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...

ACTION ALERT: A AP Reporter Would Like to Talk to "Certain Sex Offenders" about "Federal Bills" that Would Deny Benefits.

7-15-2010 National:

An Associated Press reporter has contacted RSOL Virginia about doing a story about the three recently PROPOSED federal bills which would deny benefits to any person convicted of a sex offense against a minor. See here for a complete explanation of the benefits involved.

Benefits involved: Unemployment, FHA Loans, and Small Business Loans. Remember, folks may not need these benefits TODAY, but may eventually need them, a critical distinction!

Further, these bill if passed, would affect persons convicted of a sex offense against a minor regardless of where they live in the nation. Congress is moving these bills on a FAST TRACK and they may be passed within a week or so.

Accordingly, if you are one of these former sex offenders, the AP reporter would like to speak to you ONLY if you would be affected by these bills, if made law. The reporter will be doing the story quickly, 24-96 hours, and she needs input from folks ASAP.

So, if these bills would affect you, please contact either:

RSOL Virginia rsolvirginia@comcast.net -OR-

AP Reporter dpotter@ap.org

Many thanks to both RSOL Virginia and SATA for advising us of this opportunity for folks to have their voices heard, a rare opportunity.

Have a great day and a better tomorrow,
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

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

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.

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...

Mansfield: Is sex offender reputation bad for business?

2-14-2010 Ohio:

MANSFIELD -- Ashland has attracted a string of big-name investments lately, including shaving cream maker Barbasol. That town up the highway has done this even as a legacy business in Mansfield -- General Motors -- hits the road.

As it happens, Ashland County also has fewer felony sex offenders -- about a third the number, proportionately, that live in Richland County.

Public policy experts say there is at least some relationship between economic depression and high populations of sex offenders, but local economic development leaders say they haven't heard anything about it.

When asked about Mansfield leading the state in most sexual offenders per capita and whether that distinction influences business investments made -- or not made -- in the area, local Mansfield-Richland Area Chamber of Commerce president Kevin Nestor said, "I can't say that I've had somebody bring it up as a business concern, but I have heard people bring it up more just as a general concern."

He said Mansfield's reputation as a haven for sex offenders probably wasn't hurting local business much, but said some industry people he has talked to are aware of that stigma.

At a public forum Feb. 4 about Adultmart, the new adult shop south of town on Hanley Road, Nestor said given perceptions regarding the high number of sex offenders here, Mansfield's newest business wasn't helping things.

"It will bother a certain percentage of people," he said.

Cynthia Mercado, a psychology professor and public policy expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, said having a high number of sex offenders and economic turmoil may just be a catch-22.

"Offenders' housing choices are typically motivated by social ties and economic factors," Mercado said.

Dave Baldwin, head of the recently formed Richland Community Development Group, said he couldn't say for sure what effect the sex offender population here has on potential investors' thinking about whether to settle here. In an interview Wednesday, Baldwin mostly tried to stay upbeat about the area's future, but conceded the sex offender statistics were less than ideal.

"I've heard it raised as an issue, but there hasn't been a lot of direct dialogue (among business leaders)," the Lexington business consultant said. "But I don't want to get mired in that and lose focus of the big picture."

Evan Scurti, director of the Ashland Area Council for Economic Development, said he couldn't explain the difference between Mansfield and the town he represents. He didn't know, he said, whether the sex offender population issue made much of a difference in attracting investment.

The recent Barbasol move to Ashland was mainly about transportation issues, he said.

Ashland, like Mansfield, lies just west of Interstate 71 and its officials boast about the town's felicitous position between Cleveland and Columbus. Mansfield would seem to have an advantage with its proximity to U.S. 30, while Ashland's other roads aren't as well traveled. Also, Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport far outstrips Ashland County Airport in terms of capacity and use.

"(The sex offender population) hasn't come up -- I hope it doesn't," Scurti said. "But I don't start off presentations with why Mansfield's terrible." ..Source.. ERIK SHILLING • News Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...