of the next 20 years. it's a little bold, but i'm going use it to explain this health problem. it's two plus two equals four. now, we got this because we made a movie about pope john paul ii going to poland, called nine days that changed the world. and i'm proud to tell you, was just recognized by the vatican as one of the three best documentaries on john paul ii. we started this big fight with the soviet empire, and the polish people were in turmoil and dealing with a dictatorship

and they had to be clever or get killed or thrown in jail. so we had the original solidarity sign in poll land says for poland to remain poland, two plus two must always equal fourth. this is a truth. if the government says two plus two equals five, you say, that's really dumb. so one of my goals for the women's organization is very simple. when you can make these signs on your own, they're not hard. go around your neighborhood and show this to your neighbors. if they've agree, get them to register to vote. [laughter] >> if they disagree, they're probably liberals and leave them alone. [laughter] >> now, let me come back to this for a second. the second part of the question. it's a topic i'm very concerned about. i served on -- i co-chaired with

bob kerry the alzheimer study group. i worked for a long time on mental health issues. my mother hat bipolar disease so we have a family experience of this that is very real. i believe in something beyond aparty. -- beyond parity. i believe in the future, when you see a doctor, they're going worry about your spiritual life, your social life, mental life and your physical life, and they all relate, and you have to understand, to understand -- women who are in group are three times more likely to survive breast cancers than women who are isolated. so, therefore, if you have a breast cancer patient, one of the first things you should find out is what are their social relationships? women who exercise together and have social relations in a program called silver sneakers, are 62% less likely to have

depression medication. because they are 62% less likely to be depressed. because they have friend and they're doing something and they're not isolated, not alone. women have a vary high requirement for social relationships. men have a very high requirement for beer and television. [laughter] >> they're fundamentally different organizing principles. so, at a serious level, i think we have to -- from medical school on, reframe how we approach humans. humans who have a belief in a higher being live longer, 'happier and have fewer diseases. there's a reason that the alcoholics anonnews 12-step program. the first is recognize you have a problem. the second stem is recognize there's a higher being. a federal official said we could finance that except for the second step. they said can you come up with a 11-step program. they said we think you misunderstand how big the second step is. so i'm very much with you on

including all those characteristics in what should be a serious health approach. you also made a key point here. we have been trapped into this insurance focus mentality when in fact community centers may deliver better care at lower cost, and we may think about creative new local solutions that have a multiplicity of organizational structures and don't fit a one size fits all washington mandate. yes, ma'am. >> speaker gingrich, my name is representative pamela tucker, and i'm here from greenland. this is my hometown '. i would like to understand your thoughts on a national right to work and the federal laws regarding labor relation. new hampshire right now would like to become the 23rd state that has right to work. thank you. >> i have to say, for our viewer in c-span, that when i learned earlier today i was going to greenland, i double checked --

but i can infact visit new hampshire and be in greenland, or berlin or a variety of other cities. although i don't think the wall is in per len -- berlin the best of my only. i hope that this is a state matter you have to decide for yourself. my bias is in favor of right to work states, and we have seen a continuous growth, for example -- a lot of american auto factories in right to work states. they may have foreign brans but they're american factories and they're creating jobs in america. the national labor relation board decision that boeing could not open a factory in south carolina because it was moving from a closed state to a right to work state, is such a threat to the entire american system that i am urging the house republicans to zero out the national labor relations board and -- [applause]

>> the two key people in that board are both interim appointments. the president nominated somebody so radical that even when the democrats had a huge majority in the senate che couldn't get him confirmed. he is a genuine radical. totally antibusiness. they then hired a general counsel who is not confirmed. and counsel decided to block boeing which is create -- boeing wants to build the dreamliner in south carolina. and the obama administration is blocking 8,000 jobs and it wonders why the recession is going on. so i think we should actively and aggressively say that if the national labor relations board is going to break the law -- which is clearly what they're

doing. if you think boeing made an inappropriate decision, the president's current chief of staff, bill daly, was on the board and voted to build the factory. this is how bad this is. so i think it's very important that we bring the nlrb under control, and i also think you're going to see a continued trend towards right to work state. the fact is unfortunately, unionism, instead of bag prochange, proproductive, procompetition movement, union. i is a very rigid, conflict with management movement, has made it harder to come pretty. not the craft unions but the industrial unions and the government unions have been antiwork. >> i'm steve mckenzie, i'm

from greekland, -- greenland and it's nice to have the old newt back, and that -- so when you win the election and the country doesn't think straight and we don't have a majority -- clear majority in either house can you get all these things done? >> well, i can't imagine winning the election without having a clear majority in both houses. we will run an election that is so vividly clear that there is a left-hand approach that kills jobs, kills american energy, weakens the country, fails to control the border, puts us deeper in debt and rescues the future, and there's a road that create jobs, creates american energy, controls the border. we're either going win this argue; which i think we will in which case we're going to have a landslide election of epic proportions, or we're going to lose the arguement.

if we lose the argument and we don't pick then house and senate we won't win the president presidency. that's why winning the presidency is to important. first you win the argument and then you win the vote. i believe president obama is giving us the finest opportunity set to up an arguement to replace the fleft 80 years d -- left in 80 years and i believe we should take advantage of the opportunity to paint two futures for america to win the argue. over those two futures, and as a consequence to win what i think will be a historic majority. >> mr. gingrich, my question for you is, how do you intend to beat mr. obama, a man who has the potential amass millions, possibly billions of dollars, and he has the media behind him. how are you going to beat him? >> by telling the truth.

that that's why two plus two equals four matters. i believe he can outpend us four or five to one and still lose. if you go back to 2006, every republican senator who lost spent more money than a dem contract. if you look at california, jury -- jerry brown was outspent three to one, and in the end, comes down to people you see in your living room every night. you hear from them, not they're consult tans. that maries in primary in the general election ex-if you have a real message, that -- i believe it's impossible for the from try to turn all of america into a chicago machine. i believe it is impossible for him to raise enough now convince the american people that reality isn't real, that their principles aren't their principles principles and they should re-elect somebody who has failed in performance and who is a

radical in policy and philosophy. if we have candidate -- this is key. the great victory of reagan over carter. reagan beat carter, reagan carried more states against carter than fdr carried against hoover in 193 2. and the reason was reagan spent years getting to a very clear message. and the american people looked up -- reagan had a great line. hard times then. not as bad as this. reagan campaigned saying, you know, a recession is when your brother-in-law is unemployed. a depression is when you're unemployed. a recovery is when carter is unemployed. [laughter] >> now, you might imagine, as an historian, that phrase may come up with one name change sometime next year. and i think we'll take one more question. and then go to the news media.

>> thank you so much for being here. i'm judy and i live in new hampshire and i just received my medicare card through the mail, and so i've become very interested in medicare, and i was wondering how you tweak pau ryan's plan. >> that's a good question. to show you how i think despicable is the right word -- the democrat medicare campaign is, showing a cartoon of ryan pushing a grandmother off the cliff. i think every american should condemn campaigns designed to frighten senior citizens that are totally false. something disgusting about that. [applause] >> i was yesterday at a medical center, and a man walked up who works at the center.

and he said, my 85-year-old grandfather knew you were coming and asked me to ask you if his social security and his medicare were going to be taken away from him. because he is genuinely frightened. the president of the united states ought to tell every single part of his party to quit doing this stuff. i mean, it's truly remarkable that a president of the united states would do this. this is the third time in my lifetime we had a mediscare campaign. the first was against reagan, and when the country found it was alie they beat cater. the second was in 1996 against us and we the were the first re-elected government since 1928. by next fall we'll win this thing because seniors will begin to realize -- remember, the obama budget just went down 97 to zero in the senate.

what's your solution for medicare? their answer is attack pau ryan. so, how are you going to fix medicare? attack pau ryan. so what do you do to make sure medicare doesn't go abrupt? attack pau ryan. something pathetic about a great million party -- great national party with control of the white house. the democrats are reduced to nothing but fear and it's sad. i believe -- i say this having stud yesterday it for years. i believe we can offary better medicare program with improvements that are real that based on choice. we can allow those seniors who want to have a health savings account. make it available if you want it. if you don't want it, don't get it. we can allow those seniors who want to have the right of private contractor so you can find your doctor without worry being bureaucrat rules.

there are a number of things that are voluntary. the government sun day you have to go to wal-mart on tuesday. wal-mart convinces you on their open. the challenge to conservatives is we can start from the base of what pau ryan has proposed. go out and listen to the american people, develop better solutions, and we can save medicare. i will close with one last example. we did a become two years ago whose title was deliberately simple in hopes that washington would notice it. it's called "stop paying the crooks." the center for health transformation. we showed in that book that the federal government is such a bad manager of your money that in medicare and medicaid they pay between 70 and $120 billion a year to crooks. now, if you wanted to save medicare, the first place would be to bring in american express, series sacks mastercard and ibm

because they don't pay crooks very much. you're 330,000% more likely to pay a crook in medicare and medicaid than you are at american express, so i believe you can apply common sense ways of improving a system that every senior will applaud, every doctor will applaud, and the only people that will be screaming are liberals who are dedicated to bureaucrats running your life, and their answer is rationing. the obama model is to remarks car for you by onknown bureaucrat who has know idea who you are, setting objective, abstract rules that may or may not have any impact on your life, and i think that's a terrible all termtive, and when seniors understand those are the alternatives, they're going to go along with one which give them choices, not one which rations their care from washington, dc. [applause] >> so, just a couple minutes. any reports who want to ask

questions. we want to give the reports an opportunity. >> one quick thing, mr. speaker. i'd like welcome you greenland, new hampshire, and i want to thank you for speaking with us and answering our questions. it's an honor. >> thank you very much. glad to be here. [applause] >> yes, ma'am. >> hi there, mr. speaker good, to see you. i wonder if you could talk about the challenges you think you have when you look at the field out there g.o.p. contenders, when you look at the map, iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, what are your challenges in getting out of the primary? >> my challenges are all communication. i don't think about the very fine people who are running. i think about the american people. if i can get out a message of dramatic, bold change, and get out a program that people believe will get america become on track, i will win the nomination. if i can't get that message out clearly, i won't win and i shouldn't win.

so my goal is, frankly north focus on my good friends that are running. my goal is to focus on a conversation that says, here's what it's going to take to get america healthy again, to create jobs, create to bring energy in america, if people decide that my solutions are better and my policies are better and my ability to articulate is better, i'll be the nominee. it's not against one of our republican contenders. it's a conversation with the american people. ...

[applause]

in this house foreign affairs subcommittee hearing members heard from the families of children who've been abducted and taken overseas. this four hour hearing is chaired by new jersey republican chris smith.

>> and i want to thank each and every one of you for joining us this afternoon to focus on the deeply troubling and growing problem of international child of the auction which occurs when one parent unlawfully moves a child from his or her country of residence often for the purpose of the body and the other parent access to the child. it is a global human rights abuse that seriously harms children while inflicting excruciating emotional pain and suffering on left behind parents and families. international child a reduction rips children from their homes and lives, taking them to a foreign land and eliminating them from the left behind parent who loves them and who they have a right to know. their childhood is disrupted in limbo or sometimes in hiding the as the taking parent seeks to evade the law or a legal cover for their immoral actions. of adopted children often lose their relationship with their mom or dad, half of their

identity and half of the culture. they are at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems and may experience anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment guilt and fearfulness. as adults they may struggle with identity issues, their own personal relationships and parenting. in 1983 the united states ratified the convention on the civil aspects of international child of the auction to try to address this serious issue. the convention creates a civil framework for the quick return of children who have been abducted and for rights of access to both parents. under the convention the courts reopen custody determinations but rather decide the title country of habitual residence usually where the child is living for year before the abduction. absent extenuating circumstances

the child is returned within six weeks to their habitual residence for the courts there to decide on custody or to enforce any previous custody determinations. this framework is based on the premise that the courts where the child was living before the abduction have access to evidence and witnesses in the appropriate place for custody determination to be made. however even though more than 80 countries have signed the convention the return rates of american children are still devastatingly low. 978 children were adopted through the conventions in madrid countries and three and 60 children returned, that is only 38% their return orders to the state department's 2010 convention compliance report highlights 15 countries, argentina, australia, austria,

costa rica, france, germany, honduras, hungary, israel, mexico, south africa, spain, switzerland and turkey for failing to enforce return orders. many other countries, bermuda, brazil, bulgaria, honduras, mexico, the bahamas and are failing to abide by the hague provisions concerning the central authority charged with implementing the convention, the performance of the judiciary's and applying the convention and the ability or willingness to the law enforcement to ensure swift enforcement of orders issued under the convention. some taking parents will try to drag out the proceedings for so long the child reaches an age where the court will consider the child's wishes regarding the return and david goldman certainly and others have experienced that very infamous tactic.

and the alienation where the taking parent has filled the child's head with lies about the left behind parents. if the child is not an inappropriate age to be heard when the child is adopted the taking parent should not be enabled to drag out proceedings or motivated to psychologically manipulate a child and harm a child but manipulate the child to testify that he or she does not want to return to the left behind parent. they encourage the child abuse known as parental alienation. in 2010 the united states lost 523 children to countries that have not signed onto the hague convention and received back to hundred 28 of those kids returned rate of some 45%. japan has by far the worst record of all. it hasn't issued and and forced to return order for a single one

of the more than 321 american children, 321 american children abducted there since 1994 when the record keeping began. japan is currently projecting the abductors of 156 american children under the age of 16. we will hear from some of their left behind parents at this hearing. japan announced this week that the dissenters in legislation needed to ratify the hague convention. however andrew concerned that japan will add exceptions and reservations to its ramifications the would render its extension to the convention meaningless. and tragically in them believably japan has already indicated that its approval of the convention would be meaningless to the 156 american children already abducted to japan. the convention is not

retroactive and unless japan makes it retroactive. i and members of the committee strongly your japan not to bid for the affected to children already within their borders. just this year the united states lost 31 more children to a japanese a deduction. after the issue of japan to hundreds of left behind american parents whose children are in japan are not going away if japan since the convention japan will not move past its reputation share in the congress and elsewhere as a safe haven for child abductors until japan returns all affected children. these 156 american children are believed of one of their parents. they could not be ignored more with a be forgotten. in the last, introduced legislation to impress upon both hague and mama hague countries

alike that the united states will not tolerate child abduction or have patience with countries that tied adductors behind the hague convention. yesterday i introduced the bill of the international child abduction protection return act of 2011. the new bill, h.r. 1940, will and power the president and the department of state with new tools and authorities to secure the return of adopted children. under this new proposed law, when the country has shown what we call a pattern of non-cooperation in resolving a child deduction cases, the president will be able to respond precisely with a range of actions and penalties 18 in all. i include penalties that we included back in 2000 in the trafficking protection act. that legislation has worked and, benjamin trafficking. it will work in combating the international child abductions.

we also included language taken right from the international religious freedom act enacted in 1998 which went through my committee has a bill sponsored by our good friend and colleague frank wolf. that too has worked to promote international freedom by having a penalty phase without which we could admonish all we want. but we have to have something carrots and sticks in order to ensure compliance. based on past experience as i said we know the penalty get the attention of other governments and we know that the work. also reflecting my antitrafficking legislation, h.r. 1940 will raise the profile of the international child abduction issues by appointing a new ambassador at large for international child deduction to head a new office charged with helping left behind parents secure the return of their children and to collect detailed information and report on abducted children in all

countries. this has to be taken to a much higher level, and we have to put the full force of penalties and the ambassadorial rank of this new position behind that effort. the growing incidence of international child deduction must be recognized for the serious human rights violation that it is and decisive the refected action is urgently needed and help us all to understand better the impact the child of the auction has on children, parents and entire families and provide us with the opportunity to explore the actions needed to end it. i would like to add to my ranking member of the committee for any comments that he may have. >> thank you very much. let me begin by commending you for calling this timely hearing. as many of us know, tomorrow was the national missing children's day. and it is fitting that we examine a problem of child

abduction in an international context. it is a terrifying experience for any. regardless of where they live, unfortunately, reported cases of international child of the auction are on the rise. in fact a number of cases involving a child or kidnapping kidnapped out of the egg united states in the countryside that signed a hague convention doubled since 2006. convention on the civil aspects of international child deduction with 85

participating countries is a principal mechanism for enforcing the abduction and in perfect the convention successfully resolved many of the cases and the countries to properly return shall run to their rightful residence. to the convention for example the united states government successfully returned to hundred 62 children abducted or wrongfully retained in the united states in 2010 alone. nevertheless, as all of our witnesses will testify today, if he challenges remain. for example, the commencement available remedies do not apply to the non-a signatory countries, which means parents like my witness with limited legal resources and support. i thank you for being here and willing to share your distressing personal story and providing us with insight on the

hardship and difficulties of regaining children abducted. a country that chose not to participate in the hague convention. many hearing, chris are concerned with your case including my friend, chris and hat the forward to sit on the panel if resolution calling on egypt to return their children. i want to think of appearance here for sharing the stories with us. the proper term of the abducted a children long delays and are often and still too common. we are not satisfied and often parents of adopted children still face legal battles with potentially prohibited legal costs. although international child kidnapping is a federal crime in the united states, it also fails

to impose any criminal sanctions on the adoptive parent. despite the serious danger, such action poses to the mental well-being of the child and the international parental child abduction deterrence act of 2009 introduced by my colleague from new jersey, representative rush told in which co-sponsored. it's designed to detour the potential national parental child ductors by increasing the potential penalties associated with such a deductions. proposed penalties against the apartment allowed doctors include freezing financial assets of the foreign nationals with in the united states to restriction and revoking or denying on their visa eligibility to the united states as well as i look forward to and the opportunity for improvement including u.s.

legislative options. as we reflect on the risks of the abducted children face internationally i would like to further draw special attention to africa where at times the government's poor legal and judicial systems and widespread poverty prevent adequate country response to a child of the auction and trafficking cases and the children especially vulnerable, globally children and conflict, was conflict and natural disaster crisis are especially at risk for charnel reduction redds counterpart child trafficking. some african countries like sudan and regions in that area such as the country's and northwest africa abduction into slavery remains a horrendous practice. child of reduction between the factions and the sudan conflict, and especially the children to

the north from the south speak to the enhanced portability children face during the conflict. as a matter of fact many of us got involved initially in the sudan crisis even before the war broke out because of the adoption of children, and they were being sold into slavery. another conflict such as those in somalia and center leverett, among others to children are still at risk for a reduction and forcible conscription as child soldiers. scandals such as the case of the aid workers attempting to remove the children whom they falsely claim were often the sudanese refugees when arranging for adoption abroad and that of the americans of the southern baptist missionary who attempted to remove the haitian children to weeks after the devastating

earthquake also falsely claimed to be often remind us of the need to ensure children are protected and especially in post conflict and post disaster areas. i look forward to your testimony on the risk children face in such situations and how we can work to protect children from abduction and trafficking when they are in the most vulnerable states. so i look forward to hearing the witnesses and i will yield back the balance of my time. >> we have to roll calls on the floor so we are almost of time but we are going to run over and vote on the second one and come back. so we stand in recess pending the vote. >> to the subcommittee beginning with mr. david goldman who is the father of sean goldman who was born in red bank in 2000.

this is shaunna now in 2000. conducted to brazil in 2004. mr. goldman spent five years devoting enormous amounts of time and financial resources, had a great number of people supporting him in the community to secure the return of his son. in december, 2009i had the extraordinary privilege of speaking with david and sean when they were finally able to return to the united states. mr. goldman recently published a book about his ordeal entitled if fathers loved, one man's unrelenting battle to bring his adopted some home. he has been a trailblazer opening the eyes of the country to the agony endured by left behind parents, and i would just say that he has the human rights abuses child abduction. obviously we've all known about it and we've worked about it for many years. but it wasn't until david goldman opened the eyes of members of congress and

hopefully other policy makers around the world that they realize just how the hague convention is often deemed by countries in this case brazil where endless appeals can be launched by the of the acting family and frankly that process can be carried on a week after week and month after month and year after year precluding the return of and abducted son or sons or daughters or family members. it's the human rights movement that he launched by his leadership and i got to thank him for it. all of the other left behind parents have been tenacious and courageous and their own way and the breakthrough case i think will help everyone else and it's a serious hope. i like to introduce ms. sarah edwards who is a mother of a

3-year-old his father to come into turkey in march of 2010 and since refused to return to his mother. she lives and works in akron and how you and is seeking concrete assistance in navigating the obstacles of the other five as they left behind parent. we have another witness who is on his way who isn't here yet but i would like to ask mr. goldman if he would proceed with his testimony as he would like. >> let me take a second time a little bit. good afternoon, members of congress. i am honored with the privilege to testify before you today. for five and a half years i walked in the shoes of the left behind parent. i live in a world of despondency and desperation with a searing pain throughout my entire being

everywhere i turn i saw an image of my abducted child. sleep was hard to come by and never restful. if i smiled, i felt guilt. when i saw children, whether it was in the store, the park or on television or even on my charter boat where clients often to the families for a day on the water, it was more than painful. for the longest time it was too painful to be around my own family members. i couldn't even be about my nieces and nephews. it was too painful. where was my son? where was my child? she had been adopted. he was being held illegally. he was being psychologically, emotionally and mentally abused. i needed to help him. i needed to save him. she needed me, his father, it was our legal and moral and a god-given right to be together as parents and child.

i did everything humanly possible, leaving no stone unturned. but for many years the result remained the same. sean was not home. although i remained determined and hopeful, i must admit the outlook for a permanent reunion with my abducted child often seemed bleak at best. i felt like a dead man walking. it left me a shell of a man i had once been. there were orders in place. there were many orders from the u.s. courts demanding the immediate return of my child. the courts in brazil acknowledge that my child had been held in violation of u.s. and international law. however, she remains in the possession of his of doctors. why were so many laws being ignored? like worthy of doctors and in my case the government of brazil

allowed to flagrantly violates international law with no consequences? why were my child's and over 50 other american children still in brazil another 80 or more in mexico and thousands of other american children also held illegally in various countries and in clear violation of the convention on the subtle aspect of international child of the at auction. what took four and half years, numerous hearings, extra memory work from attorneys in brazil and the u.s., one of the mr. today sitting behind me ms. patrician apy who will testify to read a tremendous amount of political pressure applied publicly and internally and the house and senate passed a resolution for me to finally be able to visit my abducted son for a few short periods of time. my son had been abducted by my wife and her parents and held illegally for over four years.

it wasn't until the tragic passing of his mother that my son and's abduction became newsworthy. this finally brought it to the attention of those who could and would actually assist me. it took congressman smith traveling to brazil with me and senator lautenberg holding up a bill that would have given brazil nearly $3 billion in trade preferences for my son to come home. sean and i are extremely grateful for all the assistance we receive from supporters. elected officials, the secretary of state and president of the united states of america. nevertheless it is extremely rare for a left behind parent to be the beneficiary of this level of health. yet every apparent his american citizen child has been abducted deserves the same help i received. this committee must realize that

the system had been working properly our government would have had the tools necessary to bring sean and all of the other abducted children home years earlier. it should not have required the extraordinary efforts of congressman smith and senator lautenberg. senator lautenberg should never have needed to threaten the trade bill with brazil because that option should have been available to the state department when countries like a lethal and refused to return abducted american children. as of today there are many black and white adoption cases in brazil and other countries where the law is clear that the children must be returned. the abducted had passed with almost always the abductors are alive. these parents and their attorneys manipulate the legal system to their advantage

stalling of the legal process for years while our children grow apart from their families. for these left behind parents and families time to see enemies. with all of the assistance and support i received over four years and then another year and a half after the death of my son's first of abductors christmas eve sean and bayh were finally reunited and return home. it was nothing short of america. after five and a half years my sons and illegal retention and documented abuse she is now home and he's flourishing. he will be 11-years-old tomorrow, may 25th. as the congressman pointed out, his birthday, my son's birthday is on international missing children's awareness day. although the remaining abductors

of my son have challenged the brazillian supreme court decision that brought him home and continue litigation in brazil seeking my son's return in addition to filing lawsuits in new jersey courts, he is home. he is happy. he is loath and allowed to be a child again, and we are father and son again. one thing my father said when my son and i finally reunited and return home, which will always resonate within me, and it's how these parents and families live every day, my dad said not only did i get my grandson back, i got my son back. our family will always be so very grateful for every ounce of support from mayor everett came. as for this reason that i am here today, to do whatever i can to ensure the police from the remaining families, desperately fighting to reunite with their

abducted children do not fall on deaf ears as my own did for so many years. our foundation is assisting a number of left behind parents including nine whose children remain illegally retained in brazil. none of the children have been abducted by someone with great influence and power like those who abducted my child. however, the results are the same. the children remain held illegally. other of and my son, we are aware of no other child return to the u.s. by brazil under the hague convention. in fact, since sean's return, two cases in brazil received return orders by the first level federal court which is good news. however, they were appealed, the children were not returned, and the lives of the left behind parents and their children hang in the balance while every day the of doctors live with impunity as the cases drag on.

brazil continues to defy the international law. i would like to note that ambassador jacobs recently returned from a trip to brazil where she had gone to discuss international child of the auction with her senior brazilian officials. ambassador jacobs reports that the trip was a success and that the u.s. and brazil have a working group which will meet this summer to discuss how to speed up the applications and the adage occasion of these abduction cases. hopefully we'll change will happen. but to be clear, the only way progress can be measured is by the number of children who are returned. right now there are zero consequences when the nation violates the convention and refuses to return the abducted children to the united states. nations including mexico, germany, brazil and japan which

finally appears ready to ratify the convention discovered quickly the united states is all talk and no action. these countries play endless legal and diplomatic games with parents frustrating their hopes and breaking their hearts month after month and year after year through endless bureaucratic maneuvering. the method and the excuses may vary from one country to country. they are almost always the same to be the children il legally abducted from the united states almost never come home. the current system is broken. in the letter inviting me to speak at this hearing today, the chairman states the purpose of this hearing is to explore ways the u.s. can help increase return rates of children abducted internationally by a parent. first of all, we can only help increase return rates if we start with a complete

understanding of the full magnitude of the problem including the true number of american children who were abducted and continue to be illegally retained abroad. this is a difficult number to find, and it is not presented as a part of the annual compliance report submitted to congress by the state department. we keep hearing that the figures around 2800 american children. however, the last three annual hague compliance report prepared by the state department show that the total number of american children for those three years was 4,728. these reports also show about 1200 children were returned, although we were not able to find return data for 2010. that would account for an increase of 3,528 and abducted american children in those three years alone, and clearly there

have to be literally thousands of american children illegally retained abroad whose abduction state back to the most prior three-year period. hauer the returns categorized? how were those children returned? if the work in fact returned at all. to the returns also include cases which the state department has closed for various reasons? if so, what is the criteria for the closure? these need to change. we need a system by which the cases are registered and monitored by each parent elected member of congress. we need officials to work with the state department on the cases to make sure all the resources and additional tools are at their disposal to make it clear to the country's we want our children sent home. there is no valid reason for the foreign government to be legally hold american children and

support international child deduction. this statement however true device all logic because there's never a dull the reason to break the law and support kidnapping but as it is to fight tonight this is exactly what is happening and many countries took thousands of american children and their families these countries are breaking the law with impunity. the fact of the left behind parents will be as fortunate as i was, had been president of baala, sycophant in, congressman smith and senator lautenberg all make my son's return a fundamental foreign policy goal of the united states. even then, senator lautenberg had to put a hold on the renewal of the trade privileges for more than 100 nations including the brazil to put the final pressure on both brazil and the administration which led to

sean's return. i wish every left behind parent could have that kind of support in the future. but we all know that few at most and probably non-will ever have that kind of leverage and power backing them. what kind of leverage will these parents be able to wield without that kind of personal high level support i was so fortunate to receive from the white house state department senate and house to bring their children home? not very much. in fact, probably none at all. the hague convention has the force of law. but we all know there can be no old rule of law if there is no system of justice to punish violators. today mexico, brazil, argentina, and a host of other countries face no real consequences for refusing to adhere to the convention requirements that abducted children be returned to the country where they were legally domiciled within six weeks.

american treasure and our armed forces have safeguarded the security of japan since 1945, but japan pays no price for refusing to return the abducted children of those american service members as well as ordinary u.s. citizens whose children have been abducted to japan. this committee and this congress must pass legislation that are missed the state department with real sanctions to exemplify u.s. and tolerance for other nations which remain flagrant violators. chairman smith has authored such legislation. i support it and urge all members to do so as well. similar to the entire human trafficking laws offered by chairman said, his bill to combat the international child abduction provides a real and credible inventory of sanctions to be used to help get our kids back.

if you are negotiators with such sanctions committee will immediately be taken more seriously. if the department employees put sanctions against the worst offenders, other nations will get the message also and hopefully start to return our children. what i do know is that if all we do today is express outrage and vowed to do better as committees like this in both houses of congress have done for more than 12 years but failed to enact congressman smith's legislation with real and credible sanctions, our kids will not be returned, and we will be back before another committee next year with more left behind families, more internationally adopted children, and no new mechanism for improvement. it is worth noting that this is the seventh hearing on this issue since 1998. and i respectfully ask this

committee to think about something at the conclusion of this hearing. what if anything has changed in those 12 years since we acknowledged the seriousness of the problem of the international child of the auction and real lives that the system was failing of the parent's back then. when you read the testimony it is as if we are caught in a time capsule and suddenly the dates on the hearings transcripts don't matter. all the stories could be told today because the reasons for the failures are the same. this is as much as a bipartisan issue as there could ever be. and i continue to plead on behalf of all the suffering families torn apart by a child deduction for our government to act now. my son sean and i can never get back the time we lost because of his of the auction. but now that she is finally home, not a day is lost on

either one of us. let us help the rest of the families and began with providing the much needed tools the state department so desperately needs to apply across-the-board pressure that will insure conducted american children come home. i would like to conclude with a letter from the left behind parents of 117 american children unlawfully detained in the 25 countries. the letter is addressed to secretary of state clinton and was written for the purpose of giving a voice to the thousands of parents who were not invited to speak here today. their presence is felt and many of them are here in this room today. this letter and if the families would like to stand with me.

>> if the room for bigger you could be assured there would be more families. >> if the rumor bigger you could be assured there would be more parents and families making it even harder. madam secretary, we, the undersigned, appeal for your help as left behind parents of 117 american children who have been abducted and remain on lawfully retained in the 25 countries. we also represent a number of u.s. service members whose children were abducted while serving our country overseas. some of these countries are signatories to the convention while others are not. such as japan, where we state overwhelming odds trying to reunite with our children. we and our families are devastated emotionally and financially by the loss of our

children and seek your assistance in ensuring that the u.s. government is exercising all lawful means necessary to return these american children to their home country and reunite them with us. the continued retention of our children violates international law, ethical norms and human decency. put simply, our children have been stolen from us. it is our legal and moral right to be a part of their lives. as our 85 cases demonstrate, there are a growing number of countries willfully ignoring or abusing their international obligations with regard to international parental abduction. each of us has had excess breeding experiences seeking justice and foreign court where our cases are often treated as custody matters rather of an abduction cases. oftentimes, dictum parents and court systems of foreign

countries when it is well known that such action will likely result in a decision with custody of four adopted children being awarded to the party. selectively, we have limited or no contact with our children. many of whom have been turned against us as a result of parental alienation, a documented form of child abuse. our children lost half their identities when they were ripped from their homes family and friends, like restaurants, our children and grandparents, aunts, uncles and if other family members have pulled in their hearts left by the abduction of their loved ones. by the july 2010 import point that is the special advisor to the office of the children's issues. we experienced little improvement in the quality of the service provided by the

department of state's with almost no positive results. the current system has failed us while a were children remain unlawfully in foreign land the member of new child abduction cases from the u.s. continues to grow at an alarming rate. there is an urgent need for change not only to prevent more of our nation's children from being abducted across international borders but also to affect to the expeditious and safe return of our abducted children. international child abduction is a serious human rights violation in desperate need of your attention. in our experience all too often these international child adoption cases do not appear to be addressed aggressively because the state department effort to maintain harmonious bilateral relations with other countries or to pursue other compelling goals. the state department foreign

affairs manuel on the issue of child abduction highlights this point by instructing oci case workers remain neutral in handling these cases. this inherent conflict of interest cannot be ignored and we need to place a higher priority on the welfare of our children. we understand the necessity of maintaining strong relations with other nations, but this should not come at the expense of our children. over the years both houses of congress have held numerous hearings on the issue of international child adoption, yet precious little change as our absent children grow older. on tuesday another group of parents will gather in washington, d.c. for yet another hearing as we are today. it is our hope that this will be the year that congress and the administration unite to pass the new law to strengthen the nation's capacity to help the

parents and children victims of international parental child of the auction. we also hope the state department under your leadership will embrace the changes to finally ended this growth injustice affecting thousands of american children. madam secretary, we applaud your past efforts and record on children's rights issues. but we are desperate and plead for your assistance. it is long past time for this country to show leadership on the issue of international parental child abduction. we cannot grow complacent with each successful return nor can we forget about all the other children who are being wrongfully retained or abroad. we are fortunate to have strong support of groups with advocate for a victim of international parental child of the auction. however, we need our government's the unwavering support and determination to bring our children home.

madam secretary, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you directly to discuss how progress can be made. please help us reunite with our children. and the families and the names of the children are at the end of the letter. >> thank you. >> without objection all of the names will be included. [applause] >> mr. goldman, thank you for your very powerful testimony for speaking and articulating the deeply held views of virtually everyone in this room and all those who couldn't be here. i would note that this is the beginning of a series of hearings we will hear from other left behind parents in subsequent hearings. we have three panels today because every single one of your situations needs to be aired and needs to have the full backing

of our committee which they do to hopefully god willing effectuate the return of those left behind children. i would like to yield for any comments she may have and the distinguished gentlelady from new york. >> thank you mr. chairman and for holding this very important hearing on the issue that will benefit for more attention and more action. the testimony of the witness is truly heartbreaking, and as a mother of six, i can only imagine what the pain is when a child is abducted by a former spouse. and it's probably the worst might your divorced parents could face, and i want to applaud the vigilance and the persistence of the left behind parent in your pursuit to get your child back. reading through the testimony was eye opening and especially disturbing was the non-return reef for the signatories to the convention. in 2010 the return rate for the signatories to the convention

was actually 7% lower than for dimond hague convention countries. last year alone the state department handled 1501 child abduction american citizens and residents. these are our children. we must do better. this congress will do better and i assure you with our chairman we will do better. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you for joining us and the distinguished committee as well. i would like to recognize sarah edwards. please proceed as you like. >> to share my story my name is sarah edwards and i'm the mother of a three-year-old boy named abdullah ely. he's a dutiful curious and active little boy who gives the most wonderful bear hugs but i haven't held him since march 4th 2010. on that day more than 14 months ago his father, my husband, took him to turkey for a family

visit. mohamed and i met while we were in college and married in ohio in 2003. our son was born five years later while i was in graduate school at pennsylvania state university. my family and parts of mohammed's family lived in northeast ohio so when he was six, excuse become six months old, we moved back there. in january of 2010, after seven years of marriage, mohamed and i separated. we drafted an informal shared parenting agreement to outline our intentions for raising our son. i believed the document was a framework to work together as separated parents in raising ely. we acted under the plan which called for equal custodial time of alternating weeks with mohamed and i each visiting today's weak during each other's visitation. i fully believe that he the participation of he was committed to share parenting as i was. therefore when he wanted to move forward with the visit to see his family in turkey and take

ely i did not object. i thought it would be good for them to have the support of the family during the separation. mohammed provided me with a round-trip ticket to travel itinerary and also a sign notarized statement promising to return with our son. mohammad mdy was was to spend two months and turkey now 14 months later ely is still not home. i certainly did not want to be without my son for two months. i knew i would miss him more than i've missed anything but i always felt it was important for our son to know his family and to have exposure to that half of his culture. i wanted to be fair. i myself traveled to turkey five times before muhammad ali took to ely. on to of those times, she came with me and we also state for two months during the visit. it all seemed routine. i drove into the airport on the day of the travel and i was there as they went through ticketing and security. i blew kisses and waved as he waved bye-bye from his

shoulders. excuse me. as i hold onto that happy last look at him i realize mohammed d.c. autrey from the moment we decided to separate. for the first two weeks of their trip i was able to visit with him daily but on march 22nd, 2010 my nightmare began. mohamad told me he would only bring the light back to ohio if i declared myself an unfit parent and gave full custody to him. he told me he already got a divorce and there was nothing i could do about it. so the next day, march 23rd, 2010, i contacted the department of state office children's issues national crime center at the american embassy, turkish consulate and scored the attorneys across turkey and oliver the u.s.. it is certainly clear that he never intended to bring him home. he traveled to turkey march 6th and on the tenth of march 40 as leader he attended a divorce

hearing. one day leader march 11th, 2010, the domestic court of turkey granted full custody of our son to mohammed. mohamed got full custody and divorce in domestic courts and a country where he never resided. excuse me, we never resided. according to the turkish all i should have been physically present for the divorce hearing. not only was i not present, i was never informed of the case in any way. i never had contact with the attorneys who were supposed to have represented me. i did not even have hard evidence that the case took place until mohammed filed the turkish court ruling as evidence in the ohio custody case. to date mohammed continues to ignore the count to the quarter to return ely to ohio. the judge signed the order adopting the original shared parenting plan in june of 2010. and mohamed and i are still legally married and ohio. a turkish attorney submitted the petition to the turkish central

authority on january 24th, 2011. i have learned that the turkish authorities investigated mohammed and eli's we're about and this month the central authorities opened the case on my behalf in turkey for the return of my son. i await updates daily and desperately. over the past 14 months mohamad has permitted me to visit by what can sometimes on a regular basis. but he also abruptly cut off access to the long periods with no warning. a schedule my daily life around the chance to speak with my only child and my despair or deletions turns upon his whim. my son the longer understands or speaks english and a struggle to keep up with him and turkish but i am grateful to still have contact and maintain our bond. he was only two when mohammed to come and now at age 3i see him growing and changing drastically with each visit. every day i wonder is he thinking about me and missing his mother the same way i'm thinking of him and missing him.

mahomet threatens to take eli to syria torturing me with the reality that each visit could again be the last time that i ever see him. excuse me. the obstacles lie face fighting the adoption of my son are great. i'm essentially on my own to fight a court battle in a foreign country where i do not know the language or understand the culture. i have to be continually vigilant as i learned to maneuver this nightmare of uncertainty that the companies fighting for my son. excuse me. to date i still do not know whether eli has been issued a turkish passport. no one can get a confirmation that mohammed will be questioned if he tries to have come from turkey while the case is pending. no one can get a confirmation that mohammed will be questioned if he returns to the u.s. to renew his legal resident status. these are things we can know. these are obstacles that are ahead that need to be avoided.

these are things we can do. i love my son more than anything in this world and i am ready every minute to welcome him home, and i personally ask each of you now to commit to deal with all of this in your power to restore the right of your children to have relationships with both of their parents. thank you very much. >> ms. edwards, thank you. [applause] thank you so much for sharing that. we now welcome carlos who is the father gage born in 2007. his mother of looked into mexico in 2008. he spent three years trying to bring his son to durham north carolina and the fact he continues to do so just like all of the left behind parents who are struggling to reclaim their children.

mr. bermudez. >> mr. goldman and the advocacy on behalf of all families victimized by international charnel of the auction is something i respect greatly. i'm grateful for your efforts and the opportunity to address the committee. my only son was born may 14th, 2007. like many parents i spent the months preceding his birth rearranging my priorities towards fatherhood and anxiously awaiting his arrival. i knew began his father would be the most important role in my life. in 2008, i had sign something was wrong with my wife and i had reservations about the viability of our relationship. i was ultimately had a loss of what to do while maintaining and demanded the work schedule to provide for my family. i tried not to read the writing that was in hindsight on walls. and i hope our problems would somehow work out with time or keep up long enough for me to find the time and energy to deal with them effectively. time was, however, and out of my sight. in june of 2008, three years

ago, yy falsely claimed that as a family emergency in tucson arizona. the emergency involved her ever before mentioned cousin, a 12-year-old who had gone missing himself. and his mother was scared to go to the authorities for fear of being deported. despite a great discomfort i didn't object to my wife and to arizona with our son to see what she could do to help in this crisis. the alternative i saw at that time was to take time off from my job to care for our son alone while my wife went to help find her endangered cousin. being the sole provider for our family, that regrettably didn't seem to be feasible to me at that time. my wife went to arizona with our son for what was supposed to be a few days. once there she turned off herself and leigh said occasional e-mails saying she was an error is on a continuing to work on a family emergency. i didn't know what was really happening. was my child suffering or in danger? the idea my son might be in danger i refuse to ask myself the question of what was going on. my on uncertainty group and began a frantic investigation

into my wife's activity plans and associations. i traced the origin of her e-mails to find out she wasn't in arizona at all, she was in mexico. i began to see what she was doing and what her intentions were although my wife never endeavored to explain why she did this come before long i learned my wife had been having an affair with one of her friends in her social group and had left to live with him in mexico. after significant effort by located my son and initiated legal proceedings for his return under the convention. for good reason the abduction to the convention is widely viewed as completely ineffective in mexico. i could discuss the various problems in mexico that present the convention there, i feel that doing so in this form this is the treaty. in my own sincere opinion our party shouldn't be to address problems in mexico that we have little control over. a child abduction and mexico from the u.s. is as much on the american problem as it is a mexican one and as much as mexico cited for failing to take

measures to the abduction of children the u.s. government is likewise criticized for not taking appropriate measures to protect american children or support american parents in the efforts to recover the internationally and took the children. the proximity between the united states and mexico makes the problem of one country the problems of both and by extension of places the responsibility of addressing the problem on both countries. this type of bilateral cooperation is part of a broad recognition of the fact that as neighbors both nations share the respectability of addressing our problems. american parents rightfully complain that they are alone in dealing with foreign courts and legal systems. the state department has a monopoly on information on such cases but refuses to share the information or act as an advocate for the dictum iced families. there's an explicit conflict of interest between the state's goal of maintaining present bilateral relations and assertive and effective advocacy in the system on behalf of american citizens. upon being assigned a case worker at the office of children's issues and having a first conversation with him, i

remember thinking to myself my god, they put the department of motor vehicles in charge of recovering my son. to my subsequent tour, i've come to appreciate how accurate that initial impression was. all of my advice and guidance for practical information how should proceed were immediately repute with claims that they could not provide for egullet fisa. when i looked back on the way the office of children's issues orientated me on how to handle the abduction of my son i have little doubt that they were essentials and setting me up for the failure of the application for my son's return. by not providing the some very basic and essential facts degree is essentially guiding me down a path that would lead to the resolution of the hague proceedings the would inevitably result in the denial of my sons repatriation. ..

and i had waited too long to file an application for his return. in order to further prove during my appeal that my wife provided criminally fraudulent testimony in mexican courts i requested the u.s. state department obtained copies of her entry and exit records to united states. in the conversations that ensuedensued, i escalated this issue to the abduction unit chief who claimed they could not give me this information because it would violate my wife's privacy in spite of the fact we remained legally married and the in the shed criminally affected affected our child to a dangerous third world country. when i asked to have the entry and exit records for my son for whom i am the legal custodian parent i was told this was not

the role that oca played and they were not allowed to give legal advice perk or furthermore they said the information would be of no use to me in court because mexico shares a border with the two countries. therefore they claimed proving she is subsequently entered and exited the country would not prove the legal abduction and retention. i couldn't help but wonder that after they had said to me for the 1000th time that they couldn't keep me legal advice whenever they now giving me legal advice? iso cfa and the mexican attorney to which they applied they did not. why were they not telling me the information i was requesting was of an illegal use to me in mexican courts during my appeal when it was my own attorney telling me to obtain this information? at various points throughout this request the oci told me something to the fact that a decision had been made in my case sometimes adding the appeal is now up to me and my attorney. the subtext of the statements was we consider your case closed. we agree with the family court's decision and we aren't going to

get involved or help you and do what we view ethics ethical -- except the bull resolution no matter how unjust the resolution itself may be. the important thing was that an aura of legitimacy have been created around my son's abduction and a potential diplomatic irritant had been eliminated. we cannot continue to offer a bar of affected children lambs at the altar of pleasant bilateral relations. the usa's -- state department and by extension the rest of the u.s. government's unwillingness to invest the smallest amount of political capital in protecting our children is inconsistent with our values as americans. contrary to the idea that abandoning children helps us achieve our other more important policy goals, our callous indifference to the plight of our vector children's only serves the bulk of critics that our foreign policy is dominated by the interest of american corporations rather than a fundamental respect for justice and human rights. american leads investment leads by example and i hope we can continue to do that. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you very much for your testimony. let me begin the questioning first and i will start with you, beginning with the last and i thank you are your very blunt assessment. i think you know, i have spoken now to dozens of left-behind parents and one sense that i get from some and maybe from many is a fear that if they are too strong with the office of children's issues in their and their own government and even with congress and senate perhaps that there is a sense of retaliation that might come their way or a lack of robustness in resolving their case. somehow the case with the mothballed out of a fear of retaliation and you spared no words in expressing your profound dismay over the performance of our government, and i think that has to be taken to heart in a very meaningful

way. no child should ever be a sacrificial lamb. you talked about the aura of legitimacy. koska asks in terms of your description, and frankly when it comes to human rights it has been my experience over the last 31 years as a member of congress it who takes human rights very seriously, writes many laws on human rights and very often human rights is devoted to when it comes to pleasant stage relationships, statecraft somehow looks and says the human rights agenda is in the air attend as you perhaps suggested. and i'm wondering if any of the panelists and especially you mr. bermudez because you are so strong on this would like to address that issue because these are your children, and all of your children and to think that you need to walk on eggshells out of fear of all being done that should be done is done is

appalling. we are here to serve you. all of us see it that way. the members who were here believe passionately in human rights. i know that and i think you will see that either comments, but no one in the state department or here or on staffer anywhere should ever put you, any of you at ill ease to somehow your concerns are not front and center and foremost in our minds. you didn't sugarcoat one iota and i think we need to take it too hard to heart and learn from that. your likeness is well received at least by this member. perhaps you might want to speak to that, and let me also ask because i don't want to take too much time. we have two additional panels, i mentioned the diplomatic side putting this down at the bottom. we heard that a previous hearing and we have heard that before.

that you know, one of the things our legislation would do on child abduction would be to get the state department serious tools to say we are not kidding. we stayed in japan. we hold you to account and we will take, or impose serious measures of penalty if you continue this pattern of noncooperation and if you leave the left behind parent astray the way you have done so repeatedly. if you want to speak a little bit further, that is up to you. let me also ask mr. goldman with regards to so many tactics used against you in the other two families and the parents might want to speak to this as well but the delay of denial. i found in your case and i've seen it elsewhere but especially in your case where you had a hague literate attorney using all of which should have been done against you. i'm talking about the opposition's attorney, and that is somehow to suggest in the

proceedings that the child has become so accustomed to their new home, the place of abduction, that it would need ill-advised to pull them out of them are meant. it says to the abductors, hold onto on to that child long enough and then you can use that too is one of your argument points to continue the abduction. the abduction occurs every day. it is called retention but it is almost as if the abduction has been done in new each and every day every 24 hour period, that child has been readopted. if you want to speak to that and if i could, to ms. edwards i wonder how helpful our embassy in ankara has been for you, whether or not they have stepped in and made this an important issue. you mentioned the office of children's issues and if you might want to elaborate on that a little further.

they should a passionate advocates. they may feel ill-advised or ill-equipped to provide legal advice, but they have to fight for american parents and american children's human rights and that seems to have not gotten through in the way it ought to. if you perhaps want to elaborate further on that, so please mr. bermudez if you could begin. >> yes and just as a response to your comment, you continue to demonstrate an uncanny intuition or knowledge of just really what this issue is about and it really helps bring hope to me that there is someone in our congress that really understands this and is really working towards addressing this problem. i guess to address the various parts of your comments, one concern i have, i have read carefully both pieces of

legislation that you have authored related to this issue. one concern that i would like to, one overriding concern brother that i would like to raise is providing the ability of states to enact sanctions will be an empty half measure if we do not address the fact that states have consistently demonstrated the lack of will to use any such tools. in regards to my comments, i share the concern that speaking out about what i viewed as the american governments complicitness in the abduction of our children, i was also very concerned that in doing so, i was going to lose whatever assistance they were actually providing me and in deep reflection on that, that very idea, i convinced myself that they were doing nothing and in speaking out about these issues i was effectively losing no assistance whatsoever. though this is something that

many parents that i have spoken to have also expressed as they're concerned that if they say anything publicly, there will be a retaliation. actually there is some precedent for that. tom johnson a left behind parent and attorney at the state department and patricia were both denied a seat at various discussions on this very topic after 10 years ago, which kind of speaks to the long-standing nature of this problem. 10 years ago speaking out against what they viewed as various inadequacies in the state department's handling of this issue. i think that covers all the points i wanted to make. >> ms. edwards. >> my experience has shown that oci can be characterized as professional but also extremely distant and what that means is they can give an abc set of steps but they won't commit to

give me gh an i and the need to know this in order to make my plan work properly so it is almost like they feel like they have a role in the assistance to make it, i don't know how to word this, i guess i was not at all satisfied knowing how the process would continue and that if i finished one hoop there would be another one waiting, that is assured that i did know how to make a that plan forward. the biggest issue now that my hague is filed in going forward in turkey is that the communication between a central authority there and my case representative in oci has been less than full, so i get in touch with her every couple of weeks to get updates. the last time she contacted me instead of as a response, it was because someone in the turkish media wanted to film our reunion and the news got back to her. she couldn't believe that i would do that.

i couldn't believe that she wouldn't have had the sense to ask me, have you heard about this? i couldn't believe she didn't know people come out of the woodwork all the time. their ridiculous amounts of people that have harassed or i should say approached every single one of us in this situation. the turkish media said they know where my son is and if i go on their show that they will assure a reunion. well i want them to report where my son is to the turkish authorities and that is not something the american embassy has been able to help me with. so i guess that little anecdote kind of fills you in on my site. >> was there any attempt by the consular office in turkey to do a welfare whereabouts? >> i've not requested that because i still have thankfully right now webcam access. i kind of have to put that on hold. i don't feel that is an infinite resource so amusing that when i have to have that. anytime my husband threatens to take my son from the -- to syria which is a border sharing

country, i open the communication again so they know i'm ready to have that sent out as needed but no, i have not had a well check ordered so far. >> as an ambassador in turkey racer particular issue with the foreign ministry as far as you know? >> i'm not aware that has happened. >> it is something you should not have to ask. >> i'm not aware at all if this does happen. >> mr. bermudez has that happened in your case? >> yes and actually the u.s. legislation at the unction -- abduction commissioned parents are entitled to have a welfare visit every six months. this is something also allow for the geneva convention. the first one they did immediately in the second one i had to get to my congressmen congressmen and senators involved to get the stay state to add to my request to have my sons well-being ascertained but i have had -- most recently i

was in mexico trying to get them to do another one and allow me to attend if at all possible. and that is still something i'm working on. >> mr. goldman? >> we all face the sword if a feeling like we are marked with a scarlet letter initially when our children are affected. there is this guilt, this feeling of what we did wrong, people are looking at us. you must have been some terrible people for a mom or a dad to run off with their children. clearly it is not the case. these are oftentimes oftentimes very badly behaved people. there is no real punitive measurement on the actual abductor. they can stay within the country they are living, filed file for a divorce or separation like parents do when they separate, couples do or they could say you know what? i'm going to give it a shot. i am going to go to this country right now i will have a

jurisdictional advantage and the worst-case scenario is i get sent back. and then have the normal divorce proceeding in a country which i should have started to begin with. so, i know there has been suggestions of exit control, which is great. it wouldn't have helped me. i drove my wife and son and parents, her parents to the airport with love, hugs and kisses and she goes to this foreign country, applies for a divorce or custody rather in the courts of brazil without me even knowing it for many many months later. so that is how we start. if we show anger, if we show like we are outraged, i feel like our state department wants to look for something to dismiss us as much as someone who just can't believe that a parent could take a child from another parent without the left behind parent having done something that deserves it. so we are already starting out with this overwhelming feeling that we are behind the 80 with a

scarlet letter. >> they are very adept at maneuvering and stalling in the courts. as you noted the abductors of my son were in fact lecturing to different legal fellow attorneys in brazil on how the affecting parent can turn the abducted child into an attack missile against the left behind parent. as in parental alienation and while they were holding my son illegally in brazil, his family of lawyers were also lecturing on how a clever lawyer can stall the judicial system with endless appeals and motions to keep that child in the affecting country for years on and. eventually, the courts will say well, we know the child has been held illegally. we get that he or she has been abducted but now they are adapted so let's reward the

kidnapper and let's be a country that actually reports child abduction and again this is where we need to step in with the sanctions to show we are we are not going to tolerate this. there is no real deterrent for these affecting parents, and there is no punitive measure for them to face. the first thing a country would do is if you filed criminal charges is where the hague convention as good as as it is the abductors use it as a double lead sort because it is a civil remedy. if america starts filing criminal prosecution against all these child doctors, which we would in our own country if they took them across state lines, then the country where the child is affected would say we are not going to return that child back to their home state because then the acting parent will be in jail and they won't be able to see the child. so as the left behind parent all these thoughts go through your mind and your heart, what do we do?

what can we do? and it seems to me the most sensible list to start with the sanctions and use them. collin bower in the back, his son ramsey and nora, they were taken to egypt by an abusive drug-addicted mother, who forged passports. they entered egypt with different last names on the passports then the mother. they entered egypt. it egypt recognizes they are held illegally yet they are still in egypt. we just basically gave egypt a billion dollars. to forgo a debt of $1 billion we are going to give them a billion more, glad that they are going to be a democracy, glad that mubarak is out, bad that our children are still held there illegally by unfit parents let alone just adopting that should have been returned anyway. we have another case and i believe he is going to be testifying with michel a lie is.

he served two terms in the desert and came back they wondered better and to the japanese embassy new york who gave fraudulent passports to the affecting mother of the children children -- of ducting children of the mother. there has to be something we can do and it is outrageous and it is only getting worse year after year. as i said earlier the room is smaller in and the crowds are bigger. hopefully, we won't have to be here next year because the countries will be returning our children. >> thank you. mr. payne. [applause] >> let me say that i really appreciate the testimony, those of which i have heard and those that i read. and i think that you have probably, for your testimony and the letter to the secretary and also your answering of the

questions have answered the primary questions that i had. i would still like to review your case. what do you think the primary, the primary reasons that you finally got the release of your son? was a through it through senators or congressman smith, the convention? because your case was successful. of course it took a long, long time. i wonder what advice he would have specifically to other parents that you would give right now? >> well, essentially i walked in their shoes with my pleas

falling on deaf ears. i had a very skillful team of attorneys. the first order that i received that would call for the return of my son, that first-order is the most crucial order as you go through the process and the legal arena. it needs to be basically as solid and orders you can get. you only get one for shots that you definitely need an attorney who is very skillful on international child abduction, hague or non-hague countries for that first-order is paramount. seven, what route it to the attention essentially with the media. the media in my case act as this a fourth branch of government. is call people's attention, it caused for so long -- i like many people had family members, friends wanting to help at what could they do? they could do little more than i could do and finally when it caught the attention of congressman smith and your

colleagues, who could actually do something and would do something, that made the difference. ultimately it ended with actions by senator lautenberg that showed sanctions mean something. these countries want our money more than they want our children, and it is unfortunate but that is what it takes. we give so many of these countries billions of dollars in aid and if we do have these sanctions ready and waiting, more often than not they will return our children without having to use them. with the use them once or twice on the worst offenders to get our kids home, they know we are serious. most of these countries are friends and allies and some of them it is just inherent in their whole domestics is the master pam. they have a very archaic domestic laws when it comes to child custody to begin with so they need to start there before

i can really feel comfortable with them exceeding to the hague convention. >> are you able to wind attorneys or where you are any of the others, an attorney in the host country so to speak that would be willing to fight the red tape in their country? in other words, to take your side against their government, either one of you? what was your success or lack of success trying to get qualified attorney to really fight on your behalf against their countries? >> i myself am relatively early in the process still, so i have the hague case under investigation and it is going forward in the government has opened the case on my behalf or my son's return. actually they have had a hearing this morning at 9:00 this morning. so, and finding the attorney

though, it was amazed to find something -- someone who has passable english or constantly dealing with a translator, for that person to be versed in the hague is very rare and for that person to be in a city where you need them is also rare so what you are doing is going through an entire country and trying to find an expert and put them in a location where they can serve you. well i would love to have had the money to get the best attorney anywhere in turkey and have that person relocate for the course of this case or pay them to travel to every hearing or whatever, but those are not the conditions we live in so we do the best we can and i have an attorney who represents me and we do work with a translator because i decided that her proficiency in english was less important than her proficiency in the hague. but these are decision jeff to make and you also have to be timely and then you have to constantly have the fear that was at the right choice? choice? how do you know the person that i talked to is -- have i know they're not going to take the money and run or how do i know

that this person is acting in my interest when clearly a judge in another turkish attorney went way around the law to grant my husband full custody of my son. that case having been overturned in turkey will be were heard and not that should have any effect on the hague, which is pending, but every little bit -- i don't know what my hague judges going to consider when he sees a turkish custody ruling. i had to put that that off for a long time because i'm concerned about what i do there, how will that have implications here? what will i do here that will have implications there? i'm still worried -- married to this man because i worried he would appeal the ohio custody. there'll these intricate things to balance and maneuver so finding the attorney is an issue. it is just one of many and i would say the list of attorneys in the state department web site is not the way to go. you have to go through social networks and find word-of-mouth. a whole lot of time and money

wasted trying to find, but they will say yeah mike you can retain me for 10,000 run in 20,000 when he gets your son home. it is a racket. >> actually, that is a very important question. attorneys, not for nothing, don't have the best reputation in any country. mexico is somewhat legendary in terms of not having a national way of accrediting attorney so there is actually a large number of incompetent attorneys in mexico and selecting a competent attorney that has all the qualities that sarah just elicited is essential. initially i asked the state department they could provide me a list of attorneys that have previously handled these types of cases so i knew i had someone with experience and they refuse to give this to me. they flat out said we can't provide legal if isamu can't begin a kind of recommendation. i think that is atrocious. i think this is the very least

they can do and through trial and error you do lots of interviews and a massive amount of efforts, i had somewhat, some luck and hiring attorneys but i do speak spanish and i can believe the difficulty of finding an attorney in a country where you cannot. >> the language. it is unfortunate and australia is a great example where they handled this much better. their financial assistance provide the parents to hire an attorney and to locate one so that is one of many things i came thing can be improved upon in the kent highly -- handling the child abduction case. >> so in your opinion, probably people would expect you to be worn down eventually and quit. finances become an issue in number two, that delays