See HERE for an UPDATE to this post.8-2-2012 Washington DC MORNING:
The U.S. House has considered the three bills (see below) we were all concerned about on 7-31-2012. The outcome of which is rather odd, so here is exactly what was said for each bill:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, (Bill Numbers go here), as amended.It appears there weren't enough Lawmakers available to vote on the bills. Now if you look at each bill, none of them show any vote taken. So although there were amendments made it appears we are waiting till there are enough Lawmakers to vote.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
For those of you that want to read exactly what transpired see the following for each bill. All three bills can be accessed from the House Record for 7-31-2012. Lawmaker comments are within the links below. I have picked portions of their comments (in green) to further comment on.
There isn't much that can be said here, other than I'm blown away by the amounts mentioned. Much of this money is to stimulate law enforcement jobs.
No 46: ADAM WALSH REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 (HR 3796)
Mr. SMITH of Texas comments:The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA, created a more uniform system of sex offender registries throughout the country by providing minimum standards that each State must meet.As to his comment about a "more uniform system of SO registries" he is sadly mistaken. Because the states were provided Guidelines, a list of parameters to pick and chose from, the end result is no different than before SORNA. State registries are not more uniform, some are drastically fractured (Alabama for one).
In addition to SORNA, the Adam Walsh Act made the U.S. Marshals Service responsible for the apprehension of both Federal and State fugitive sex offenders, as well as for the investigation of sex offender registry violations. The Marshals Service apprehended over 11,000 fugitive sex offenders in 2010 alone.
As for the no. of RSO's apprehended, this is not what is reported by the US Marshalls. Every one of their reports have been numbers very low (2 digits). Someone needs to have Mr SMITH provide proof of his claim.
Mr SCOTT of Virginia comments:I am concerned about what is missing from H.R. 3796. Unfortunately, the bill fails to address the many problems that the States and Indian tribes have encountered in implementing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, known as SORNA, which is one of the provisions of the original Adam Walsh Act. So far, only 15 States have been found by the Attorney General to be in compliance.Mr Scott gets to the heart of the problem, nobody wants this law, 15 out of 50, what happened to majority rules.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER comments (I'm only going to point to one thing:The Adam Walsh Act has already been a public safety success. To date, the Justice Department has deemed 50 jurisdictions substantially compliant with the SORNA requirements, with two Indian tribes meeting this goal in just the 2 weeks since the Judiciary Committee considered H.R. 3796 at markup.We live by very different dictionaries. I have a real problem calling unemployment, homelessness, living under bridges, getting evicted, being harassed victimized and some murdered because of the registry, and much more, as success.
No. 50 CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2012 (HR 6063)
Here getting to the Lawmakers' comments is a little different. When you click on the bill you will see FOUR sections (links) each has to be read to get everything that was said, and some sections overlap the previous one, can't help the way Congress keeps its records.
Mr. SMITH of Texas comments:Internet child pornography may be the fastest-growing crime in America, increasing by an average of 150 percent per year. Every day, online criminals prey on America's children with virtual anonymity, and according to recent estimates there are as many as 100,000 fugitive sex offenders in the U.S. Congress has taken important steps to combat child exploitation, including the passage of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006 and the PROTECT Our Children Act in 2008.Here we go with that fictitious factoid number used to pass legislation. Rather than waste space here please read THIS.Unlike the other 300 Federal administrative subpoena powers, which are used at the beginning of a criminal investigation, a marshal's use of subpoena authority under this bill will occur only after, and only after, these actions occur:According to SMITH these administrative subpoenas will only be used AFTER a person is arrested for a registry violation. He needs to read the bill, that is not what it says. And, "registry violation" means what? How broad are the types of "registry violations," failure to sign a form, dotting eyes crossing ttttts. Overbroad!
The fugitive is arrested pursuant to a judge-issued warrant, indicted for committing a sex offense, convicted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced in a court of law;
The fugitive is required to register as a sex offender;
The fugitive pleas or otherwise violates their registration requirements; and
A State or Federal arrest warrant is issued for violation of the registration requirements.
This narrow subpoena authority is critical to help take convicted sex offenders off the streets.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia comments:
A further problem with H.R. 6063 is that it would give U.S. marshals the authority to issue administrative subpoenas to investigate unregistered sex offenders. I'm not convinced that extending this extraordinary ex parte judicial authority is appropriate.So, this bill will allow the US Marshalls to issue a administrative subpeona for someone who is no longer required to register, for a fishing expedition. Again we see another Overbroad provision violating someone's rights.
Research has clearly shown that registered sex offenders who may not be compliant with the law are actually no more apt to commit a criminal offense than those who are compliant. So there is no compelling reason to create a special authority for U.S. marshals in the case of registered or unregistered sex offenders. There's no urgent or imminent threat context in rounding up alleged noncompliant sex offenders which, as we said, are no more likely to commit a crime than those who are compliant with all of the technicalities of the law.
No. 52 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 (HR 6062)
Yes, there was much more I could have commented about, but I hit the main points. Well there it is, everyone judge for themselves. Now since the bills -technically- still have not been voted on, keep contacting your Lawmakers in Washington DC. Make sure your voices are heard!
For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
No comments:
Post a Comment