No Taxpayer-Funded Pensions for Sex Criminals Act introduced
U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) reintroduced the No Taxpayer-Funded Pensions for Sex Criminals Act, bipartisan legislation to prohibit registrants from collecting federal pensions.
Keep in mind that politicians and federal law enforcement are not the only ones who receive federal pensions. Hundreds of thousands of career civil servants, and administrative staff for federal agencies would be affected as well. In fact, the U.S. Federal Government is the largest single employer in the United States, with a total workforce of approximately 3 million people as of mid-2024. This figure includes civilian employees in various departments and the U.S. Postal Service, as well as active-duty military personnel. That’s double Walmart’s count and triple Amazon’s.
So now (assuming this passes, which hopefully it won’t), people on the registry will become a special class of individuals no longer getting a pension. Let’s compound that with Florida Rep. Steube’s introduction of the so-called CLEAN Act a couple of months ago, which would bar anyone on a sex offense registry from receiving ACA premium tax credits or federally funded Medicaid.
So now (assuming that passes, which hopefully it won’t), people on the registry will lose health coverage as well. Let’s compound that with the deep cuts to other benefits, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that affect all Americans in need, registrants might lose their pensions, lose necessary health coverage, and lose food stamps.
So now again, compound that with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 13663, which specifically prohibits admission to subsidized housing for households containing someone subject to a lifetime registration requirement under state law (Florida is lifetime for ALL). So registrants – and their families – are ineligible for Section 8 housing.
For people on the registry, prison is becoming the closest thing America offers to a social safety net.
Can’t afford rent? Prison gives you a roof over your head. Sure, it’s a rusty bunk in a crowded concrete box with a toilet three feet from your face, but technically you’re not homeless anymore. Struggling to eat? They’ll give you three meals a day. Maybe “meal” is generous, but expired mystery meat still beats an empty stomach. Need healthcare? Congratulations. Incarceration finally makes you eligible for medical treatment. They may barely acknowledge your symptoms and hand you ibuprofen like it cures cancer, but hey, it’s more healthcare access than you’ll get on the outside.
Otherwise, if you’re burdened with endless registry restrictions, your pension evaporates, you’re excluded from housing and healthcare subsidies, excluded from all other assistance programs, unemployable in practice, and pushed further and further to the margins every year, there’s not much of a roadmap to success.
At some point, you have to ask whether the system is designed to encourage rehabilitation or whether it’s quietly making incarceration the only stable option left for us.
In all seriousness, the data consistently shows that sexual offense recidivism rates are low – that’s FACT. That means there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who may have committed an offense decades ago, but who have since lived law-abiding lives, raised families, followed every rule imposed on them, and genuinely tried to move forward responsibly.
But when laws and policies make housing unattainable, employment impossible, healthcare inaccessible, and basic survival a constant struggle, we have to ask what message is being sent. A system that removes pathways to success does not strengthen public safety. It undermines it. If we truly want safer communities, the answer cannot be to make lawful living harder than unlawful living for people who are trying to do the right thing.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Senators Gillibrand and Ernst, you are among the most influential lawmakers in the country, and the decisions you make affect millions of people. Civil laws were never meant to function as tools of punishment or to bypass the constitutional limits that protect every American family. Power in a constitutional republic is always bidirectional — the authority used today against one group can be used tomorrow in ways none of us expect.
This legislation does not only affect the person convicted. It affects the entire household. Many families rely on a federal pension to pay rent, utilities, food, and medical bills. If that income is removed, the spouse and children — who committed no crime — lose their stability overnight. In cases where the offense involved a family member, this bill would even harm the victim by removing the financial support they depend on.
A law that destroys innocent households is not justice. It is collateral damage written into policy. I hope that as you consider this bill, you also consider how its long‑term effects could reach far beyond its intended target, including families who never imagined they would be touched by it.
@Quiet
AMEN! And very well stated. Thank you.
Don’t forget that Registered Persons with crimes against minors and certain pornography offenses are banned from receiving Federal Small Business Loans thanks to the passage of H.R.5297, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, 111th Congress (2009-2010), sponsored Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA-4]. It amended 12 U.S. Code, Sec. 5710, Oversight and audits, to add subsection (b)(2) which reads, “With respect to funds received by a participating State under the Program, any private entity that receives a loan, a loan guarantee, or other financial assistance using such funds after September 27, 2010, shall certify to the participating State that the principals of such entity have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 20911 of title 34).” Under subsection (c), “None of the funds made available under this chapter 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.”
These two tw**waffles are behind every UCMJ Article 120, etc improvement and want more to credit. They seem to forget the government has their employees contribute to their retirement. So, to take away what they contributed and the earnings from it would violate the takings clause. I wish they’d go away.
If this is not a retroactive bill, it may be much more difficult to stop once the process gets rolling. I say that because there is precedent for denying pensions to Federal employees who are convicted of certain crimes. Espionage and treason are among them.
Case in point. You may recall the case of Robert Hannsen, a high level FBI official was arrested and accused of spying for the Soviet Union. He faced the death penalty, so I assume that losing his pension wasn’t too much of an issue at that point. However, he wound up pleading guilty to violating the Espionage Act. As a part of that guilty plea, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole, and here’s the important part, instead of losing his pension, the government allowed his wife to collect a portion of it since she had no knowledge of the crimes. Absent the particulars in that plea, he would have lost it all.
Interestingly enough, a law was passed shortly thereafter that codified the ability of the government to allow spouses (who were innocent bystanders) to still collect at least a portion of the spouse’s pension as part of a plea agreement. The rational behind that is the government believed it would be able to better elicit a plea agreement and cooperation if it had something to offer such as the pension.
Knowing this, IF this law should pass, anyone going forward and pleading guilty to a sex offender offense must definitively try and work out a plea agreement that includes a retention of some, if not all of that person’s pension.
This is a disturbing bill on many fronts, however, I think we may have some hope in blocking it for a good period of time and even defeating it.
First of all, time is on our side. There are only 75 or so business days, ie., days when the Senate is in session to actually vote on bills and this bill has just been introduced. There are fewer business days left in the House, which, at least in this Congress has not passed much of anything. Moreover, this session of Congress is finished on January 3, 2027. Bills not passed by then must be re-introduced. If the House changes hands as many expect, I would expect all legislation to come to a standstill following the November 3rd election. As an added note, Sen Joni Ernst is retiring at the end of this Congress.
I would also point out that the entire political system has been shaken by the Epstein revelations and we are likely to see many more pieces of this type of legislation as a result. Last week brought news of multiple members of Congress who have settled sexual harassment charges using taxpayer dollars. Previous to that, two members had to resign, one because of alleged sexual assault and the other who allegedly had an affair with a staffer who then died by suicide. There is another ongoing investigation of a Florida Congressman (surprise) for alleged assault accusations.
I would also think that it would be difficult to retroactively cancel Federal pensions for those who have have already retired and are now collecting them. While pensions are not an entitlement, like Social Security or Medicare, Federal pensions do have similarities. Primarily, Federal employees contribute to the pension system. These contributions are not voluntary and are deducted from each paycheck that a Federal employee receives. It would seem that it would be illegal/unconstitutional to retroactively take away a pension from an employee who has contributed to the pension system for twenty or thirty years.
Lastly, take heart from the fact that this will be a nationwide fight, not just a fight that FAC has to fight on its own and we may have some other organizations on our side, such as the Federal employees unions. We have a lot of nationwide resources to throw at this problem.
From what I can tell, it appears to not be retroactive, but to apply only after a future conviction. Still sucks though.
I was in the same situation. I was severely injured in Iraq during a transition from one campaign to another. I was medically retired after being evaluated by a panel of doctors, and many of these incidents were documented through the VA. These benefits are not an entitlement — they were earned through service and established by laws passed by lawmakers and presidents to protect veterans and federal employees.
This has nothing to do with being a sex offender. Yes, veterans can still receive certain benefits while incarcerated, but here are the actual facts regarding VA benefits:
* **Felony conviction:** VA disability compensation is reduced to the 10% disability rate after 60 days of incarceration.
* **Misdemeanor conviction:** VA disability compensation is generally not reduced.
* **VA pension benefits:** Pension payments are stopped beginning on the 61st day of incarceration for both felony and misdemeanor convictions.
* **Work release or halfway houses:** Benefits are generally not reduced if participating in a work-release program or residing in a halfway house.
* **Reporting requirement:** Veterans must notify the VA about incarceration to avoid creating a large overpayment debt.
* **Reinstatement:** Full benefits can be restored after release.
Youre correct. Year later, post incarceration, I decided to report my injuries and I receive va disability and other benerfits. The key is one has at least one good enlistment. They can deny the bad enlistment, but by the VA’s own laws, they must look to see if you have completed any contracts, because they cant deny you based on the last enlistments outcome. This is something many people dont know.