the annual report was released, i chaired a hearing of this sub-committee featuring ambassador susan jacobs in which it was made perfectly clear that congress expect that is japan will be evaluated not just on the handling of new abduction cases after joining the convention last year, but all abduction cases including the more than 50 cases i and others have been raising with state for at least the last five years. among those cases is that of sergeant michael elias. he has not seen his children jade and michael jr. mike as was a mean who saw combat in iraq. his wife who worked in the consulate used documents to kidnap their children then aged four and two in defiance of a court order telling michael on the phone there was nothing he could do because, as she said, and i quote, my country, that is japan, will protect me. her country worried about the designation in the report sent a high level delegation in march to meet with the ambassador and explain why japan should be excused from being noncompliant despite the fact more than one year after signing the convention of international child a

consulate in tunisia and ambassador susan jacobs have been very active in our case. this support coupled with the avid representation i received from senators assured me with the passing of icapra our case would be resolved and our family would be reunited on u.s. soil. unfortunately that is not the case, to secure the return of my baby he remains illegally retained with his father in tunisia. i further believe this is do to intentional resistance on behalf of state to i capra. and the diplomatic of its full enforcement. i refer to the compliance report to support these claims. i'm thankful in its testimony, state has provided an account of how many children have been represented by the report. while the report makes consistent references to cases out there there is not one instance where an abducted child is counted. my question is simple, why? why wasn't a single child accounted for in 2014? and how did the central authority for the united states use sight of the significance for every searching parent that it represents to have his or her child counted? after scru

ambassador and ambassador susan jacobs had been active in our case. this support coupled with avid representation received and the fbi through its legal assured me that with the passing our case would be immediately resolved and our family could be reunited here on u.s. soil. unfortunately, that is not the case. despite having every available tool at its disposal to secure the return of my baby he remains illegally retained with his father. i believe this is due to intentional resistance on behalf of state and the likely unpopular diplomatic and political consequences of full enforcement. i have referred to the compliance report to support the claims. i'm thankful that state has provided an account of how many children are represented. while the report makes consistent references there is not one instance where an abducted child is counted. my question is simple. why wasn't a single child accounted for in 2014 and how did the central authority for the united states lose sight of the significance for every parent to have his or her child counted. after

ambassador susan jacobs will be going there very soon to japan and these cases are going to be a subject and we continue to attempt to -- to resolve and establish this protocols with japan for the resolution of those cases. those 50 cases are at the forefront of our thinking. we understand that among those 50 cases, about 30 of them have actually filed now -- filed hague cases for access and are working through those cases. >> well, again, these are desperate, loving parents who have been frustrated through nausea with the lack of responsiveness by us, the u.s. government and especially by the japanese government. and let me make a point, when you talk about application. we made it very clear that the term application means the case of a nonconvention country and the formal request by the central authority of the united states, you, to the authority of such a country, and that could be the foreign ministry, requesting the return of an abducted child or the rights of contact with an abducted child. and i presume on each of the outstanding cases, which is now in excess of 50 and some have

prior to the passing states office of children's issues the us consulate and ambassador susan jacobs' have been active. the support coupled with the avid representation in the fbi through legal attachÉ assure me that with the passing our case will be immediately result in a family would be reunited on us soil. that is not the case despite having every available tool at his disposal to secure the return of my but he remains illegally retained with his father. father. i firmly believe this is due to intentional resistance on behalf of states and the likely unpopular diplomatic and political consequences of its full enforcement. i defer to compliance reports. i am thankful that in testimony the state has provided an account of how many children have been represented. while the report makes consistent references to cases the route there is not one instance where an abducted child is counted. my question is simple. why wasn't a single trial accounted for in 2014 and how the central authority for the united states lose sight of the significance for every searching parent that it represents