7-15-2010:
Recently there has been three pieces of legislation, all good in their own right, but somehow they have been amended -after being introduced- to include, in essence, verbiage to exclude certain previously convicted sex offenders, from receiving the benefits of that legislation.
In each bill the sex offenders chosen to be denied the benefits of the bill, are those former offenders who were convicted of a sex crime against a minor. At this time we cannot tell if it is just those still on a registry or anyone ever convicted of such a crime. None of these former offenders have committed any recent conduct to warrant such a denial. In fact, it appears they are being targeted because of their earlier conviction and not because of any public safety reason. There appears to be a "HATE" factor in these amendments.
The bills in question are: 1) HR-5072 FHA Reform Act of 2010 (Introduced 4-20-10 by Rep. Waters (D-CA-35)); 2) HR-5297 Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010 (Introduced 5-13-10 by Rep. Frank (D-MA-4); and 3) HR-5618 Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010 (Introduced 6-28-10 by Rep. McDermott (D-WA-7). All bills introduced by Democrats.
Given all this was happening -at the same time- it was critical to find out who was inserting these amendments and why, and what basis there were claiming.
A review of the Thomas website for HR-5072 "FHA" revealed that, during debate on the House floor on 6-10, Rep. Edwards (D-TX-17) proposed an amendment to insert the questionable verbiage and it was approved. His only basis was "They do it under HUD law," which is not correct. HUD denies an application for housing of certain former offenders (those listed on a state sex offender registry -for a lifetime-). There it is easy to see a possible public safety context, not found by denying different former sex offenders, a possible FHA loan (no public safety context). Exactly how that occurred is documented in an earlier commentary.
However, what happened with HR-5072 "FHA" did not happen with the other two bills. Whatever happened with those bills was deeper into the workings of the House and not easily seen with a simple review of the Thomas website. Accordingly, the purpose here is to document EXACTLY what occurred with HR-5297 "Small Business" and HR-5618 "Unemployment Benefits."
First it must be noted that, what Rep. Edwards (D-TX-17) did on the House floor on 6-10, seems to have been morphed into a quasi-boilerplate package which is being inserted into other bills (HR-5297 "Small Business" and HR-5618 "Unemployment Benefits"); HR-5297 on 6-14 and HR-5618 on 6-30.
How this quasi-boilerplate package is being inserted into the other two bills, is even more cunning. The House Rules Committee based on H.Res. 1436 submitted to that committee by Rep. Pingree (D-ME-1) -and- H.Res. 1495 submitted to that committee by Rep. Cardoza (D-CA-10), respectively, approved the quasi-boilerplate language to amend those bills. In addition the Rules Committee also added language preventing anyone from further amending those bills.
Quasi-boilerplate Language:
HR-5297: House Report 111-506, H.Res. 1436 "(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS.—With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution that the principals of such business have 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)). "
HR-5618: House Report 111-519, H.Res. 1495 "(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual 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)); and"
That Rules Committee action prevents anyone from removing such quasi-boilerplate language and the denial to those certain former sex offenders becomes a retroactive LIFETIME punishment of sorts. All based on "HATRED" of the earlier crime committed by those offenders; no public safety context for either bill.
It appears the Committee on the Rules quasi-boilerplate package inserted -bill after bill-, and possibly in the future too, has all the earmarks of a Bill of Pains and Penalties (a subset of a Bill of Attainder), both prohibited by the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Sec. 9 (Federal) and Sec. 10 (States).
Singling out certain former sex offenders who are American citizens, for special pains and penalties based on "HATRED" of their crimes and no other basis, while ignoring every other type of crime, including murder, also seems to violate equal protections clauses, and possibly other constitutional protections. Targeting of former offenders is preventing them from reintegrating back into the community, and making them and their families very unsafe, and unable to support families.
The specific details of how this was uncovered is documented below bill-by-bill, and can be verified by a lawyer as this writer is not one.
In closing, this writer wonders, who is pushing this agenda? Further, all of those mentioned above are Democrats, which tweaks my nose, if that has any meaning. Its time for someone else to take this and find an EFFECIVE resolution to stop the carnage of certain former sex offenders, citizens of the United States!
End of Commentary!
HR-5072 (FHA Reform Act of 2010) (Introduced 4-20-10 by Rep. Waters (D-CA-35).Thomas has four versions of this bill. Neither ver.-1 or ver.-2 make any mention of sex offenders. However, ver-3 and vers.-4 mention sex offenders.This bill was amended on 6-10-10 on the House Floor by Rep. Edwards (D-TX-17). The full explanation of how he amended this bill is in an earlier commentary (Click on Link). No need to repeat all of that here.
HR-5297 (Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010) (Introduced 5-13-10 by Rep. Frank (D-MA-4).Thomas has four versions of this bill. Neither ver.-1 nor vers.-2 make any mention of sex offenders. However, ver.-3 and ver.-4 mention sex offenders. This leaves the question "How did ver.-3 get changed in the House?"
Under "All Congressional Actions with Amendments" the Thomas site says these actions occurred:
6/14/2010 7:34pm:
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1436 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5486 and H.R. 5297 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. All points of order against consideration of each bill except for clauses 9 and 10 or rule XXI are waived.
6/15/2010 3:35pm:
Rule H. Res. 1436 passed House.
6/16/2010 10:33am:
Ms. Bean asked unanimous consent that the instruction in the amendment printed in part B of House Report 111-506 relating to page 11, line8, be considered to refer to section 4(d)(2)(A) of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment printed in part A of such report, as amended by the amendment in part B of such report. Agreed to without objection.
Above shows that the Rules Committee AMENDED HR-5297 AFTER it was introduced. A review of House Report 111-506 reveals that the Rules Committee put the amendment concerning certain sex offenders into HR-5297. See House Report 111-506 page 36.
(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS.—With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution that the principals of such business have 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)).
As best as I can see, this amendment was proposed (6-14) to the Rules Committee by Ms. Pingree (D-ME-1)(Her website) through H. Res. 1436 and adopted by the House (that amendment prohibits any further amendments)
HR-5618 (Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010) (Introduced 6-28-10 by Rep. McDermott (D-WA-7).
Thomas has two versions of this bill. Vers.-1 makes no mention of sex offenders. However, vers.-2 mentions of sex offenders. This leaves the question "How did vers.-2 get changed in the House?"
Under "All Congressional Actions with Amendments" the Thomas site says these actions occurred:
6/30/2010 7:20pm:
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1495 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5618 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in this report shall be considered as adopted. The resolution waives all points of order against the bill, as amended.
7/1/2010 12:52pm:
Rule H. Res. 1495 passed House.
7/1/2010 1:09pm:
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1495. (consideration: CR H5321-5327)
7/1/2010 1:09pm:
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5618 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in this report shall be considered as adopted. The resolution waives all points of order against the bill, as amended.
7/1/2010 1:11pm:
H.AMDT.715 Amendment reported by the House Committee on Rules.
Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1495, the amendment printed in House Report 111-519 is adopted.
7/1/2010 1:12pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 5618.
Above shows that the Rules Committee AMENDED HR-5618 AFTER it was introduced. A review of House Report 111-519 reveals that the Rules Committee put the amendment concerning certain sex offenders into HR-5618. See House Report 111-519:
‘‘(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual 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)); and
As best as I can see, this amendment was proposed (6-30) to the Rules Committee by Mr. Cardoza (D-CA-18)(His website) through H. Res. 1495 and adopted by the House (the amendment prohibits any further amendments).
END of POST
3 comments:
Ya I am also miffed its democrats purposing this. It is possible that for the greater good they are inserting this knowing it will be challenged in court and more then likely found unconstitutional by democrate appointed judges. Meanwhile if republicans vote against the bill they (the democrats) will have political fodder to say the republicans are supporting sex offenders and are soft on crime.
Or manybe they just don't know what the HUD laws are and are trying to insert something similar or they see this as a small way to cut expenditures ....
Anyway seeing there is no way to argue that there is some compelling interest (the test for an equal protection challenge /some criminals get funds others do not/) or rational basis for these laws beyond retroactive punishment (and their retroactivity is yet another constitutional challenge) I am sure they will fold at the first court challenge if they make it to law.
"The vote to end debate was 60-38, the minimum needed to overcome a filibuster. But that ensured that the bill has the votes for final passage, which could come later Thursday."
Its also possible that the democrates put that in to throw a bone to the 3 republican supporters of the bill, to try and get their support. Sad that we are the bone but good that they got it passed ..... with zero votes to spare.
We vote for democrates with the hope they will do what is best for the majority of their constuants; its sad when whats best for the majority is worse for us, the minority, but we all want to see this banking reform bill pass also I am sure. And if we took the hammer for the greater good well thats sadly our contribution to this bill.
Again this is the kind of law thats going to lose in court at the first challenge.
I wrote to my congressman expressing my disbelief and asking for help. First of all, it seems to me that despite the best efforts of some to continually throw roadblocks up to the successful reintegration of ex sex offenders into society what they are doing is turning what is supposed to be a civil requirement into a punitive one, opening the registry requirement to legal challenge yet again. The registry is becoming a hitlist for politicians to heap on restrictions; restrictions on movement, in rights, in fundamental services. To what end? The denial of rights and services is called prison.
Post a Comment