(1) According to the Department of State, there 
are at least 50 cases involving at least 64 children 
who were habitual residents of the United States 
and who were removed to Brazil by one parent, 
wrongfully denying custody to the parent in the 
United States, and who have not been returned to 
the United States as required under the Convention 
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduc-
tion, done at the Hague on October 25, 1980 (TIAS 
11670; in this section referred to as the ‘‘Hague 
Convention’’). 
(2) David Goldman, a United States citizen and 
resident of New Jersey, has been trying unsuccess-
fully since June 2004 to secure the return of his son 
Sean to the United States where Sean maintained 
his habitual residence until his mother, Bruna 
Bianchi Ribeiro Goldman, removed Sean to Brazil. 
(3) On September 3, 2004, Mr. Goldman filed 
an application for the immediate return of Sean to 
the United States under the Hague Convention to 
which both the United States and Brazil are party 
and which entered into force between Brazil and the 
United States on December 1, 2003. 
(4) Pursuant to Article 12 of the Hague Con-
vention, the judicial authority of Brazil was required 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:27 Jun 05, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2702.IH
H2702
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
to order Sean’s return to the United States ‘‘forth-
with’’, customarily defined under international law 
as within six weeks after an application for return 
has been filed. 
(5) On October 13, 2005, the Brazilian court 
refused to return Sean in contravention of Brazil’s 
obligations under the Hague Convention even though 
it found that Sean was a habitual resident of the 
United States and, pursuant to international law, 
had been wrongfully removed and retained in Brazil. 
(6) On August 22, 2008, Mrs. Goldman passed 
away in Brazil leaving Sean without a mother and 
separated from his biological father in the United 
States. Instead of returning Sean to the custody of 
his father David, Mrs. Goldman’s second husband, 
Joa˜o Paulo Lins e Silva, petitioned the Brazilian 
courts for custody rights over Sean. 
(7) On September 25, 2008, Mr. Goldman filed 
an amended application under the Hague Conven-
tion against Mr. Lins e Silva for the return of cus-
tody over Sean. 
(8) On June 1, 2009, a federal court judge in 
Brazil ordered that Sean be turned over to the 
United States consulate in Rio de Janeiro and re-
turned to his father on June 3, 2009. The court fur-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:27 Jun 05, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2702.IH
H2702
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
ther ordered that, following a 30-day adaptation pe-
riod in the United States, Mr. Goldman be given full 
custody over Sean. 
(9) On June 2, 2009, one Brazilian Supreme 
Court justice suspended the order of the first level 
of the Federal Court on the basis of a motion filed 
by the Progressive Party, a small Brazilian political 
party, that objects to the application of the Hague 
Convention in Brazil. This suspension must now be 
heard by the full Supreme Court, could further delay 
the Goldman case for months, and could prevent the 
return of any other abducted children to the United 
States. 
(10) Brazil is a primary beneficiary under the 
Generalized System of Preferences program. In 
2008, Brazil received duty-free status under the 
GSP for United States imports totaling $2.75 bil-
lion. 
(11) A country that refuses to abide by its 
international obligations pursuant to the Hague 
Convention and recognize the international rights of 
parents and their children from the United States 
should not be able to export goods to the United 
States duty-free under the Generalized System of 
Preferences program. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:27 Jun 05, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2702.IH
H2702
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
(b) DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.—The purpose of 
this Act is to— 
(1) attain the immediate return of Sean Gold-
man and all children to the United States who are 
being held wrongfully in Brazil in contravention of 
the Hague Convention; and 
(2) impress upon the judiciary, central author-
ity, and law enforcement of Brazil the importance of 
abiding by their respective obligations pursuant to 
the Hague Convention. 
SEC. 3. SUSPENSION OF APPLICATION OF GENERALIZED 
SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES FOR BRAZIL. 
(a) NOTIFICATION OF SUSPENSION OF DUTY-FREE 
TREATMENT.—Not later than 7 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the President shall notify the mem-
ber countries of the World Trade Organization that the 
United States is suspending the application of Generalized 
System of Preferences for Brazil in accordance with the 
requirements of this section. 
(b) SUSPENSION OF DUTY-FREE TREATMENT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the President 
shall suspend the application of Generalized System 
of Preferences for Brazil. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:27 Jun 05, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2702.IH
H2702
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
(2) WAIVER.—The President may waive the ap-
plication of paragraph (1) if the President deter-
mines and reports to the appropriate congressional 
committees that it is important to the national inter-
ests of the United States to do so. 
(c) REINSTATEMENT OF DUTY-FREE TREATMENT.— 
The President may reinstate the application of General-
ized System of Preferences for Brazil if the President cer-
tifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the 
following requirements have been satisfied: 
(1) The central authority of Brazil is complying 
with its obligations under the Convention on the 
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done 
at the Hague on October 25, 1980 (TIAS 11670; in 
this section referred to as the ‘‘Hague Convention’’) 
with respect to international child abduction cases 
involving children from the United States. 
(2) The judicial system of Brazil is complying 
with its obligations under the Hague Convention 
with respect to international child abduction cases 
involving children from the United States. 
(3) The law enforcement system of Brazil is 
complying with its obligations under the Hague Con-
vention with respect to international child abduc-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:27 Jun 05, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2702.IH
H2702
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
tions cases involving children from the United 
States. 
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 
In this section: 
(1) APPROPRIATE
CONGRESSIONAL
COMMIT-
TEES.—The term ‘‘appropriate congressional com-
mittees’’ means— 
(A) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 
the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
House of Representatives; and 
(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations 
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate. 
(2) 
GENERALIZED
SYSTEM
OF
PREF-
ERENCES.—The term ‘‘Generalized System of Pref-
erences’’ means duty-free treatment provided to eli-
gible articles from beneficiary developing countries 
under title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2461 et seq.). 
Æ 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
06:27 Jun 05, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H2702.IH
H2702
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS