You folks always hear me talk about Trickery and Behind Closed Doors when speaking about Congress. Lets review what happened with IML on 2-1-16, and how the public gets misled by misuse of House Rules. All times mentioned EST come from the
Video upper right corner of screen (Or from
Rep Smith's UTube account):
1) House Majority Leader's schedule of bills to be discussed 2-1 with votes at 6:30 PM (See graphic);
2) The House adjourned a few times during the day, caused public to give up watching C-Span.
3) Finally, IML came up for discussion LATE in the day, (
4:20PM see video), but way before 6:30 PM when votes were scheduled.
4) As usual House Speaker (which by the way, they change who that is frequently, depends on who is doing nothing at any specific moment). Top pic started IML discussion, bottom pic finished discussions.
Speaker said, 40 minutes for debate allowed 20-20 for each side.
Debate began, but it was LATE in the day and Smith KNEW most lawmakers would have already gone home or to diner. He begins.
5) Then Rep Boyle from PA starts his 20 minutes. Supposedly Boyle is the opposition, but he didn't oppose it instead he supported IML. Things went back & forth between Boyle and Smith for several minutes. Normally any objections would have come up during this time frame,
but there is no one there, out to diner, set to come back at 6:30 to vote on bills as scheduled.
6) BINGO Smith moves to pass bill (4:50 PM See video), Speaker asks for objections and hears NONE, so Speaker then asks for a VOICE Vote, and if you listen carefully maybe 5 or so agree. This is way before the scheduled 6:30PM vote time. Bill has now passed into law, and will go to President for signature. (Follow this color way below) Total time on the floor 4:20 to 4:50 PM EST.
Now, folks need to learn HOW to read the Daily Digest (DD) (Has a wealth of info) which is published the day after proceedings.
Here is DD for 2-1-16: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r114:@FIELD%28FLD003+d%29+@FIELD%28DDATE+20160201%29 Not sure link will keep, it may be temp but its still on the website, just ask me.
Scroll down to:
International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking: Concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 515, to protect children from exploitation, especially sex trafficking in tourism, by providing advance notice of intended travel by registered child-sex offenders outside the United States to the government of the country of destination, and requesting foreign governments to notify the United States when a known child-sex offender is seeking to enter the United States;
Pages H387-394
If you click on that H387-394, then #2, you will see
Page: H387 Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in...
Page: H388 Page: H389 Page: H390 GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Page: H391 Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from...
Mr. PITTENGER. Chairman Smith, thank you so much for your leadership...
Page: H392 Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from...
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 515, the International...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield the gentleman 1 minute.
Mr. ROYCE. At present, multiple U.S. Government agencies are working to combat...
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the...
Mrs. WAGNER. I thank the gentlemen for yielding.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from...
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, as elected Members of Congress, we must stand up for...
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Page: H393 Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I second the...
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 515,...
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 515 because it...
Page: H394
Unfortunately the links above are temporary and after this date will no longer work which is why we are showing below the detail of the relevant ones. Accordingly, Rep SCOTT (Yellow highlighted area) said:
I think my good friend, Ann Wagner, said a moment ago that Megan is an angel. Her parents are guardian angels. They have taken a pain, an agony, and a trauma that is incomprehensible and have worked tirelessly to get Megan's
[Page: H393] GPO's PDF
Law enacted throughout the United States and in some other countries. This will take it to the next level and will establish that true reciprocal reciprocity regimen, whereby we notice, they notice, everybody knows what is going on to take the secrecy out of this travel when a convicted pedophile hops on a plane with the idea of exploiting children. This will have a very measurable impact and will protect children from this kind of agony.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I second the comments that were made by Mr. Smith. I congratulate the family of Megan Kanka. Being a father myself of a 2-year-old daughter, I can't imagine losing a little girl, especially in the heinous way that they did.
I remember very much when all of that happened. Hamilton, New Jersey, is only about 40 minutes up the road from where I live in Philadelphia, and I remember the ugly incident very well. The fact that here we are, so many years later, and the family still continues to fight for other little girls and little boys is really remarkable and is a testament to them.
I also congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who I know has worked tirelessly on this bill for a long period of time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 515, International Megan's Law. While I support the underlying goal of ensuring that American law enforcement agencies share information on potential child sex offenders with foreign law enforcement agencies, I am opposed to how one particular provision, added in the Senate amendment before us today, would work in practice.
Other existing provisions of the bill already contain the following information-sharing requirements with and among law enforcement agencies here in the United States and abroad:
U.S. sex offenders are required to provide international travel-related information to the sex offender registries;
the Department of Homeland Security is required to create the Angel Watch Center to receive information on individuals seeking to enter the U.S. who have committed offenses of a sexual nature as well as registered sex offenders seeking to travel outside the U.S. in order to share all relevant information to federal, state, and local law enforcement officials;
the U.S. Marshal's Service is required to notify law enforcement agencies of sex offenders seeking to leave the United States who have not transmitted their travel information to sex offender registries;
the U.S. Marshal's Service is required to notify the international destination country of a sex offender's upcoming travel; and
the Secretary of State should seek reciprocal international agreements or arrangements to further these goals.
If our goal is to ensure that customs and border as well as law enforcement officials are notified so that they may track and investigate those sex offenders who may be engaging in sex tourism or pose a threat of absconding, these provisions have addressed those concerns.
As a result, I am skeptical of what more we stand to gain by the Senate amendment's provision authorizing the Secretary of State to use a ``unique passport identifier for covered sex offenders'' that is defined as ``any visual designation affixed to a conspicuous location on the passport indicating the individual is a covered sex offender.'' At best, if this vague language is meant to describe some sort of code or symbol embedded in the passport that is only discernible by law enforcement at the border indicating that the traveler is a sex offender, it is redundant given the other information-sharing mandated by the bill's other provisions. However, if this is interpreted to mean something akin to the words ``sex offender'' stamped on the identification page of the passport, this raises serious problems and will lead to unintended consequences.
First, it is simply bad policy to single out one category of offenses for this type of treatment. We do not subject those who murder, who defraud the government or our fellow citizens of millions and billions, or who commit acts of terrorism to these restrictions.
Second, by treating all sexual offenders as one monolithic group ignores reality. While some pose a continued and real risk of reoffending and may be traveling to engage in sex tourism or other illicit acts, not all pose the same risk. Indeed, the failure of this provision to allow for the individualized consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the traveler's criminal history, including how much time has elapsed since his last offense, underscores how this provision is overbroad. Details such as whether the traveler is a serial child rapist versus someone with a decades-old conviction from when he was 19-years-old and his girlfriend was 14, just missing the Romeo and Juliet exception by one year, are significant and would allow law enforcement to more appropriately prioritize their finite resources.
Third, a traveler does not have any recourse with the foreign destination country if he or she is refused entry solely on the basis of this ``unique passport identifier.'' While the bill has some due process provisions, those apply only domestically. There is no recourse if a traveler is erroneously denied entry from the destination country.
Fourth, if the ``unique passport identifier'' is implemented in a way that makes it obvious to not only law enforcement officials but any member of the general public viewing the passport, this could lead to unintended consequences of persecution and harm to the traveler. This is especially troubling given that no factual context about the offense is provided.
If our goal is to ensure that domestic and foreign law enforcement and customs officials are notified of potential threats, multiple existing provisions of the bill already achieve that goal without raising these problematic implementation and fairness concerns.
In summary, while I support the underlying goal of ensuring that American law enforcement agencies share information on potential child sex offenders with foreign law enforcement agencies, I have grave concerns about how the redundant and problematic provision regarding the ``unique passport identifier'', added as a Senate amendment, would work in practice. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 515 because it seeks to protect our children from predators by identifying the whereabouts of sex offenders and providing means to monitor their activities.
This legislation is important because sex trafficking of children is a displaceable act that we detest and has been an on-going concern for the United States.
In addition to protecting our children from national threats, we must also consider the potential threat from international actors, especially during times of increased tourism, like for example the Super Bowl, FIFA World Cup, World Olympics and other major events around the world where tourism is high.
This legislation by my friend Representative Smith aims to protect our children from exploitation, specifically sex trafficking in tourism, by providing advance notice of intended travel by registered child-sex offenders outside of the United States to the government of the destination country.
This legislation is important because it requests that foreign governments notify the United States when a known child-sex offender is seeking to enter the United States.
International child exploitation is increasingly becoming a top priority for all nations and certainly is for our country.
For instance, two years ago, during the FIFA World Cup in Brazil, reports of child exploitation received global attention.
According to the Department of State, Brazil is a destination country for children subjected to sex trafficking.
For the case of Brazil, child sex tourists typically arrive from Europe and North America.
According to reports, the Rio de Janeiro civil police identified eight hotels and restaurants involved in a child sexual exploitation network in two city areas.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as you know, is where the World Olympics will be hosted this summer.
According to the Huffington Post, major sporting event usually lead to a spike in the demand for sexual predatory activities.
Unfortunately, these accounts of sexual predatory activity include child sex trafficking.
Here at home, during the 2014 Super Bowl week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along with 50 law enforcement agencies, recovered 16 teenagers during an enforcement action on child sex trafficking.
Additionally, more than 45 pimps were arrested, some of whom claimed to travel to the Super Bowl location specifically for the purpose of prostituting women and children at the sporting event.
According to Judy Kluger, Director of Sanctuary for Families, and former judge for New York City Criminal Court of New York County, New York, ``the Super Bowl could never not be breeding grounds for sexual exploitation.''
If a location experiences an exponential increase in large numbers of men travelling for entertainment, it will proportionally see an increase in those who purchase sex.
As you all know, I am committed to ensuring the protection of children, always championing the protection of children.
As co-chair of the Children's Caucus, I commend the work of all my colleagues here in Congress, dedicated to protecting children here in the U.S. and across the globe.
[Page: H394] GPO's PDF
This is why I support this legislation and I commend Representative SMITH for championing legislative measures dedicated to the safety and protection of our children worldwide.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 515.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendments were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
OK, if you click on the other Pages you can find who said what, I'm not concerned with their misconstructions and heresay. IML is now history and going to the Pres.
OK, come 6:30 PM Likely when Rep SCOTT actually made his comments (Notice the word BEGIN INSERT above, just before his comments. This is how they piece things occurring on same date together)
So what we have is ONE Lawmaker AGAINST and all others never heard what he had to say. But remember they always says before debating a bill "
Mr. SMITH (or whoever) of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on this measure. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Video shows this..
They assume ALL lawmakers will read what others have said on a bill, and make comments within the 5-legislative-days time limit. Thats why I suggest folks to POUND AWAY at lawmakers to try to get other lawmakers to -at least comment for the record-. However this is where it would be political suicide for them to do that; SCOTT is a RARE BREED, a man well entrenched in Congress with hutspa.
I've also mentioned, DAILY at the beginning of a session, they have ONE MINUTE speeches, well those speeches get PHASED into the bill they pertain to, or are simply a lawmaker's remarks on a topic (all such remarks are phased into their logical place, late at night just before the "Daily Digest" is published), Rep SCOTT comments above were inserted into HR 515. The unfortunate thing about such comments is, they are not time stamped. Oh well...
As to the VOTE (Pink area above), this is real upsetting, remember House Majority Leader scheduled VOTES at 6:30 PM, well NOT So, they Voice Voted on the floor at end of debate. All is said and done.
Now even though Lawmakers have 5-legislative-days to put their comments in, it cannot change the voice vote. A voice vote is taken so that, no one knows WHO voted and WHO didn't vote; the public is left BLIND as to who they should be working on to change their minds, or at least consider further evidence.
Now some might say, well rules were suspended, so the vote could be taken anytime, true, but I ask why wasn't that true on the business bills heard before IML? See recorded votes on them:
| 47 | 1-Feb | H R 4168 | On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass | P | Small Business Capital Formation Enhancement Act |
| 46 | 1-Feb | H R 2187 | On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended | P | Fair Investment Opportunities for Professional Experts Act |
Congress bends rules, breaks them, etc., when they want, and the public has no say in the matter.
In fact, when the House Majority Leader said, in his earlier schedule, the bill would be heard UNDER SUSPENSION of the RULES, it was decided, IML was not a controversial bill i.e., no one cared what happened with it, it was like naming a Post Office; who cares so Congress can do what it wants.
Suspension of the rules in the United States Congress: Is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives.
A motion to suspend the rules is in order on Mondays and Tuesdays and towards the end of a session of Congress and may only be made by the Speaker of the House or their designee, though it is customary for committee chairs to write the Speaker requesting a suspension. Once a member makes a motion to "suspend the rules" and take some action, debate is limited to 40 minutes, no amendments can be offered to the motion or the underlying matter, and a 2/3 majority of Members present and voting is required to agree to the motion.
A suspension motion sets aside all procedural and other rules that otherwise prohibit the House from considering the measure—but the motion never mentions the specific rules that are suspended. Typically, a suspension motion is phrased as a motion to "...suspend the rules and pass the bill," and, if the Motion is agreed to, the bill is considered passed by the House. A Member can also move to suspend the rules and take another action, such as to "suspend the rules and consider the bill," and the House shall take the proposed action if TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE VOTING are in favor of the motion.
Most often, bills "on suspension" are non-controversial legislation -- such as naming Post Offices of the United States Postal Service or federal buildings -- and nearly all bills that are considered under suspension rules have bipartisan support.
The real mockery of the rules is this "and the House shall take the proposed action if TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE VOTING are in favor of the motion." So if there are 10 lawmakers on the House floor, 2/3rds of 10 is what? Voice vote hides how many are on the floor; this occurred on AWA as well.
Did Smith invite just those who would support the bill? OH, I forgot, the majority were out to diner when the voice vote was taken, 4:50 PM (see video), did they kept adjourning so the IML would be heard when the fewest lawmakers were on the floor? Yes, I believe that.
OK, need anymore be said..................
Read More of Article...
Article Summary only...
