7-6-2010 Washington DC:
The FHA Reform Act of 2010 (HR 5072) is a good bill designed to help many folks with their mortgages, many nearing foreclosure. The bill was moving through Congress and had nothing to do with sex offenders, UNTIL it came out of committee and on the House floor, Rep. Edwards of Texas proposed Amendment 12. In essence it required that "individuals to certify that they have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor in order to get an FHA mortgage."
Folks may remember the controversy over an amendment (Amendment 12) made to this bill, if not you can read about it HERE.
There is no doubt that this is vindictive, and in fact, simply not logical. Here is why: If a person murdered a child, they would be permitted to get a FHA mortgage and certify as mentioned. Is that logical? No! If someone was driving drunk and killed several children crossing the street at a school crosswalk, they too would be permitted to get a FHA mortgage and certify as required. Is this logical?
The point is simple, why should Congress discriminate against certain sex offenders, when worse crimes -also against children- are allowed to pass and get a FHA mortgage.
The fact is, no matter what a person was once convicted of, if they are allowed to return to society, it makes no sense to hinder their re-entry back into society. The question here is not based on safety of anyone, even children, it based on pure hatred of that type of crime. Drug offenders who supplied children with drugs are allowed to get a FHA mortgage and certify, and their citims suffer a lifetime.Rep. Edwards said "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."
Notice how Rep. Edwards misconstrues the issue, claiming -we already do not allow them in section 8 housing- but he ignores WHY; there it is a safety of other residents issue, not so with granting a mortgage.
No other federal law enacted by Congress is based on hatred of the offender or crime, they are all based on some context of "Safety." Congress is simply not allowed, under the constitution, to base laws on hatred, they are supposed to prevent hatred.
OK, so whats my point? Simple, when the House passed the bill it sent it on to the Senate, and they referred it to their Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, and there the bill sits. That committee has a contact page (CLICK HERE) it is a form which folks can type in their personal information and a comment.So folks, here is the mission, respectfully and as concise as possible -mentioning a few scenarios- ask them why is that Amendment -which clearly is based on hatred not safety in any context- is allowed to be in a bill that may help so many folks?
Most folks know, committees rarely read the details of a bill, so pointing out THIS PORTION is crucial to getting it withdrawn. The mission is simple, if every one of the 700,000 RSOs and their family members made one contact, I'd bet they would pull that amendment. This is the last opportunity to get it changed.
For now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
PS: I'll bet there are folks out there who can even come up with better scenarios, if so please post a comment here for others to see.
