4-26-2013 National:
The principals of a small business seeking government-backed loans expect to be asked about their commercial backgrounds and credit histories. They probably do not expect to be asked whether they are former sex offenders.
But those with businesses that want to take advantage of the Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), created last year as part of the Small Business Jobs Act, had better be prepared to discuss both. To qualify for loans from institutions participating in the SBLF, businesses must certify that none of their principals has been convicted of, or pleaded no contest to, a sex offense against a minor.
The SBLF provides capital to community banks that can, in turn, lend to small businesses. It has nothing to do with children or sex offenses. As far as I know, there is no evidence that those convicted sex offenders are less capable than anyone else of running a business that can create jobs, or that sex offenders are less likely to repay their loans.
This little-known provision is just one example of a growing array of collateral consequences, which are legally imposed civil limitations that those convicted of crimes must face after their penal sentences expire. Some post-sentence restrictions are justifiable on public protection grounds. For example, those convicted of criminal offenses involving dishonesty, breaches of trust or money laundering may be barred from working at institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Yet other collateral consequences, such as the SBLF exclusion, have little apparent relationship to the crimes they target. These restrictions seem to exist solely as an added punishment, on top of the sentence prescribed in the criminal laws.
Because of collateral consequences, convictions can have long-lasting ramifications for civic participation, employment, housing and eligibility for public benefits. These barriers can affect former offenders long after they’ve completed their official sentences. The American Bar Association has identified 38,000 separate statutes that contain collateral consequences. According to Stephen A. Saltzburg, who worked on the ABA project, 84 percent of these legal barriers are job-related, which contributes to an 11 percent reduction in wages for those former offenders who are able to find work.
Drug convictions come with an especially heavy load of collateral consequences, and can lead to disqualification for federal and state assistance, including food stamps and public housing. Students convicted of selling or possessing drugs can also lose their federal financial aid, including eligibility for work-study programs. Given the income gap between those with college degrees and those without, this policy seems notably counterproductive, forcing those convicted of drug offenses to accept a future of lesser-paid work rather than giving them the opportunity to eventually become more productive members of society.
Even in some cases where the laws purport to protect the public, the effects can be unnecessarily devastating for those seeking fresh starts after serving their sentences.
In one particularly egregious example, sex offenders in Miami were forced to erect a tent city beneath the Julia Tuttle Causeway after the city passed a law prohibiting them from living within 2,500 feet of anyplace where children gather. In a densely packed city with a normal complement of schools, parks, playgrounds and houses of worship, the sex offenders were left with nowhere else to go. One man told The New York Times in 2009 that he had the money to rent an apartment and had looked at 17 prospective places, but none of them would enable him to comply with the law. His driver’s license listed his address as “Julia Tuttle Bridge.” After three years, the tent city’s residents were eventually relocated by the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust.
According to a working group of judges, law professors and lawyers formed to study the issue of collateral consequences in New York state, “collateral consequences of criminal prosecutions are growing in number, scope and duration.” Because collateral consequences are the product of a wide assortment of statutes, administered by a diverse collection of agencies, they cannot be controlled through sentencing, and there is no easy way for defendants or their attorneys to learn all of the possible consequences of any given conviction. As the working group noted, this makes it “extremely difficult for judges, practitioners and the public they serve to fully appreciate what lies ahead” and “bedevils efforts at appropriate sentencing and competent counseling.”
Bit by bit, we are letting politics take the place of justice, and in the process we are forgetting the principle that an offender should be allowed to start anew after paying his or her debt to society. We are creating sweeping categories of crimes that carry life sentences in prisons without walls. This is not making our society safer, and it certainly is not making it fairer or better.
Lawmakers have a responsibility to protect the law-abiding public from crime and from criminals. I would grant that lengthy sentences and post-prison restrictions are, in some cases, the most effective barrier to recidivism. But another barrier to recidivism is to allow former criminals to rejoin law-abiding society by rebuilding their lives on solid foundations.
That’s hard to do while living under a bridge. ..Source.. by Larry M. Elkin, CPA, CFP®
Showing posts with label ( .News-Small Bus Loans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ( .News-Small Bus Loans. Show all posts
April 25, 2013
Collateral Consequences: Why Bar Sex Offenders From Business Loans?
September 24, 2010
Who put "Offensive Language" in The Small Business Act of 2010 (HR 5297)?
9-24-2010 Washington DC:
In case folks are not aware of this, the House, on 9-23-2010, passed HR-5297 Small Business Act of 2010, and the bill will soon be signed by the President and made law.
So, how did this "Offensive Language" get into HB 5297?
Source: 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)). "
Lets go back to when the bill was introduced on 5-13 and referred to the House Financial Services Committee, the introduced version contained nothing about sex offenders, according to the Thomas website (Click on bill above then goto "All Congressional Actions with Amendments") these are the initial steps shown for the bill:
5/13/2010:
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
5/19/2010:5/27/2010 11:18pm:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
5/19/2010:
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 42 - 23.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 111-499.
5/27/2010 11:19pm:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 283.
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.
Notice that the Financial Services committee did amend the bill, but if you review the Report they provided (111-499) there is nothing about sex offenders. The bill then went to the House Rules Committee.
Now, any lawmaker may submit proposed changes to the Rules Committee, and several lawmakers did exactly that, on the Rules Committee website they have a list of which lawmakers submitted changes and what those changes were. See Rules Committee website here (Should this be removed from the Rules Committee website, I have saved it on a Word Doc). Assuming those lawmakers were truthful about what they submitted, I say that because the website says "(summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)", then we still are left with, where did the offensive language come from?
The next thing to review is H.Res 1436 (Introduced by Rep. Pingree of Maine on 6-14) the text of which says nothing about sex offenders, but there is a House Report (111-506) resulting from this H.Res., thats where we first find offensive language covering certain sex offenders.
Reviewing the House Report 111-506, we find this:
Immediately it looks like Rep. Pingree did this, but the text of her H.Res. 1436 does not contain one word about sex offenders.Ms. PINGREE, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H. Res. 1436]
The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 1436, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION
Then comes a LONG READ ...... and buried deep is the following:
Page 23, after line 13, insert the following new subsections:
(c) Required Certifications-
(1) ELIGIBLE INSTITUTION CERTIFICATION- Each eligible institution that participate in the Program must certify that such institution is in compliance with the requirements of section 103.121 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, a regulation that, at a minimum, requires financial institutions, as that term is defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2) and (c)(1)(A), to implement reasonable procedures to verify the identity of any person seeking to open an account, to the extent reasonable and practicable, maintain records of the information used to verify the person's identity, and determine whether the person appears on any lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations provided to the financial institution by any government agency.(d) Prohibition on Pornography- None of the funds made available under this title may be used to pay the salary of any individual engaged in activities related to the Program 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.
(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)).
Accordingly, the only plausible answer is, somewhere within the House Rules Committee Staff is someone who has the ability to change the language of the bills presented to them, and without Committee Member's knowledge. I say that because a few of my readers have called the Rules Committee and have been told "they know nothing about that language."
I wonder who is responsible for preparing House Reports for the Rules Committee, and where they get their input from? And especially, who told them to insert the "Offensive Language."
Thats all folks, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
Afterthoughts: Hopefully there is someone who has a better understanding of the inner-workings of the House Rules Committee that could explain, how this happened, if not then Congress needs to review that Committee's procedures because there is skullduggery going on. Just so folks know, I have found that this HAS OCCURRED on another bill as well, but that will be another commentary.
If this ever gets to court it will take a proper Plaintiff, one who has tried to get a loan and was denied, because until that happens no one is actually denied anything. And it may take several folks to get it up to a class action. These are issues for lawyers. ACLU Where are You?
September 21, 2010
ACTION ALERT: The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, HR 5297, is about to be voted on by the House
9-21-2010 Washington DC:
As I'm sure most folks know the Senate has passed HR 5297 "the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010," this is the bill with the offensive language in it and will deny any RSO convicted of a crime against a minor (person less than 18), any opportunity for a small business loan for the rest of their lives, if they find a need for such a loan, if the FULL House ultimately passes this bill.
However, before the bill goes to the FULL House, the House Rules Committee must set the rules for considering the bill when it goes before the FULL House. The Rules Committee is set to meet on Wednesday evening at 5 PM EST. The Senate did amend the bill, but not the sections covering sex offenders, and the Senate Amendments are what the Rules Committee will be reviewing. The current text of HR 5297 can be reviewed here.
As folks well know, it is not possible to contact lawmakers by e-mail because their filtering systems will exclude all but constituents. With that said, all lawmakers suggest that you contact them by Phone or Fax, which gives you the opportunity to talk to their aides and POSSIBLY get a message to lawmakers to REMOVE this OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE affecting certain sex offenders as that language is not based on any public safety reasoning, but is based on PURE HATE, which is unconstitutional.
Here is the FULL list of the Rules Committee members. However, reviewing past actions of the committee I have found not all members will vote on every action before the committee, and each vote seems to have different members voting. So my suggestion is this, everyone should contact the following Rules Committee members. Asking them to REMOVE the OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE affecting certain sex offenders:
Louise M Slaughter, Chair (New York)
2469 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822James P McGovern (Massachusetts)
438 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6101
Fax: (202) 225-5759Alcee L Hastings (Florida)
2353 Rayburn Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
Tel: (202) 225-1313
Fax: (202) 225-1171Doris O Matsui (California)
222 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
p: 202.225.7163
f: 202.225.0566Dennis Cardoza (California)
1224 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6131Michael Arcuri (New York)
127 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202)225-3665
Fax: (202)225-1891Ed Perlmutter (Colorado)
415 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202.225.2645
Fax: 202.225.5278Chelli Pingree (Maine)
1037 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6116
Fax: (202) 225-5590Lincoln Diaz-Balart (Florida)
2244 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202)225-4211
Fax: (202)225-8576Virginia Foxx (North Carolina)
1230 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2071
Fax: (202) 225-2995
Next, since HR 5297 will go before the FULL House as soon as the Rules Committee finishes their work, and that we have no idea if the Rules Committee will remove the offensive language, it will ALSO BE NECESSARY for everyone to contact their personal Representatives and ask them to REMOVE the OFFSENSIVE LANGUAGE when the bill goes before the FULL House.
Hopefully these actions can spark some lawmakers to act and save a lifetime of harm to the registrants affected by this bill.
For now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
September 16, 2010
Senate approves $30 billion small business tax package
Folks, this is HR 5297 which contains the "Offensive Language" which will automatically DENY any RSO convicted of a crime against a minor (person < 18), any possibility of a small busioness loan for the rest of their lives. ACLU Where Are You? AT this point the bill goes back to the House, and everyone needs to pound away at their Representatives to get that Offensive Languae REMOVED. Never stop trying, keep pounding on those folks in Washington.9-16-2010 Washington DC:
Democrats were able to deliver President Barack Obama a significant legislative victory Thursday when the Senate voted to approve a long-stalled $30 billion small business tax package, in what is probably the last real economic stimulus measure before the midterm elections.
With the help of Republicans George Voinovich of Ohio and George LeMieux of Florida, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was able to push through the legislation, 61-38. The measure includes a new Treasury-backed loan facility for small-business owners and major tax breaks for businesses over the next two years.
Obama had hammered Republicans through the summer break for blocking the bill, and when Voinovich and LeMieux indicated last week that they would vote for it, that was enough to clear the 60-vote barrier needed for passage.
"I couldn't find a reason to be against it, I could only find reasons to be for it," LeMieux told POLITICO after the vote. "I tried to make the case for it [to other Republicans]. All I can do is make the best case for it that I can. But when I look through the principles that are important to me: 1. Does it increase the deficit which is cascading out-of-control; 2. It doesn't raise taxes; 3. It, in fact, cuts taxes for small business and provides these loans, which will be paid back. The federal government will actually make money on it.”
Before the final vote on the underlying bill, the Senate defeated an amendment proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that would have added a research-and-development tax credit to the legislation. Though the R&D credit enjoys bipartisan support, Democrats rejected the measure as a tactic to delay passage of the overall legislation. The Hatch provision would have required the Finance Committee to go back and re-write the legislation to include the R&D extension.
Republicans had also tried to use the small business bill to strip out a controversial business accounting provision in last year’s health care bill, but that amendment failed too.
The bill now goes to the House, which has already approved a similar measure and is expected to pass the jobs package without alteration.
Though some House Democrats expressed concerns over some of the differences between the two versions of the bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would be hard-pressed to make changes and force the Senate to vote again on a bill it took months to pass. Heading into a heated election season, White House and Democratic leaders want to get the bill to the president's desk swiftly.
"We may have to convince some of our House members to work out the differences in subsequent legislation. It's important to get this money out as quickly as possible," Pelosi told the San Francisco Chronicle Tuesday, when she huddled with her caucus upon returning from August recess. ..SOurce.. by MEREDITH SHINER
August 20, 2010
Senators: Give small business the credit it deserves
Folks, notice the bill they are talking about HR 5297 Small Bussiness Loans, this is the bill which has the offensive language in it. Secondly notice the DATE Congress (Senators for this bill) will return to start work again.8-20-2010 Washington DC:
Now, there is no doubt this bill will pass, BUT, we need to get Senators to REMOVE the Offensive Language from the bill before passing it back to the House. If they do not remove that section, then former sex offenders convicted of crimes against a minor will be forever denied the possibility of getting a small business loan.
And remember, how many juveniles have been convicted of crimes against someone -under 18 which is the definition of minor- these folks will never be able to get a small business loan. So, starting today everyone must lobby Senators to remove this offensive section. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, it is one that affects certain sex offenders, our advocacy!
As the summer winds to a close, and people — including members of the U.S. Senate — get back to work, I have a request: Senators, stop your bickering and help small businesses get the money they need.
On Sept. 13, lawmakers return to Washington after their August recess, and waiting for them will be legislation, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, that will make it easier for small businesses to get loans and also will provide small-business tax breaks and investment incentives.
With more credit available, small businesses are more likely to hire, expand, survive.
But this legislation has been caught up in politics.
Republicans kept it from a vote because they don't want to give Democrats a victory for small business. Meanwhile, President Obama has used the Republicans' stalling to attack them at Democratic fundraising events, making it harder for Republicans who would support the legislation to actually vote for it.
Republicans get points. Democrats get points. Small businesses get — oh, you know what they get... .
So please stop! It's time for everyone to quit playing politics with an important piece of small-business legislation. After all, this bill is one that Republicans would champion if a Republican president had introduced it. It:
• Provides $30 billion in financing to community banks to increase small-business lending. The Obama administration says it would result in $300 billion in new small-business loans.
• Increases deductions for start-up expenses.
• Eliminates capital gains taxes entirely on investments in certain qualified small businesses.
• Gives states grants to provide small-business loans.
Additionally, the president proposes restoring the previous Small Business Administration loan guarantee level to 90% — President George W. Bush cut it to 50% to 75% — thus making it safer and easier for banks to make small-business loans.
The reality is that getting credit is tough out there, even for solid businesses with excellent credit histories.
And when credit is tight, companies don't hire. They don't open new locations. They don't innovate or launch new products.
That's bad for businesses, bad for employees, bad for America.
Take my situation: A few years ago, when I wanted to expand my business, I turned to a community bank. It not only gave me a line of credit, it helped me get an economic-development term loan.
With the money, I hired a couple of employees, expanded my product line, and grew my business.
It was good for the bank, good for my business, good for America.
Through the years, I paid off the line of credit and reused it a number of times. I paid my term loan every month in full and on time.
At the same time, I received what is referred to as "trade credit" or payment terms from my biggest supplier — the printer of our books. (I'm a publisher.)
We've done business together for more than 10 years, and during that time they've slowly improved my payment terms, also making it easier for me to grow my business.
It's been good for them, good for me, good for America.
And that's how it went for many years. I received credit. I paid my bills. My business grew. My lender's business grew. People were employed.
That's how it's supposed to work.
Until this year. Without anything changing in my own credit picture, my credit tightened. The economic-development company suddenly had tougher compliance standards, so I chose to pay off the loan, meaning I have less money for expansion and hiring.
I got a call from my printer. They, apologetically, told me that their bankers were requiring them to tighten their financing terms with customers. Once again, I have less money available for hiring, developing new products, becoming more competitive.
Small companies, including mine, depend on credit.
In fact, a recent SBA study showed that fully 80% of all small companies use credit. Without credit, companies stayed smaller, hired fewer people, developed fewer assets.
Credit is the lifeblood of business growth, and right now we need an infusion.
HR 5297 is good bill that will help us. So, Senators, stop your bickering, get back to work and pass this bill!! ..Source.. by Rhonda Abrams, USA TODAY
July 23, 2010
Senate votes to move forward on $30B loan fund for small businesses
The bill they are speaking of is HR-5297. That bill contains "Offensive Language" which will deny certain sex offenders the chance to apply for small business loans. Many RSOs use these loans to run private businesses because they cannot get regular jobs. Folks must continue to contact -Senators- to try to get one of them to pull this offensive language. Please do so even if it would not affect you!7-23-2010 Washington DC:
After a lengthy debate Thursday, the Senate voted 60-37 to end debate on an amendment that would create a $30 billion fund for community banks to lend to small businesses.
Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) spent the better part of the day explaining why their amendment shouldn't be considered another government bailout and would help struggling small businesses.
Their argument convinced two Republicans -- Sens. George LeMieux of Florida and George Voinovich (Ohio). LeMieux said the measure would provide small businesses in his state with the credit they need to create jobs.
The Senate will take up the amendment and the bill again next week with votes planned for Tuesday. ..Source.. by Vicki Needham
July 15, 2010
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
July 9, 2010
ACTION ALERT: Congress stops certain sex offenders from receiving money under TWO federal programs!
7-9-2010 Washington DC:
Congress will now prevent certain sex offenders (whether required to register or not [i.e., registration terms completed]) from receiving A) Unemployment benefits; AND B) Small business loans, if these TWO bills ultimately become law.
Unemployment Benefits:
On 6-28-2010 Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-7) introduced HR 5618 (OC - WW - GT)"Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010" a necessary bill, with a disastrous provision built into it. The bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Sander M. Levin (MI-12).
Within the bill is the following:
(h) Procedures- Any State with an agreement under this Act shall implement reasonable procedures to--
`(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 ...
Small Business Loans:
On 5-13-2010 Rep. Barney Frank (MA-4) introduced HR 5297 (OC - WW - GT)"Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010" also a necessary bill. The bill has 20 co-sponsors. The bill as introduced had nothing about sex offenders, the House passed the bill and sent it to the Senate. On 6-29-2010 in the Senate there were 23 or so amendments, somewhere buried in those amendments a Senator added the provision concerning certain sex offenders.
Within the bill is the following:
(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)).
Discussion:
There is no doubt in this writer's mind that both of these are based on "HATE" and not any context of safety of the community. Congress cannot base law on "HATE" that simply violates our Constitution. In fact, Congress is supposed to make laws to prevent such, as hate too often leads to violence; history tells us so. What makes this even more egregious is that, lawmakers know this violates constitutional protections, especially since many are lawyers.
Obviously the "Unemployment Benefits" affect far more folks than do the "Small Business Loans" so the greatest effort must be directed to HR-5618.
A few thoughts, first is, that how can Congress deny folks unemployment benefits when folks have paid a portion of their salary, as had the employer, to fund unemployment benefits. These monies have already been collected, and benefits accrued.
While it is true that, this bill is a supplemental bill to extend money available to pay additional benefits beyond what is normal, and maybe some may say, we can deny any based on that theory. The reality is, that would raise a equal treatment under the law issue. Workers are workers, equal footing in the national work force, and must be treated equally, they all have put in their time, and there is no misconduct.
While I can't say I am a Guru of employment law, my heart tells me that, many labor laws -state and federal- would have to be addressed before Congress is permitted this type of labor law amendment, esp. since some folks may have worked under a union contract.
What can be done:
HR-5618 "Unemployment Benefits" is still in the Senate and that is where folks must focus efforts. It is in some committee and unfortunately the Thomas site doesn't tell us which one. This committee needs to be contacted as soon as folks find out which one it is.
It is time for EVERYONE (includes moms, dads, aunts, and anyone else in the family) to be e-mailing, faxing, calling and writing their Representives and Seantors in Congress to get this changed and removed from both of these bills.
I wish I had more, but right now I think it more important to get this message out to everyone, rather than do more research. I'll post an update if I find more.
For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
