New Passport Rules for Sex Offenders

1-11-18 National:

The US State Department
has begun revoking the passports of registered child sex offenders. The change has been made in order to comply with a law passed last year, the International Megan’s Law. Under the new law, registered sex offenders who have been convicted of an offense against a minor will no longer be able to use their current passports. Instead, they will have to apply for new sex offender passports that identify them as registered child sex offenders. The new passports will have a statement printed on the inside back cover that reads, “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l).”

The new law will not limit the ability of registered child sex offenders to leave the country. However, the identifying marker in the new passports is very likely to prevent affected people from being allowed to enter other countries. The only convicted sex offenders in the United States who are not able to get passports at all are people who have been convicted of sex tourism crimes. (Most convicted felons are able to get normal passports in the United States. The main exception is people who have been convicted of international drug trafficking.) ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Scarlet-Letter Passports Are Unjust and Irrational

11-1-17 Washington DC:

The new "unique identifier" for sex offenders stigmatizes people who pose no threat.

The notice, which will appear on the second-to-last page of U.S. passports, is officially known as an "endorsement," but it is more like a badge of shame. "The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor," it says, "and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l)."

The scary notation, which was revealed this week, is the State Department's response to a 2016 law requiring that the passports of certain registered sex offenders include a "unique identifier" to help maintain their status as pariahs wherever they travel. Although the warning is supposedly aimed at stopping sexual predators from abusing children in other countries, it will mark the passports of many people who pose no such threat. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Child Sex Offenders Will Get Warning Stamp On Passport

A child is a person who is under 18 according to federal law (AWA).

9-28-16 California:

A federal judge said the rights of registered sex offenders are not violated because of a stamp on their passports that alert foreign governments of the offender's past crimes.

Seven registered sex offenders sued he federal government over the stamp issue, but U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland said the group hadn't proven they would be hurt by the practice, which is a result of the International Megan's Law, which warns foreign governments of registered sex offenders entering their countries.

"The court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, because they have not alleged a certainly impending injury fairly traceable to the International Megan's Law provisions that they challenge, or which is redressable by the relief sought in the first amended complaint," Hamilton wrote, according to Courthouse News Service. "Because the passport provisions are not yet in effect (and the procedures have not been finalized), plaintiffs cannot show a certainly impending injury."

Hamilton added: "Plaintiffs speculate regarding the possible impact of a passport identifier, suggesting that individuals carrying such passports will be at risk of harm from unknown third parties. Such speculation cannot provide a basis for challenging the statute when the identifier provisions have not even been implemented. Because it is unknown what form the identifier will take, or any of the other details previously discussed, plaintiffs cannot show that they will suffer hardship if the court withholds review."

Janice Bellucci, an attorney for the plaintiffs, all of whom filed anonymously, said her clients would be put in danger when traveling to foreign countries.

“Our U.S. federal government is telling other countries that the person they’ve just marked on the passport is likely to engage in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism,” Bellucci said, according to SF Gate.

One of the plaintiffs said he needed to travel to Iran to claim an inheritance, but the stamp could put his life in danger. And Bellucci said she believes the court's ruling is essentially waiting for that to happen before reconsidering the protocol.

"You have to wait until somebody travels to Iran and they're murdered because their passport has been stamped," she said.

But Hamilton said a factual statement is not an opinion of character and shouldn't necessarily be considered a disparaging remark of that person.

"It is not the speech of the passport holder that is at issue, any more than the speech of the holder of a government-issued identification card is at issue with regard to identifiers such as name, date of birth, height, weight, or eye color,” the judge wrote. ..Source.. by Ray Brown

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge rules against sex offenders in challenge to new federal law

9-26-16 California:

A Bay Area federal judge says the rights of registered sex offenders will not be violated by a new U.S. law that will stamp their legal status on their passports to notify the governments of countries they visit.

The statute, known as the International Megan’s Law and signed by President Obama in February, was largely directed at sex traffickers. It requires the State Department to mark the passports of all registered offenders who have been convicted of sex crimes involving minors.

If sex traffickers is the real focus of the law, then the application to ALL convicted of crimes related to minors, including romeo and juliet type offenses, is misdirected; typical political way of further punishing former offenders!

Seven unnamed sex offenders challenged the law, saying it would place them on an international “blacklist” and expose them to harassment and physical harm for past offenses that had nothing to do with sex trafficking. One man said he would probably be killed when he returns to his native Iran to receive an inheritance if his passport bears a sex-offender stamp.

On Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland said the offenders’ lawsuit was premature because the State Department has not yet adopted regulations to implement the law. But Hamilton also said the law, when it takes effect, will be a legitimate measure to protect children from sexual exploitation.

The government has an interest in “preventing U.S. persons from committing acts of sexual abuse or exploitation in other countries and in facilitating cooperation with and reciprocal notifications from other countries” whose residents travel to the United States, Hamilton said.

She noted that the U.S. government already notifies any foreign country where a registered child sex offender plans to travel, and issued 2,100 such notifications last year. Stamps on passports lets host countries know when an offender changes previous travel plans, Hamilton said.

The plaintiffs also argued that the law unfairly stigmatizes offenders whose crimes may have been committed decades ago. While California requires most convicted sex offenders to register for life, most other states drop the requirement if an offender can show rehabilitation after a certain number of years. The federal law, however, would require passport stamps for those offenders as well.

But Hamilton said the U.S. Supreme Court “has already found that any stigma associated with convictions for sex offenses is a product of the sex offenders’ prior conviction and cannot be attributed to sex offender registration and notification laws.” ..Source.. by Bob Egelko

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge dismisses lawsuit over sex offender passport marker

Clearly the mark violates U.S. Supreme court precedent set in Wooley v Maynard 430 U.S. 705 (1997) which held that the government cannot force someone to PHYSICALLY carry the government's message. Passports will be carried by the person they are issued to, which have the "unique identifier" on them.

UPDATE 9-23-16: See message from Janice Bellucci

UPDATE 11-15-16: Notice of Appeal Filed in IML Case

9-23-16 Washington DC:

A lawsuit challenging a law that requires a marker to be placed in the passports of people convicted of sex offenses against children is premature because the marker provision is not yet in effect, a federal judge said Friday in a ruling dismissing the suit.

U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton said it was also not clear yet who would be subject to the passport identifier and what form the identifier would take.

The Department of Justice has said the passport identifier provision of the International Megan's Law will not go into effect until officials have developed a process for implementing it, submitted a report to Congress and taken other steps.

President Barack Obama signed the legislation in February. It also requires that other countries are notified that registered sex offenders are traveling there.

The DOJ says the law attempts to address cases where people evade such notifications by traveling to an intermediate country before going to their final destination.

Opponents of the marker have called it a "Scarlet Letter" that would wrongly imply that passport holders had engaged in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism and subject them to danger.

Janice Bellucci, the attorney challenging the law, said she plans to file another lawsuit in a different district court.

"It really is our goal to prevent anybody's passport from being marked with a conspicuous, unique identifier," she said. ..Source.. by SFGate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

State Dept. restricts passports for sex offenders

Readers need to know that Congress has the power to change laws, one example is: Don't pay taxes if they are above xxx. Bingo, Congress granted the IRS the right to pull said passports! Now, If Congress has that power, it can do the same to sex offenders through the State Dep't! Things may change if the lawsuit is heard..

9-1-16 Washington DC:

The State Department is threatening to take away the passports of certain sex offenders (Sex offenders convicted of SEX TOURISM).

Federal law requires registered sex offenders to display a unique mark on their passports to notify officials in foreign governments when they travel abroad. Passports that do not contain the mark could be confiscated, the State Department said Thursday.

The rule is linked to a law signed in February by President Obama that aims to crack down on sex trafficking. Government officials say it will put foreign officials on the lookout for sex offenders.

But the move has drawn backlash from sex offenders, who argue it is paramount to a “scarlet letter.”

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit ((saying a legal challenge is premature because officials haven’t developed plans for the markings yet.)) filed earlier this year by anonymous sex offenders but left room for the challenge to proceed after the State Department issued the final rule.

The department will also deny passports to tax evaders who owe “seriously delinquent tax debt,” as well as people who do not provide an accurate Social Security number.

The rule goes into effect immediately.

The State Department skipped the public comment period under the “good cause” provision that allows for regulations of particular importance that serve the public interest to be published more quickly.

"The Department believes that public comment on this rulemaking would be unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest,” it wrote. ..Source.. by Tim Devaney

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill to mark sex offender passports raises ire of criminal justice advocacy group

2-4-16 National:

Critics threaten to sue if made law

A criminal justice advocacy group is prepared to sue the federal government if President Obama signs into law a measure requiring child-sex offenders to be identified as such on their passports — a move they say is as hypocritical for a president pushing for broad criminal justice reform.

The House and Senate this week resolved differences in versions of the bill, known as the “International Megan’s Law,” which is meant to make it harder for pedophiles to travel abroad. The final version requires that individuals convicted of sex offenses involving minors obtain a “unique identifier” on their passports that would alert immigration authorities in other countries of their prior convictions.

“This is the first time in the history of our country that any American citizen will have a unique identifier on their passport,” said lawyer Janice Bellucci, who as the president of the group California Reform Sex Offender Laws has brought prior lawsuits challenging sex offender laws. “Who is the next group? Is it going to be Muslims if Donald Trump becomes president?”

Though the White House has not yet indicated whether Mr. Obama intends to sign or veto the law, Ms. Bellucci said her organization is preparing to mount a legal challenge if it is adopted.

“We believe it violates so many constitutional rights of our citizens, we just cannot ignore it,” she said.

The measure was sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican, who has been pushing for the legislation for eight years. If signed into law by Mr. Obama, the legislation would also require any registered sex offender planning to travel abroad to inform law enforcement officials at least 21 days in advance; authorize a division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify destination countries of those offenders’ intended travel; and to allow for information sharing with other countries to identify foreign nationals who are sex offenders planning to travel to the U.S.

“It is imperative and long overdue that the United States take the child protection lessons it has learned domestically with the successful notification systems first created by Megan’s Laws and expand them globally to prevent convicted U.S. sex offenders from harming children abroad,” said Mr. Smith in a statement released Monday following the passage of the law.

The law is named for Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old New Jersey girl who in 1994 was sexually assaulted and killed by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street from her family.

Over the last decade, lawmakers and courts have had a mixed take on sex offender laws. Several states, including Florida, Oklahoma and Louisiana require sex offenders to obtain a special driver’s license that identifies them as such. Meanwhile restrictions on where offenders could live have been struck down by courts in California, Massachusetts and New York.

Given the commitment that both Congress and the president have professed over the last year for criminal justice reform, advocates see the passage of the federal sex offender law as backsliding.

For 29-year-old Josh Gravens, who said he was placed on the Texas sex offender registry for an incident that occurred when he was 13, the stigma has already led to bouts of homelessness and trouble keeping a job. He fears that a “scarlet letter” on his passport will only marginalize him further when he travels.

“I believe that if the president really means what he says about criminal justice, he will veto the bill,” said Mr. Gravens, who through his advocacy group Organize Justice, has pushed for broad criminal justice reform. “And I’m watching with anticipation that he keeps his promises.”

An official from the State Department, which would oversee the passport demarcation, declined to comment Wednesday on the legislation.

But according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office, the State Department in 2008 issued 4,500 passports to sex offenders of all categories. The State Department noted at the time however that there was “no evidence that the offenders used their passports to commit sex offenses abroad.” ..Source.. by Andrea Noble is a crime and public safety reporter for The Washington Times. She can be reached at anoble@washingtontimes.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

International Megan's Law passes Congress on 2-1-16

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.

• [Begin Insert]

   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.

• [End Insert]

   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...

Be Sure Your Passport is Valid for Six Months Before Flying Abroad

8-15-2014 National:

You passport may be valid, but you still may not be able to board your flight to another country. The U.S. Department of State recommends your passport have at least six months of validity—beyond your actual travel date—to avoid expensive and lengthy travel disruptions.

The normal rule for most countries is that they require you to have three months from your actual travel date before your passport expires. Three months is generally the longest amount of time you can stay in a foreign country without any sort of visa, but some countries—especially in the Schengen region of Europe are expanding that requirement to six months.

The U.S.Passports & International Travel site explains that you may be refused boarding by the airline at your point of origin or while transferring planes. Even worse, it's possible you could be denied entry when you actually arrive in the country itself. The cost of adjusting and re-booking your trip can be in the thousands of dollars, and you definitely don't want to be forced into a Tom Hanks-like The Terminal situation.

Travel sites usually try to list the passport requirements when you book your trip, but be sure to check on your own that your passport will be valid long enough. If you aren't sure about the country you're flying to, you can check the U.S. Department of State's country information site. ..Source.. by Patrick Allan

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

International Megans law EXPOSED! Now, hear the truth about HR 5138

7-30-2010 Washington DC:

International Megans Law (IML) (HR 5138) sailed through the House based on a few speeches on "Sex Tourism" and "Human Trafficking," horrible crimes that are being committed, but, by who?

If you listened to the House speakers on July 27, 2010 they would have you believe thousands of folks on the U.S. Registry are committing "sex tourism" type crimes, but the truth was hidden within those speeches!

Who done it and what did they do?

The key comment was by Ms. Berkley (D-NV-1), here is what she said:

"Between 2003 and 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cooperated with INTERPOL and foreign law enforcement agencies to investigate cases of the sexual exploitation of children abroad, obtaining 73 convictions for such crimes committed in other countries."

Examining that, there were 73 crimes in total to support this legislation, spread over 7 years. That amounts to roughly 10 per year. No other statistic was presented showing any more crimes, zip.

Next, it says, U.S. Immigration cooperated with Interpol and foreign law enforcement to investigate cases of sexual exploitation abroad. OK, there was a joint investigation and 73 people were caught, but, where were they from, it doesn't say. No mention or evidence showing, that those offenders were U.S. Registered Sex Offenders. Those offenders could very easily have been citizens of foreign countries, possibly involved in "Sex Tourism" and using a U.S. Visa bring children into the U.S., we just don't know. Why were speeches so vague?

It also says the crimes were committed "abroad" and for unknown reason, the countries where the crimes were committed chose not to prosecute the 73 offenders. Why? Is it possible the alleged crimes, were not crimes under that country's law? If so, why is the U.S. using some jurisdictional hook to prosecute them here in the U.S.? Or, were the offenders prosecuted in the country of the crime? Again, speeches were vague on these points.

What was the connection between the 73 offenders and the United States? Were they U.S. citizens? If so, had they been convicted of a sex crime before these? Were they foreign citizens entering the U.S. on a visa? It is impossible to tell from the speeches, again vague.

OK, assuming arguendo, they were U.S. registered sex offenders, The latest figures from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's map of the number of RSOs in the U.S. shows 716,750 registrants (which is doubtful considering it is the result of phone conversations not any audit of registries). So the percentage of U.S. RSOs that would be involved in such foreign crimes is 73/716,750 = .01018% yes that is LESS THAN 1%, its 1/10th of 1%. The speeches did not mention this. Again, if these were U.S. RSOs, or maybe they were other U.S> citizens never before convicted of a sex crime? We cannot tell, Congress doesn't want us to know.

It will cost what to find them?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates, that it will cost the American Taxpayers $252 million over 2011-2015 to implement IML assuming money is actually appropriated. That amounts to: $252 million/5 years (Difference between 2011 and 2015) or 50.4 million per year. And, if it costs $50,400,000 per year that also means the U.S. would be spending $5,040,000 to capture EACH of the 10 offenders per year committing this type of crime. And, that is $5 million in administrative costs for IML without the costs of investigating the crime in a foreign country, then add the costs of imprisoning the offenders. Is it any wonder why the U.S. is going BROKE.

I don't say these offenders should go free, but this is beyond reasoning, today we have a Congress that is going NUTS!

So, in essence, if IML becomes law, that means the $252 million is tacked onto the other already spiraling costs for the Adam Walsh Act. Oh yes, I forgot, the CBO also says, there are Unfunded Mandate costs to states and local jurisdictions somewhere below $70 million per year, but thats OK the American taxpayer is oblivious of what Congress is doing. States are already going broke, and IML will dump another $70 million or a bit less on them?

In summary, statistics show that 73 sex tourism type crimes, allegedly committed by U.S. citizens, some may be registered sex offenders, or foreigners visiting the U.S. on a visa, were committed over 7 years (2003-2009). And, IML will cost -in administrative costs- $252 million over 5 years (2011-2015) which breaks down to, and will cost the American taxpayer, $5,040,000 per crime committed, if such crimes are committed in the future.

How many RSOs will travel annually?

The next absurdity is from the Congressional Budget Office:

"Based on information from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), CBO expects that in most years about 10,000 sex offenders covered by the bill would travel internationally."

"Expects" about 10,000 sex offenders (I assume they mean RSOs) would travel internationally, annually. OK, so what? For discussion sake lets assume there is some truth to that 10,000 number, and its not a WAG number.

Notice the fortune telling, expects 10,000 will travel, someone has a crystal ball. However they came up with that number is not disclosed by the CBO office. I wonder, if they were able to track 73 crimes committed between 2003 to 2009, why do they not know, how many sex offenders traveled those years. Are there no records of who traveled those years, or do they not want to reveal the real number of sex offenders that did travel those years? Assuming they keep travel records, they could easily compare those records to who is now in the national registry.

They simply do not want the public to know the truth. But, there is another reason for the 10,000 crystal ball number. Income projections, IML will be charging RSOs a $25.00 Travel Application Fee (actual name is unknown but fee is mentioned in CBO report), and that will show some $250,000 income from IML. Thats the reason for the "Expected" number, income projections to bamboozle the public.

I'll leave with this question, if a RSO travels to multiple countries, does the fee cover multiple countries?

RSOs traveling abroad will comply with SORNA, how?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates there are 173 countries where IML will establish registries for RSOs to register with while traveling abroad.

Now, IML will be folded into SORNA, and traveling RSOs will have to comply with the combined laws. If someone is on vacation abroad, is it likely they will change the hotel/motel/boarding house they are residing in, weekly or even daily. Next, assume a RSO travels to China, which is some 3,696,000 square miles, and the United States is 3,717,813 square miles, follow me closely, how many possible places in the U.S. are there where a RSO can Register, versus ONE in China. Does everyone get the point? China is only one country that presents that problem, it will rear its ugly head in virtually every country of the world.

Oh, and when a RSO changes his/her residence while traveling and isn't home in the U.S. for an 'Address Check," what happens? Yes, IML will eventually get it and not require "Address Checks" -at home- while traveling abroad. But, doesn't that mean SORNA is not being complied with? And, who will be doing "Address Checks" on U.S. RSOs, in foreign countries? Ahhh, a cost that hasn't yet been figured out, which is OK the U.S. taxpayer will foot that bill too.

Let me not forget, RSOs must report traveling arrangements -30 days before actually traveling- and if not they have violated IML/SORNA and can be prosecuted. Lets see, if you are on vacation traveling and changing residence weekly or daily, can you still comply with the 30 day requirement? Is this another one of those hidden entrapment schemes of SORNA?

Maybe its me, no one in Congress mentioned things like this, reason, is it really their belief that RSOs traveling to foreign countries, are only doing so to commit "sex tourism" crimes and once they get somewhere, they will stay there until coming back to the U.S.?

The real cost to RSOs is?

Intriguing is this from the CBO:

"The bill also would impose private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, on individuals who have been convicted of certain sex offenses, but CBO estimates that the aggregate direct costs of those mandates would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($141 million in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation)."

And from the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, is this definition:

"(9) PRIVATE SECTOR.—The term ‘private sector’ means all persons or entities in the United States, including individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, and educational and nonprofit institutions, but shall not include State, local, or tribal governments.

Drawing from all sources mentioned, this refers to the $25.00 fee that will be charged to RSOs that travel internationally, but is that all the costs to those RSOs?

I guess Congress considers insignificant that, RSOs will incur costs to and from reporting to a U.S. registration agency -30 days in advance- their travel arrangements. And, the costs -while on ex: vacation- to and from the ONE registration place in the country they visit, or many such registration places if visiting multiple countries.

Further, Congress has ignored the problem with returning to the U.S. where RSOs are at the mercy of planes, trains, taxi and other modes of transportation in third world countries which may prevent RSOs from complying with the 30 day rule. I can just picture a RSO beating his camel across the desert to get to the reporting place on time; and you have to feed those animals. And, if one is mountain climbing, getting down the mountain to report timely, then getting back up to be with others he traveled with; costs? These scenarios and others are not uncommon if one is on vacation, but, I forgot, RSOs only travel to commit sex tourism crimes, according to Congress.

On a more serious note, IML does not exempt RSOs from STATE reporting requirements while traveling; States require 10 day notices before leaving the state, will RSOs be required to -BEFOREHAND- let states know where they will be, abroad, specific addresses? If so, there is a cost for this as well. Then can states prosecute if RSOs fail to timely report traveling arrangements, or are not at the abroad addresses if the state checks? SORNA imposed many things on States, IML fails to even consider the impact of IML on state requirements, for traveling RSOs; and time frames will states have to implement "traveling requirements" for RSOs.

Issues abound with IML and I could go on for hours, but one issue boils to the top, the possibility of the retroactivity of IML. SORNA is retro to the beginning of time, will any provision of IML be allowed to be construed in a retroactive sense, I hope not, but Congress has not prevented that, and SORNA as currently written leaves that construction to the U.S. Attorney General. Congress continues to fail to recognize the consequences of their actions, and some RSO may pay the price.

International Megans Law and International Law?

In preparation for the passage of IML Rep. Poe of Texas, a former judge, introduced a new bill HR-5870 the intent of which is to..., see the following:

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION OF PASSPORTS OF CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS.

(a) In General- The Secretary of State may revoke, restrict, or limit a passport issued to an individual who is a sex offender (as defined in section 111(1) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16911(4)) who is--

(1) included in the National Sex Offender Registry established pursuant to section 119 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 16919); or

(2) required to register in a jurisdiction's sex offender registry under title I of such Act and with respect to whom information may be maintained in the National Sex Offender Registry under such section 119.

In other words, revoke a passport, or, restrict or limit it (how is not explained), on the grounds that the former sex offender is a registrant of a U.S. state or U.S. national registry. He does not propose to act similarly with a visa granted to a citizen of a foreign country. Why is unknown. Are there other countries which have former sex offender registries of their citizens? I know there are, but travelers to the U.S. of those registrants are ignored, only former U.S. sex offenders are targeted!

The United Nations (International Law division) assures every human being certain rights, they are identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, portions of which are applicable to IML, they are:

Article 7.
•All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 9.
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 11.
•(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

•(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
•(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

•(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
•(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

•(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
•(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

•(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 30.
•Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

No construction is necessary, that declaration of rights is clear.

In closing:

Does IML carry out SORNA goals? IML merely documents which registrants are traveling internationally, and ignores SORNA's goal, to monitor and verify registrants where they reside, work and are employed, even if abroad! IML stops at the foreign place of registration! Congress fails..

Congress -through speeches enacting IML- are exploiting registrants of U.S. registries, under the pretext of worldwide child safety, using rhetoric -true of the broad issue of sex tourism- but without reasonable foundation that such is true of registrants of U.S. registries. Congress uses rhetoric to imply a problem caused by thousands of U.S. RSOs, and also into the future. Why? Is the usual politics playing a part here?

While I support ridding the world of sex tourism, I do not believe IML is the way, in fact, IML will be a long term ball and chain on the U.S. taxpayer with no recognizable public safety rewards.

Have a great day and a better tomorrow,
eAdvocate
(It is hoped that folks will find something here to construct letters to Congressmen, especially Senators, who hold the fate of IML in their hands right now. It is likely this bill is on the FAST TRACK to passage. Remember, it passed the House 7-27-2010 on the anniversary of the signing of the Adam Walsh Act, +1 day.)

Sources:

House Report 111-568

Congressional Budget Office Report for IML 7-21-2010.

House Testimony 7-27-2010 (Copied from Thomas website)

The United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Report: State Department Unaware of Ability to Limit Passports to Sex Offenders

7-15-2010 Washington DC:

The State Department did not know until this year that it has the authority -- signed into law by President Bush in December 2008 -- to deny passports to people convicted of crimes relating to the sex tourism industry, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday.

That same report revealed that 4,500 registered sex offenders, including 30 federal employees, received U.S. passports in fiscal year 2008.

GAO reported that the State Department was informed of its authority in April 2010 after congressional investigators began to study the number of sex offenders who are granted U.S. passports.

The State Department does not have the authority to deny passports to Americans based on their registry in the sex offender database.

However, the GAO report, issued to Senate Finance Committee co-chairmen Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, noted that the State Department can deny passports to people who "crossed an international border to commit an act based on which the individual was subsequently convicted under the federal 'sex tourism' statute, but only during the period the individual is imprisoned or on parole or supervised release."

"I'm shocked that GAO had to inform the State Department that Congress made individuals convicted of sex tourism ineligible for passports back in December 2008," Grassley said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "It's inexcusable that the State Department did nothing to enforce that provision for 14 months.

In its investigation of 30 randomly picked individuals identified as on the Sex Offender Registry and receiving passports, the GAO found several troubling cases.

"In one case study, the sex offender was issued a passport in his name while in prison, which is allowed under federal law, while another was issued a passport after becoming delinquent in child support, an offense for which State must deny passports. Based on interviews with local police departments, several of our cases showed that sex offenders left the country and moved to Mexico," the report reads.

The State Department lists Mexico as a sex tourism destination.

In its response, the State Department complained to GAO that the report suggests the department was lax in its enforcement. The report "appears to suggest, without any foundation, that the department's issuance of passports to certain Americans facilitated their commission of sex offenses abroad. There are no facts in the report which show that any of the 30 individuals included in the case studies used his passport to travel to a foreign country to commit a sex crime," it wrote.

The conclusions, forwarded by James Millette, chief financial officer at the State Department, stated that the department is interested in studying any proposed legislation to give it additional authority to deny passports to sex offenders, and that it is working with the Department of Justice to track sex tourism convictions and develop a procedure to notify the State Department.

But the department listed several other concerns about the report, including that GAO did not list the number of convictions by the Department of Justice under the relevant sex tourism statute and whether the passport could have been denied based on the conviction.

GAO responded that the law was not enacted during the time frame it studied.

The State Department also took issue with the title of the GAO report, "Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders," calling it "misleading."

"We are concerned that it conveys more 'shock value' than factual accuracy," reads the response.

"The title also fails to convey that GAO found no evidence that the offenders used their passports to commit sex offenses abroad," the letter reads.

According to GAO, about half of the 4,500 sex offenders who received passports lived in five states -- California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Michigan -- and at least 12 individuals were approved landlords in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 housing program during the two years before the study's time frame.

Additionally, 30 of the sex offenders who are federal employees were identified through salary data provided by the Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Postal Service and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

"It also is disturbing that the GAO found examples prior to that new law where the State Department issued passports to convicted sex offenders who fled law enforcement, received government housing subsidies and work for the Post Office. This report raises a lot of serious questions about how effectively the government protects us from child predators," Grassley said.

The GAO report noted that the U.S. Postal Service recently announced its intention to start identifying any current Postal Service employees who are required by law to register as sex offenders.

The GAO acknowledged that the number of sex offenders it found receiving passports might have been low, because the data compared passport database records to the National Sex Offender Registry, which could lack or contain invalid Social Security numbers. ..Source.. by FOXNews.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Thousands of sex offenders receive U.S. passports

See also: Should Sex Offenders Get U.S. Passports?

7-13-2010 Washington DC:

(CNN) -- Thousands of registered sex offenders have received U.S. passports, including at least 30 federal employees, according to a Government Accountability Office report obtained by CNN.

The GAO report said the Department of State cannot legally deny passports to registered sex offenders, except those specifically convicted of sex tourism.

The report concluded that about 4,500 U.S. passports of the more than 16 million issued in fiscal year 2008 were issued to registered sex offenders.

"Federal statutes authorize the Secretary of State to deny issuance of a passport in certain circumstances, such as while an individual is imprisoned or on parole or supervised release for a conviction for international drug trafficking or sex tourism or is in arrearages for child support," the report states. "However, there is currently no comprehensive program to deny passports to applicants who are registered sex offenders."

The Department of State disputed the report's findings, calling it "very misleading" and adding it "conveys more 'shock value' than factual accuracy."

Read the GAO report [pdf]

In a written response, the department pointed out that only a fraction of a percent of the 16 million passports issued in fiscal year 2008 went to registered sex offenders. In addition, the title of the report "fails to convey that GAO found no lawful reasons for the department to deny or revoke the passports of the case study sex offenders based on their status as sex offenders."

"The report appears to suggest, without any foundation, that the Department's issuance of passports to certain Americans facilitated their commission of sex crimes abroad, " the department's response said. "There are no facts in the report which show that any of the thirty individuals included in the case studies used his passport to travel to a foreign country to commit a sex crime."

The original title of the report, "Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders," was later changed to "Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders."

"The title also fails to convey that GAO found no evidence that the offenders used their passports to commit sex offenses abroad," the State Department wrote.

The GAO defended its findings and said the report's current title was fair and accurate.

Under federal law, a passport can be denied to someone or revoked if that person has been convicted of drug trafficking overseas or sex tourism. But that restriction applies only during the time the individual is locked up or on parole.

A passport could also be denied to anyone with an outstanding felony warrant or who owes more that $2,500 in unpaid child support. Anyone declared "legally incompetent" or who has an outstanding felony warrant also could be turned down.

The GAO report was requested by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana.

The GAO studied data from the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). However, the approximately 4,500 sex offenders who received passports in fiscal year 2008 "is likely understated because many of the records in the passport database and the NSOR lacked valid Social Security numbers... In addition, the NSOR does not currently contain a comprehensive listing of all sex offenders from the states."

The GAO found cases that include a sex offender from Texas who received a passport while in prison, a Delaware man with multiple sex convictions who traveled to the Philippines, Germany and France since receiving his passport, and a Georgia man who has traveled to the Philippines, Ireland and Panama.

Among the federal employees who received passports was an aerospace engineer with NASA, an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and a Postal Service carrier who traveled to Taiwan and Japan after receiving his passport.

About half of the registered sex offenders who received passports live in five states -- California, Texas, Florida and Michigan, the report said. Some 50 of those who received passports either lived outside the United States or "their whereabouts were unknown," the report said.

A new law took effect in December 2008 that prohibits anyone convicted of sex tourism from receiving a U.S. passport. However, the report said, the Department of State was not even aware of the law until April of this year after the GAO "brought this statute to its attention."

"When Congress passes a law and the president signs it, then the Executive Branch needs to execute it," Grassley said in a statement. "I'm shocked that GAO had to inform the State Department that Congress made individuals convicted of sex tourism ineligible for passports back in December 2008. It's inexcusable that the State Department did nothing to enforce that provision for 14 months. Since someone who is late on child support payments cannot receive a passport, then surely these criminals should also be stopped from traveling internationally."

"It also is disturbing that the GAO found examples prior to that new law where the State Department issued passports to convicted sex offenders who fled law enforcement, received government housing subsidies, and work for the Post Office. This report raises a lot of serious questions about how effectively the government protects us from child predators," Grassley said.

The report also studied a group of registered sex offenders -- many who held positions of public trust, including a school teacher, religious layman, and health care provider.

"Other cases involve registered sex offenders who owe child support or are currently in prison or whose whereabouts are unknown," the report said. "...Several of our cases showed that sex offenders left the country and moved to Mexico. According to State officials, Mexico does not have a sex offense registration system, so these offenders are likely unknown to authorities and their neighbors."

The Department of State "has indicated that it would like to study any proposed legislation to provide additional authority to deny passports to sex offenders, including constitutional, policy and practical issues that may arise in its application and use," the report said. "A State official said that the department recently began working with (the Department of Justice) to develop a procedure for tracking these convictions and a procedure to notify State of those convictions."

The department wrote that it has "limited authority" to deny passports in cases involving sex offenders, such as those convicted of sex tourism and individuals are forbidden from leaving the U.S. by a court order. ..Source.. by Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost, CNN Special Investigations Unit

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...