“Advance the Restoring Communities Left Behind Act to direct federal investment into disinvested urban and rural neighborhoods and rehabilitate housing stock neglected since the 2008 financial crisis.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently reconfirmed: Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) was the primary sponsor of the Restoring Communities Left Behind Act (H.R. 816 in the 117th Congress, H.R. 837 in the 118th Congress), introduced with Rep. Rashida Tlaib. Kaptur's own House press release (kaptur.house.gov) and Center for Community Progress confirm her lead-sponsor role, the $5 billion HUD-administered grant program the bill created, and the extensive endorsement list (Habitat for Humanity, Center for Community Progress, National Community Stabilization Trust, LISC). In both Congresses the bill was Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services and never advanced to a floor vote or became law (per congress.gov records preserved in the prior researcher's Wayback citations, which I could not independently refetch because Congress.gov returns 403 to this tool and web.archive.org is blocked, but which are consistent with all other primary evidence). Kaptur actively LED/drove the effort well beyond a single supporting vote (repeat introductions, press releases, endorsement coalition-building) but the bill was not enacted, so CHAMPIONED (+0.75) is the correct fit — not FULL (never enacted), not PARTIAL (no partial passage), not merely ATTEMPTED (she was the driver, not just a yes vote). Same standard would rate a Republican lead sponsor of a two-Congress bill that stalled in committee the same way.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.