7-16-2010 Washington DC:
This "Offender-Gate" hate-agenda which will deny certain sex offenders, federal benefits is deeper than first realized when posting our earlier commentary "Who is pushing the agenda to deny certain former sex offenders, federal benefits?"
Folks may remember that, while the House, on 6-10-2010, was debating HR-5072 (FHA Reform Act of 2010), Rep. Edwards (D-TX-17) proposed, and the House passed, an amendment to insert language into that bill which would deny certain former sex offenders, the possibility of getting a FHA mortgage.
Rep. Edwards, House Floor 6-10: "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."This shows that Rep. Edwards is uninformed, as Sec. 8 Housing ONLY rejects applications of sex offenders who are registered for a -LifeTime- on a state registry, others they can accept (See laws here). There it is easy to see a possible public safety context, not found by denying different group of former sex offenders, a possible FHA backed loan (no public safety context, excepting hate of their crimes).
Further research revealed:
That on 6-8-2010, two days before House debate, the Rules Committee moved by Rep. Perlmutter's (D-CO-7) H.Res. 1424 held a hearing to consider various issues related to HR-5072 and House Rules. Thirteen lawmakers presented issues, one of them was Rep. Edwards (D-TX-17). He moved the committee to add the 'objectionable' hate-based language to HR-5072 as part of their Report. The Rules Committee approved his motion. The results of that hearing is documented in House Report 111-503, which contains the objectionable language. see following:
OBJECTIONABLE LANGUAGE:
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)).'.
Note: So that nothing is misconstrued, lawmakers asking the Rules Committee is standard practice, when something may not fit the rules as written, the committee rejects or permits (w/adjustments) their request.
Observation: There doesn't appear to be any requirement for a BEFOREHAND "constitutional/court case, check" on what lawmakers present. The Rules Committee takes for granted, that what lawmakers present is AOK. This may be the committee's Achilles heal.
With that said: When the committee prepared their order to the House permitting, everything asked for by the thirteen lawmakers, the committee DID NOT include anything to PROHIBIT lawmakers from further amendments. That is significant because later when handling requests concerning HR-5297 (Small Business) and HR-5618 (Unemployment Benefits), they did add to these orders to the House a provision to PREVENT further amendments on the floor.
Why the special handling of Rep. Edwards motion? It is likely my understanding of how the committee works is lacking, so folks, over time we need to learn more about the inner workings of this very powerful committee.
OK, now we know how the hate-based amendment was put into the bill, so we need to delve deeper into what the amendment actually says.
Two words in the amendment caused further concern, "...any mortgage...," not "...any FHA mortgage.." given this bill is titled The FHA Reform Act of 2010. Certainly "any mortgage" is broader language than "any FHA mortgage," exactly what could that mean?
OBJECTIONABLE LANGUAGE:
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:
The above portion of the hate-based amendment indicates, this amendment is ADDED -at the end- of National Housing Act 12 USC 1709 (a larger body of law), at the end of 12 USC 1709, the title of which is "Insurance of mortgages" -any mortgage- that can be insured under 12 USC 1709! Who backs your mortgage?
If this construction is correct, one person's construction, there are far more folks affected! This needs to be reviewed by a lawyer who specializes in mortgage law!
Our original belief missed this reading of the amendment after inserting it into the larger body of law, the correct reading is, it applies to any insured mortgage under 12 USC 1709.
In closing, we still do not know who is pushing this Offender-Gate "HATE" agenda.
End of Research FHA.gov: The Federal Housing Administration, generally known as "FHA", is the largest government insurer of mortgages in the world. A part of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), FHA provides mortgage insurance on single-family, multifamily, manufactured homes and hospital loans made by FHA-approved lenders throughout the United States and its territories. While borrowers must meet certain requirements established by FHA to qualify for the insurance, lenders bear less risk because FHA will pay the lender if a homeowner defaults on his or her loan. FHA has insured over 37 million home mortgages and 47,205 multifamily project mortgages since 1934. Currently, FHA has 6.1 million insured single-family mortgages and 13,000 insured multifamily projects in its portfolio. Clearly, FHA provides a huge economic boost to the country in the form of home and community development, particularly in today's challenging financial climate. ...
The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) administers and enforces federal laws and establishes policies that make sure all Americans have equal access to the housing of their choice. Learn more about FHEO, or contact the Housing Discrimination Hotline by email, or at 1-800-669-9777 (Voice) | 1-800-927-9275 (TTY).
PS: For those who want to research Rep. Edwards more:
Rep. Edwards (D-TX-17) from his House website is this map of his district. The 17th District covers some 230 miles according to his website, and includes many small and big towns. On that map, if you zoom in, just west of Waco TX (where Edwards was born) is Crawford TX, a tiny town, didn't President Bush have a ranch there?
On Rep. Edwards:
GovTrack says.. OpenCongress says.. Project Vote Smart says... Congress Merge says...End of Post
1 comment:
This is getting to be a bunch of ___. First they tell us where we can and can't live, then they tell us where we can and can't work. Now, we've got to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but we are to be denied the benefits given to every other citizen of this country. Where is it going to end?
We need to stand up and fight back. We need to bring this unfair and unjust legislation to the people, and demand that we be granted 'equal protection under the law'. We need to take this to D.C., and present a united front to congress. No longer will we just sit back and allow our rights and freedoms to be taken from us without cause. These actions are punitive and unconstitutional.
Note by eAdvocate: The "People" do not care how former offenders are treated, the harsher the better (their feelings). The answer is both, in the courts and the legislature. One reader mentioned a "March on Washington" which is a great idea, but even that has its problems. i.e. crossing state lines (AWA), when folks get to Washington, how would they register? True, the overload would likely cripple those registering folks though. Hint hint...
Post a Comment