ACTION ALERT: More on denying certain sex offenders, mortgages..

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

---

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Who is pushing the agenda to deny certain former sex offenders, federal benefits?

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

---

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION ALERT: Sex Offenders and the FHA Reform Act of 2010 (Housing Issues)

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

---

Record of what occurred in the House on 6-10-2010:

---

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.

---

Testimony Given in Congress on H.Amdt 691 and 692
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.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...