Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) for his work on this issue. I am honored to serve alongside him on the Payer State Caucus as well.

Madam Chair, this program is yet another example of good intentions and bad policy. What was intended to be a temporary assistance to a select group of States to build a research infrastructure and then exit the program has become a permanent and growing pot of taxpayer subsidies. This, of course, is in addition to the permanent and growing pot of subsidies the government has already enacted for the States.

For three decades, 30 years after establishment, this program continues to be called--what?--an experimental program, and no State--none--has graduated from the program; yet it exists 30 years later.

This can only demonstrate one thing, Madam Chair, that this is yet another example of ineffective, wasteful redistribution programs that the taxpayers are compelled to financially support. The Foster-Garrett amendment would relieve the taxpayers of this burden.

Again, I thank Mr. Foster for his work in protecting the payer States, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I rise today to offer an amendment that stops the Justice Department from using one of the most dangerous and illogical theories of all time, the theory of disparate impact.

In short, disparate impact 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.

In recent years, the Justice Department has increasingly used this dubious theory in lawsuits against mortgage lenders, insurers, and landlords and has forced these companies to pay multimillion-dollar settlements.

What is wrong with that, one might ask? Under disparate impact, one could never have intentionally discriminated in any way and even have strong antidiscriminatory policies in place and still be found to have discriminated.

For example, if mortgage lenders use a completely objective standard to assess credit risk, such as the debt-to-income ratio, they can still be found to have discriminated if the data show different loan approval rates for different groups of consumers.

To be clear, I have zero tolerance for discrimination in any form; and, if there is intentional discrimination, we must prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. The Justice Department's use of disparate impact, however, tries to fight one injustice with another.

On a more practical level, disparate impact will make it difficult, if not impossible, for lenders to make rational economic decisions about risk. Lenders will feel pressured to weaken their standards to keep their lending statistics in line with whatever the Justice Department's bureaucrats consider nondiscriminatory.

We have seen the damage risky lending can do to our economy. It is truly reckless for our government now to be encouraging those dangerous and shortsighted practices. Ironically, disparate impact forces lenders, insurers, and landlords to constantly take race, ethnicity, gender, and other factors into account or risk running afoul of the Justice Department.

Mr. Chairman, even an accusation of discrimination could have a devastating impact on a small business. Therefore, on balance, disparate impact will make it more difficult and expensive for families to buy a home, and it will result in more discrimination, not less.

For these reasons, both philosophical and practical, I ask my colleagues to reject this misguided theory by supporting this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is an indication of something. It is an indication of whether this House is more concerned about actually filing true intentional discrimination or is just creating fear in this area by saying that we are going after discrimination based upon disparate impact.

It is about whether this House is more concerned about making things easier for all races, for all ethnicities, for all ethnic groups to be able to buy homes and to live and prosper and enjoy a new home or make it more difficult to be able to buy that first home.

Allowing the Justice Department to use disparate impact will do just that. It will make it more difficult for those individuals who now find it difficult to buy a home because lenders will not be able to use the proper risk analysis to make those decisions and, therefore, will be less likely to make those loans.

For those reasons and for the other philosophical and practical reasons I have already stated, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source