6-14-2010 Washington DC:
Last Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives was considering a new bill called "the FHA Reform Act of 2010," heavens knows with all the foreclosures something does need to be done.
Yet, something occurred during debate which is very harmful to the sex offender community. Rep. Edwards (TX) presented Amendment 12 which -in essence- makes it a requirement that any applicant for a FHA loan, certify that they have never been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as defined in SORNA).
Even more troublesome is that when they took a vote on Amendment 12, only four Congressmen voted AGAINST this Amendment: Bob Filner (D)(CA), Ron Paul (R)(TX), Jerrold (D)(NY) and Bobby Scott (D)(VA). The name I expected to see voting AGAINST Amendment 12, but was missing, was Rep. John Conyers (D)(MI). However, Amendment 13 covering "Federal Employees" who misuse their computers during work to view pornography or child pornography, might have swayed many.
Below is what occurred on 6-10-2010, and the bill HR-5072 is now in the Senate, in Committee (See below). EVERYONE needs to contact their Senators asking them to VOTE NO if the bill includes Amendment 12. Please make that clear to your Senators. Also contact the Senate Committee members asking the same of them.
Hat Tip to folks from Indiana who made us aware of this very recent Congressional bill Amendment. Reform Sex Offender Laws Indiana
U.S. House 6-10-2010: HR 5072 The FHA Reform Act of 2010
6/10/2010 12:51pm:
H.AMDT.691 Amendment (A012) offered by Mr. Edwards (TX). (consideration: CR H4357-4358, H4362; text: CR H4357) Amendment to require individuals to certify that they have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor in order to get an FHA mortgage.
6/10/2010 12:52pm:
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1424, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Edwards amendment.
6/10/2010 12:55pm:
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Edwards amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Edwards demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day. .........
6/10/2010 2:04pm:
H.AMDT.691 On agreeing to the Edwards (TX) amendment (A012) Agreed to by recorded vote: 420 - 4 (Roll no. 351). .........
See also Amendment 13 by Rep. Maffei (D)(NY)
6/10/2010 12:59pm:
H.AMDT.692 Amendment (A013) offered by Mr. Maffei. (consideration: CR H4358-4359, H4362-4363; text: CR H4358) An amendment numbered 13 printed in House Report 111-503 to state that no funds authorized under the act may be used to pay the salary of an employee who has been officially disciplined for viewing, downloading, or exchanging pornography (including child pornography) on a Federal Government computer or while performing official Federal Government duties. .............
6/10/2010 2:10pm:
H.AMDT.692 On agreeing to the Maffei amendment (A013) Agreed to by recorded vote: 416 - 0, 1 Present (Roll no. 352).
6/10/2010:
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Text in GREEN is: Incorrect on recidivism, and, not exactly what HUD Rules say.
AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MR. EDWARDS OF TEXAS
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709), as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(z) Required Certifications.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may not insure any mortgage secured by a one- to four-family dwelling unless the mortgagor under such mortgage certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the mortgagor has not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members, my amendment is a simple, commonsense protection for
[Page: H4358] GPO's PDF
children and families. It requires anyone seeking to benefit from the terms of an FHA mortgage to certify under penalty of perjury that they have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. This amendment ensures that taxpayers will not be on the hook for loans made to convicted child sex offenders.
There are 704,000 registered sex offenders currently living in our communities, and experts estimate as many as 100,000 convicted sex offenders are lost in the system. Recent research has shown that there is a high repeat rate for sexual crimes, and even higher amongst those who commit these crimes against children. As a result, in the past 2 years, Congress has passed a series of laws adopting the use of sex offender registries and community notification systems for sexually violent offenders and those committing offenses against children.
While we cannot prevent registered child sex offenders from moving into our communities, we do not need to provide them the additional benefits offered by an FHA home loan if they try to do so. With an FHA home loan, taxpayers are liable if the loan defaults. I do not believe, I don't think most Members of this House believe, and I know most Americans do not believe that taxpayers should be on the hook for a home loan of someone who has committed a sex offense against a minor.
A quarter of a million children are sexually assaulted every year in my home State of Texas, according to the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment report. There are still private market alternatives to FHA loans, and we want to continue to discourage any kind of federally financed reward or taxpayer-backed benefit to sex offenders reentering our communities. For example, sex offenders are already banned from residing in section 8 public housing. My amendment continues that pro-family stance.
The certification requirement in this amendment is a strong enforcement mechanism which will not put additional burdens on small businesses.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment to protect our communities and to prohibit those who have committed a sex offense against a minor from benefiting from government-backed FHA loans.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. The gentleman's amendment is similar to previous efforts by Republicans in past housing debates to ensure that convicted sex offenders are unable to receive the Federal aid to obtain housing through the FHA. I think the intent and the direction that the gentleman is going to absolutely appropriate. I support his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
AMENDMENT NO. 13 OFFERED BY MR. MAFFEI
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Adler to offer an amendment on behalf of Mr. Adler and myself, and it is at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Maffei:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
None of the funds authorized under this Act or any amendment made by this Act may be used to pay the salary of any individual engaged in activities related to title II of the National Housing Act who has been officially disciplined for violations of subpart G of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch for viewing, downloading, or exchanging pornography, including child pornography, on a Federal Government computer or while performing official Federal Government duties.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Frank and Chairwoman WATERS for bringing this bill and my amendment to the floor.
We were all outraged when we learned that dozens of employees at the Securities and Exchange Commission were found to have been using their government-issued computers to view pornography. Some of these employees were senior staffers, earning as much as $222,000 a year. One SEC attorney in Washington, D.C., spent up to 8 hours a day watching pornography. An accountant in a regional office was denied access by the government firewall 16,000 times when he tried to access Web pages containing sexually explicit material.
Mr. Chairman, this behavior, these abuses are not just an abuse of government resources but also of the public trust. It undermines confidence in our institutions. It subjects the thousands of SEC and other government employees who work hard every day to a diminishment, and, simply put, it is outrageous and unacceptable.
This amendment is very simple. It simply says that if you are an FHA employee who is officially disciplined for viewing, downloading, or exchanging pornography, including child pornography, you lose your job. No private business in America would tolerate this kind of behavior, and there's no reason our government institutions should either.
Again, very, very simple. If you're caught and officially disciplined for viewing, downloading, or exchanging pornography, you lose your job. It's that simple.
This should not be a partisan issue, and I urge swift passage of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would just reiterate that the Congressman's amendment seeks to ensure that the employees hired by FHA as a result of funds made available in this bill are in good standing and not guilty of viewing any previous pornography or any related disciplinary measures.
As the gentleman said, I think all of us, and certainly throughout the country, were stunned to learn some of the statistics of certain government employees not only viewing inappropriate material, but the absolute, incredible waste of government resources and waste of time that these employees have engaged in.
So, I think it's right and proper, as this amendment moves forward, to ensure that we protect against those abuses in the future. I support the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
3 comments:
for the FHA law for SO's not to be funded for a home is insane. They are obviously not thinking long term for the SOs. they keep adding to the mess they already created. as for the gov. employees watching porn on the job. Wow! now are they going to go to prison, and have to register like the rest of the public??? whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
Mr. Edwards says: "...we want to continue to discourage any kind of federally financed reward or taxpayer-backed benefit to sex offenders reentering our communities." Oh? Well how about murderers or drug dealers? It's fine to financially reward them when they re-enter our communities? All you will do by passing laws like this is increase the likelihood of recidivism by denying the opportunity for decent (and affordable) housing, one of the essentials in ex-offender rehabilitation.
It's all just another bill based on fear. The more things we take away from SOs to allow them to live normal lives just pushes them to the seedy underground where they are more likely to relapse into the behaviors that got them their label. It's going to make it worse for law abiding citizens. Taking away a criminal's ability to become a productive member of society and they'll become (or return) to what we're all trying to prevent: repeat offenders because that's all that's left for them. Don't give criminals a good life, but don't take away their ability to achieve a good life themselves.
Post a Comment