2015: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Defund The "Implementation Of The Fair Housing Act's Discriminatory Effects Standard" Rule. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would bar funds from being used by HUD to implement or enforce the final rule entitled 'Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Discriminatory Effects Standard' published in the Federal Register on Feb. 15, 2013. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Garrett, R-N.J., amendment that would bar funds from being used by HUD to implement or enforce the final rule entitled 'Implementation of the Fair Housing Act's Discriminatory Effects Standard' published in the Federal Register on Feb. 15, 2013." The underlying measure was H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016. The vote was on the amendment. The House of Representatives passed the amendment by a vote of 231 to 195. The bill passed the House, but it later was turned into a different appropriations bill. [House Vote 323, 6/9/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/9/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 428; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]
Rule Was On the 'Disparate Impact' Provisions That Says That A Practice Can Be Applied Uniformly, But Still Lead To Discrimination, Regardless Of Intention. According to the Chicago Tribune, "The nation's fair-housing rules became clearer this month when the Department of Housing and Urban Development finalized a rule that it hopes makes it easier to determine whether a housing practice is discriminatory. The formal adoption of uniform standards for the Fair Housing Act's so-called disparate impact provisions codifies a theory that was in place --- that a housing policy can be discriminatory if it applies to everyone but leads to discrimination, regardless of whether it was intentional." [Chicago Tribune, 2/22/13]
Rule Was Put In Place To Provide Nationwide Consistency To A Long-Standing Recognition Of Discriminatory Effect. According to the Federal Register, "Through this final rule, HUD formalizes its long-held recognition of discriminatory effects liability under the Act and, for purposes of providing consistency nationwide, formalizes a burden-shifting test for determining whether a given practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect, leading to liability under the Act. This final rule also adds to, and revises, illustrations of discriminatory housing practices found in HUD's Fair Housing Act regulations. This final rule follows a November 16, 2011, proposed rule and takes into consideration comments received on that proposed rule." [Federal Register, 2/15/13]
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Amendment Weakens Our Ability To Protect Americans From Discriminatory Policies That Deny Them Access To Quality Housing, Quality Neighborhood Schools, And Other Resources. In a floor speech, Rep. Maxine Waters said, "Mr. Garrett's amendment seeks to empower HUD's efforts in enforcing the Fair Housing Act in such a way that relies on the disparate impact doctrine. It weakens our ability to protect Americans from discriminatory policies that deny them access to quality housing, quality neighborhood schools, and other resources. The disparate impact doctrine is a very effective legal tool that has been used for decades to address seemingly neutral policies that have the effect of discriminating against protected classes. The disparate impact doctrine provides legal redress for victims of hidden discrimination. It ensures that women cannot be evicted from their apartments solely because they were victims of domestic violence, and it ensures that veterans with disabilities are not barred from living in certain places solely because of the lack of accommodations for their disability. This amendment ignores the realities of harmful discrimination in our Nation today, and it would eliminate well-established, decades-old protections for American families." [Congressional Record, 6/9/15]
June 2015: Supreme Court Upheld Disparate Impact Claims. According to NPR, "The court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision in a case in which a nonprofit group, the Inclusive Communities Project, said that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs had contributed to 'segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods.' The 5-4 ruling endorses the notion of citing disparate impact in housing cases, meaning that statistics and other evidence can be used to show decisions and practices have discriminatory effects --- without proving that they're the result of discriminatory intentions." [NPR, 6/25/15]
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ): Amendment "Would Undo Harmful Economic Actions" Against Banks That Are Found To Have Discriminated While Using A "Completely Nondiscriminatory Standard To Assess Credit Risk. " In a floor speech, Rep. Garrett said, "My amendment would undo harmful economic actions taken by the administration that weaken credit availability and job creation. You see, the Department's final rule implementing the Fair Housing Act's discriminatory effects standard establishes regulations promoting the use of a legal theory known as disparate impact. What is disparate impact? Disparate impact liability allows the government to allege discrimination on the basis of race or other factors based solely on statistical analyses that find disproportionate results among different groups of people and--get this--regardless of any evidence of any actual discriminatory actions or intent. Let me point that out again--regardless of any evidence of actual discrimination. If, for example, a mortgage lender uses a completely nondiscriminatory standard to assess credit risk, such as maybe a debt-to-income ratio, they can still be found to have discriminated if the data shows different loan approval rates for different groups of consumers. [...] In addition to being unfair and unwise, the HUD rule is also unnecessary. Why? Because protected class characteristics are already prohibited from consideration in the risk assessment process." [Congressional Record, 6/9/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Bar Funding For The Department Of Housing And Urban Development To Implement, Enforce Or Administer The Proposed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule. In June 2015 Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] funding for HUD to implement, enforce or administer the proposed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule or the notice entitled 'Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool." The underlying legislation was H.R. 2577, the FY 2016 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations act. The House passed the amendment 229 to 193. The House later passed the legislation, but it later was turned into a separate appropriations bill. [House Vote 311, 6/9/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/9/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 399; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Was Designed To Actively End Segregation, Which Was Mandated By The Fair Housing Act In 1968, By Forcing Local Communities To Scrutinize Housing Patterns For Racial Bias. According to the Washington Post, "When the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, it barred the outright racial discrimination that was then routine. It also required the government to go one step further --- to actively dismantle segregation and foster integration in its place --- a mandate that for decades has been largely forgotten, neglected and unenforced. Now, on Wednesday, the Obama administration will announce long-awaited rules designed to repair the law's unfulfilled promise and promote the kind of racially integrated neighborhoods that have long eluded deeply segregated cities like Chicago and Baltimore. The new rules, a top demand of civil-rights groups, will require cities and towns all over the country to scrutinize their housing patterns for racial bias and to publicly report, every three to five years, the results. Communities will also have to set goals, which will be tracked over time, for how they will further reduce segregation." [Washington Post, 7/8/15]
HUD Will Provide Communities With Data And Tools To Help Them Meet Their Obligations. According to HUD, "U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has released a final rule to equip communities that receive HUD funding with the data and tools that will help them to meet long-standing fair housing obligations in their use of HUD funds. HUD will provide publicly open data for grantees to use to assess the state of fair housing within their communities and to set locally-determined priorities and goals. The rule responds to recommendations of the Government Accountability Office and stakeholders for HUD to enhance its fair housing planning obligations by providing greater clarity and support to jurisdictions receiving HUD funding, and facilitating local decision-making on fair housing priorities and goals." [HUD, Accessed 2/17/16]
Opponents Of The Fair Housing Rules Said That "The Rule Is Federal Intrusion Into Local Land-Use Policies." According to The Baltimore Sun, "Critics say the rule is federal intrusion into local land-use policies. Congressional Republicans tried last month to take away funds for implementation, which HUD estimates will cost about $34 million." [Baltimore Sun, 7/10/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Bar The Justice Department From Using Funds To Enforce Disparate Impact Claims Made Under The Fair Housing Act. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] funds made available by the bill from being used by the Justice Department to enforce the Fair Housing Act in a manner that relies on an allegation of liability based on a practice's discriminatory effect, even if the practice was not motivated by discriminatory intent." The underlying legislation was H.R. 2578, which was the FY 2016 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House accepted the amendment by a vote of 232 to 196. The House later passed the bill, but it died in the Senate after becoming a vehicle for a different appropriations bill. [House Vote 287, 6/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/3/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 337; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]
Disparate Impact Is The Notion That Discrimination Can Occur Without Intent; In Housing, This Can Be Proven Using Statistics And Other Evidence. According to NPR, "The 5-4 ruling endorses the notion of citing disparate impact in housing cases, meaning that statistics and other evidence can be used to show decisions and practices have discriminatory effects --- without proving that they're the result of discriminatory intentions." [NPR, 6/26/15]
June 2015: Supreme Court Accepted The Idea That Housing Discrimination Should Not Be Confined By Intent. According to NPR, "Civil rights groups won a victory Thursday, as the Supreme Court ruled that claims of racial discrimination in housing cases shouldn't be limited by questions of intent. The court affirmed a Court of Appeals decision in a case in which a nonprofit group, the Inclusive Communities Project, said that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs had contributed to 'segregated housing patterns by allocating too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas and too few in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods.' The 5-4 ruling endorses the notion of citing disparate impact in housing cases, meaning that statistics and other evidence can be used to show decisions and practices have discriminatory effects --- without proving that they're the result of discriminatory intentions.' [NPR, 6/26/15]
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ): "The Application Of Disparate Theory Has Had Devastating Impacts On Law Abiding Businesses Who Have Diligently Maintained Fair And Consistent Lending Standards." According to a press release from the Office of Congressman Scott Garrett, "Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) issued the following statement after the House passed his amendment to H.R. 2578, the Fiscal Year 2016 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act. The amendment would bar the Department of Justice from using funds for litigation in which they seek to apply disparate impact theory. 'While everyone agrees that discrimination has no place in the lending practices of any respectable institution, the application of disparate impact theory has had devastating impacts on law-abiding businesses who have diligently maintained fair and consistent lending standards,' said Garrett. 'The federal government should be encouraging sound business practices, not punishing those that utilize them. I thank my colleagues for taking a stand for small businesses and reinstating equal protection under the laws as guaranteed in our Constitution by the Fourteenth Amendment.'" [Office of Congressman Scott Garrett, 6/3/15]
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA): "Fair Housing Laws Have Played An Important Role In At Least The Idea That We Think You Shouldn't Have A Circumstance In Which, If You Are A Different Color Or Ethnic Background, You Shouldn't Apply." In a floor speech, Rep. Fattah said, "I guess, if you looked at Major League Baseball and if you didn't see anybody of color, you could assume that there was a disparate impact until Jackie Robinson showed up, but American baseball is a lot better, and I think that our country is a lot stronger because of the diversity that exists. I think the fair housing laws have played an important role in at least the idea that we think that you shouldn't have a circumstance in which, no matter what the set of policies, if you are a different color or ethnic background, you shouldn't apply. I think it is something that we have rejected as a nation. I hope we reject this amendment, and I will seek a recorded vote on it." [Congressional Record, 6/3/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Block Proposed Fair Housing Rule Addressing Segregation In Local Communities' Zoning, Land Use And Development Policies. In June 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would bar the use of funds in the bill for the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] to implement, enforce, or administer a proposed rule regarding discrimination, historic patterns of segregation and fair housing choice." The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 219 to 207, and later passed the amended bill. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 285, 6/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/10/14; Congressional Actions, S. 2438; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 813; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4745]
Amendment Would Have Blocked HUD From Taking Further Action On A Rule It Proposed In 2013 Titled "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." According to the Congressional Record, the amendment had the following text: "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the proposed rule entitled 'Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing', published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Federal Register on July 19, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 43710; Docket No. FR-5173-P-01)." [Congressional Record, 6/9/14]
Rule Proposed That HUD Provide Data About Local Racial And Economic Inequalities To Local Zoning Authorities. According to the Christian Science Monitor, "The rule itself, proposed by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, merely authorizes HUD to send to local zoning bodies more data about racial and economic disparities in their communities." [Christian Science Monitor, 8/9/13]
Rule Required HUD Funding Recipients To Use HUD Data When Deciding Local Priorities For Housing And Development. According to ProPublica, "In July, HUD issued a proposed regulation that for the first time clearly defined the steps local and state governments that receive HUD funding must take to examine housing segregation based on race and show they are in line with the Fair Housing Act. [...] The proposal would create a new planning process under which HUD grantees must use data provided by the federal government on segregation, racially concentrated areas of poverty, access to education, employment, transportation and environmental health to set housing and development priorities." [ProPublica, 11/22/13]
Rule Said That Local Communities Should Use The Data To Guide Planning Decisions So That They Proactively Counteract Past Patterns Of Racial And Economic Segregation. According to the Christian Science Monitor, "It [the proposed rule] does not prescribe policy, but it does say that municipalities should use the data to guide zoning, land use, transportation planning, and financing so as to 'proactively ... overcome historic patterns of segregation ... and foster inclusive communities for all.' HUD is currently accepting public comments about the proposed rule. The new rule is intended 'to provide municipalities with data about who lives there, how segregated an area is, whether there are good schools, transportation networks, is it friendly for families with children -- all kinds of data that pertain to protected classes under the Fair Housing Act,' says Lisa Alexander, a housing policy expert at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 'If we have an area of concentrated poverty, we want to encourage more middle-class people to come in, and we might be able to use that data to create some middle-income housing or do mixed finance housing with some market-rate units, some low-income units.'" [Christian Science Monitor, 8/9/13]
Underlying Goal Was To Allow Local Communities And HUD To More Fully Address Socioeconomic Segregation. According to the Christian Science Monitor, "At the root of the issue is poverty, and specifically where poor people live. A chief common denominator of poverty is socioeconomic segregation, and HUD officials say the proposed rule will allow it and local governments to address such segregation more deeply and seriously. 'Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest-hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the ZIP Code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,' HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said last month." [Christian Science Monitor, 8/9/13]
ProPublica: For Four Decades After Passage Of Fair Housing Act, HUD Refrained From Demanding That Funding Recipients Change Their Policies To Fight Segregation In Order To Keep Receiving Funds. According to ProPublica, "The 1968 Fair Housing Act [...] directed the government to 'affirmatively further' fair housing. [Nixon-era HUD Secretary George] Romney believed those words gave him the authority to pressure predominantly white communities to build more affordable housing and end discriminatory zoning practices. [...] Romney's stance made him a pariah within the administration. Nixon shut down the program, refused to meet with his housing secretary and finally drove him from the Cabinet. Over the next four decades, a ProPublica investigation shows, a succession of presidents --- Democrat and Republican alike --- followed Nixon's lead, declining to use the leverage of HUD's billions to fight segregation. Their reluctance to enforce a law passed by both houses of Congress and repeatedly upheld by the courts reflects a larger political reality. Again and again, attempts to create integrated neighborhoods have foundered in the face of vehement opposition from homeowners." [ProPublica, 11/22/13]
Critics Of The Proposed Rule, And HUD's Overall Aims, Say It Should Be Targeting Current Discrimination, Not Imposing Inclusion And Diversity On Local Authorities' Decisions About Future Development. According to the Christian Science Monitor, "In some ways, the tack is nothing new. In a succession of housing laws since the early 20th century, Congress has given HUD broad power to shape how and where Americans live, in large party by how it administers so-called Section 8 housing benefits to low-income Americans. But critics say that it's one thing for the federal government to root out existing housing discrimination, and quite another to pressure cities and counties to create, at the onset, communities or neighborhoods that are more inclusive and diverse." [Christian Science Monitor, 8/9/13]
Critics Argue HUD Is Wrongly Suggesting Local Zoning Codes Are Discriminatory, While Ignoring Evidence That An Area's Crime Rates Increased -- And Property Values Fell -- After A Large Number Of Section 8 Recipients Moved In. According to the Christian Science Monitor, "HUD's approach is problematic, critics say, because it implies that local zoning ordinances are racist and designed to keep the poor down, although the facts may paint a more complex picture. Some communities resistant to incorporating more Section 8 housing, for instance, cite studies that show crime rates go up when large numbers of Section 8 recipients move into new areas, says James Bovard, author of the book 'Freedom in Chains.' That can pull down property values -- the foundation of many Americans' wealth and a cause of constant concern." [Christian Science Monitor, 8/9/13]
Amendment's Sponsor Claimed The Proposed Rule Would Allow HUD To "Dictate Local Zoning Requirements" To Any Community That Applies For A Community Development Block Grant. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), the amendment's sponsor, said, "I rise today to offer an amendment intended to prevent yet another costly overreach by the Federal Government into the jurisdiction of local towns and communities. HUD has proposed a new regulation, titled Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which would grant the Department authority to dictate local zoning requirements in any community across the country that applies for a Community Development Block Grant." [Congressional Record, 6/9/14]
Amendment's Sponsor Argued HUD's Proposal Would "Increase Local Taxes, Depress Property Values" And Would Result In "HUD Bureaucrats" Imposing "Burdensome" Zoning Rules Using "Tracked Data" On "Citizens' Race, Sex, Religion And Other Protected Federal Demographics." According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), the amendment's sponsor, said, "According to reports, in 2012, this rule would have negatively impacted more than 1,200 municipalities throughout the country. A trial run of the rule already took place in New York. It failed miserably, and a local county was forced to reject $12 million in funds that would have benefited the community due to the impractical and unrealistic requirements associated with compliance. The county had intended to use a large portion of the block grant funds to establish public housing for individuals in need. Clearly, this flawed proposal by HUD will increase local taxes, depress property values, and cause further harm to impoverished communities that are actually in need of these funds. These new burdensome zoning rules being imposed by HUD bureaucrats on localities would be derived from tracked residential data based on citizens' race, sex, religion, and other federally protected demographics." [Congressional Record, 6/9/14]
American Enterprise Institute's Ed Pinto: Rule Latest HUD Attempt To "Social Engineer The American People." According to Fox News, "But one critic says it smacks of utopian idealism. 'This is just the latest of a series of attempts by HUD to social engineer the American people,' said Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute. 'It started with public housing and urban renewal, which failed spectacularly back in the 50's and 60's. They tried it again in the 90's when they wanted to transform house finance, do away with down payments, and the result was millions of foreclosures and financial collapse.'" [Fox News, 8/8/13]
World Net Daily: Critics Say "Common Core Of Local Zoning" Could Be Used To Force Communities That Accept HUD Block Grants "To House Illegal Immigrants Against Their Will" And Lead To "Racial Quotas." According to World Net Daily, "The Obama administration, in July 2013, quietly introduced a new regulation that critics say will dramatically increase Washington's power over local zoning laws in every city and town that accepts federal block grants through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. And it's the federal grants that could be used as a hook in the nose of these cities, forcing them to house illegal immigrants against their will. Some are calling it the 'Common Core of local zoning' that has flown under the radar for nearly a year. Instead of the U.S. Department of Education dictating education standards to local school districts, this rule change would allow HUD to influence zoning laws from the biggest cities down to the tiniest towns. [...] Some say the new rule will lead to 'racial quotas' and will be exploited by HUD to aggressively absorb the nation's swelling population of illegal immigrants into communities that are trying to keep them out. HUD's proposed 'Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule' showed up in the Federal Register on July 19, 2013. The rule has the backing of special-interest groups that promote open borders." [World Net Daily, 7/17/14]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Defund The Private Enforcement Initiative Of The Fair Housing Initiatives Program. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have defunded the Private Enforcement Initiative of the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "bar[red] funds from being used for the Private Enforcement Initiative of the Fair Housing Initiatives Program." The underlying bill made FY 2016 appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. The vote was on adoption of the amendment and the House adopted the amendment 224 to 198. The House later passed the underlying bill, but it later became a vehicle for a different appropriations bill. [House Vote 307, 6/4/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/4/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 393; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2577]
The Private Enforcement Initiative Provided Assistance To Non-Profits That Investigated And Enforced Fair Housing Practices. According to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, "Private Enforcement Initiatives [...] To assist private non-profit fair housing enforcement organizations in the investigation and enforcement of violations of the rights granted under title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 2801). To develop, implement, and carry out, related activities and enforcement under the or State or local laws that provide substantially equivalent rights and remedies for alleged discriminatory housing practices. Objectives include carrying out testing and other investigative activities." [Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Accessed 10/22/15]
FY 2015: The Department Of Housing And Urban Development Allocated Over $29 Million To The Private Enforcement Initiative. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, "HUD is making available through this NOFA $39,200,000 for Fair Housing Initiative Programs. Additional funds may become available for award under this NOFA as a result of HUD's efforts to recapture unused funds, use carryover funds, or because of the availability of additional appropriated funds. Use of these funds will be subject to statutory constraints. All awards are subject to the applicable funding restrictions described in the General Section and to those contained in this NOFA. Funding for additional years beyond FY2015 is subject to the availability of appropriations. [...] HUD will award grants/cooperative agreements under each of these program initiatives. Applicants may be funded under the following Initiatives or Components based on eligibility: a. Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI) - $29,275,000." [Department of Housing and Urban Development, 7/21/15]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Exempted Claims Brought Under The Fair Housing Act And The Equal Credit Opportunity Act From Allowing A Federal Court To Apply More Stringent Rules For Who Can Sue In A Class-Action Lawsuit. In January 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "exempt[ed claims under the Fair Housing Act or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act." The underlying bill would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] federal courts from certifying proposed classes of individuals for a class-action lawsuit unless each member of the class has suffered the same type and degree of injury. Additionally, the bill would [have] require[d] quarterly reports by asbestos trusts including claims made against the trusts and payouts made by the trusts for asbestos-related injuries." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 172 to 229. [House Vote 26, 1/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 899; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1927]