[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 66 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 66
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the
obligation of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of
Education and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to
enforce title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing
regulations, and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
regarding the obligation of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to ``build inclusive and sustainable communities free from
discrimination'', and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2019
Mr. Scott of Virginia (for himself and Mr. Nadler) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the
obligation of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of
Education and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to
enforce title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing
regulations, and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
regarding the obligation of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to ``build inclusive and sustainable communities free from
discrimination'', and for other purposes.
Whereas, 64 years ago, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
Kansas, a unanimous Supreme Court held that segregated school systems
based on race are inherently unequal and violate the 14th Amendment to
the Constitution;
Whereas Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in part, to address
``Massive Resistance'', a collection of State laws passed in response to
the Brown decision that aggressively tried to forestall and prevent
school integration, and the ``Declaration of Constitutional Principles''
(known colloquially as the ``Southern Manifesto'') signed on March 12,
1956, by Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, that
attacked the decision and opposed integrated schools;
Whereas title VI of that law prohibits programs and activities that receive
Federal funds from discriminating based on race, color, or national
origin;
Whereas former President John F. Kennedy eloquently explained the need for title
VI by stating that ``[s]imple justice requires that public funds, to
which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion
which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial
discrimination. Direct discrimination by Federal, State, or local
governments is prohibited by the Constitution. But, indirect
discrimination, through the use of Federal funds, is just as invidious;
and it should not be necessary to resort to the courts to prevent each
individual violation.'';
Whereas title VI requires policies and practices to be developed and
administered in a manner that does not intentionally discriminate
against students on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and
that does not ``have the effect of subjecting individuals to
discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or . .
. of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the
objectives of the program as respects individuals of a particular race,
color, or national origin.'';
Whereas racial discrimination in the public school systems nationwide continues
to persist, as exemplified by--
(1) a recent appellate court decision holding that a White community's
attempt to secede from a majority Black Alabama school district was
racially discriminatory in violation of the Constitution; and
(2) a recent Department of Education Office for Civil Rights resolution
of a complaint filed against Durham Public Schools in North Carolina
regarding discrimination against Black students and students with
disabilities in the application of school discipline requiring Durham
Public Schools to take actions to end discriminatory discipline practices;
Whereas recent reports by the Government Accountability Office and other
national education advocacy organizations detail racial disparities in
the Nation's education systems, including that--
(1) the percentage of schools that are isolated by poverty and race
increased from 9 percent during the 2000-2001 school year to 16 percent
during the 2013-2014 school year;
(2) high-poverty schools that are majority Black and Latino are less
likely to offer a range of math courses, and such lack of access is linked
to lower completion rates for higher level math and science courses in high
school, which are critical components of preparing students for college and
careers;
(3) only 12 percent of students took Advanced Placement courses at
high-poverty schools that are majority Black and Latino and offer such
courses, compared to 24 percent of all students in low-poverty schools with
lower Black and Latino enrollment;
(4) students of color on average have lower enrollment in
prekindergarten programs, and attend lower quality prekindergarten
programs, than their White peers;
(5) Black students are disproportionately excluded from school,
beginning as early as preschool, and students who are suspended are more
likely to fail a grade, drop out of school, and become involved in the
juvenile justice system;
(6) with few exceptions, Black students, boys, and students with
disabilities experience disparities in the administration of school
discipline, regardless of the type of disciplinary action, poverty level of
the school, or type of public school attended; and
(7) research suggests that implicit biases--stereotypes or unconscious
associations that people, including teachers and other school staff, hold
about other people--are a contributing factor to these discipline
disparities because they cause school staff to judge students differently
based on their race;
Whereas disparate impact analysis is an essential tool to combat discrimination
across other areas of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acknowledged that the
disproportionate placement of industrial polluters in low-income and
minority neighborhoods in Flint, Michigan, is discriminatory, and
whereas the entirety of the environmental justice movement is premised
on a disparate impact analysis;
Whereas Federal appellate courts have determined that violations of title VIII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act
(FHA), may be established through the disparate impact theory of
liability;
Whereas, in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive
Communities Project, the Supreme Court held that disparate impact claims
are cognizable under the FHA, with Justice Kennedy writing,
``Recognition of disparate-impact claims is also consistent with the
central purpose of the FHA, which, like Title VII and the ADEA, was
enacted to eradicate discriminatory practices within a sector of the
Nation's economy. Suits targeting unlawful zoning laws and other housing
restrictions that unfairly exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods
without sufficient justification are at the heartland of disparate-
impact liability. . . . Recognition of disparate-impact liability under
the FHA plays an important role in uncovering discriminatory intent: it
permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised
animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.'';
Whereas the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education and the Civil
Rights Division of the Department of Justice are charged with enforcing
title VI and its regulations, which prohibit both intentional
discrimination and unintentional discrimination resulting from policies
and practices that have a discriminatory effect, or disparate impact, on
students based on race, color, or national origin;
Whereas racial discrimination cases decided under title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968 and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide
guidance on how to analyze intentional discrimination and unintentional
discrimination based upon disparate impact claims brought under title
VI;
Whereas the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity is charged with administration of the FHA, and has
promulgated rules to clarify the application of disparate impact to FHA
cases;
Whereas the EPA's External Civil Rights Compliance Office (ECRCO) (formerly
Office of Civil Rights (OCR)), within the Office of General Counsel, is
charged with enforcing civil rights under title VI and since 1973 has
prohibited recipients of EPA financial assistance from taking actions in
their programs or activities that are intentionally discriminatory and/
or have a discriminatory effect;
Whereas the Department of Transportation's Office of Civil Rights is responsible
for ensuring that recipients of Federal funds from that agency conduct
their federally assisted programs and activities in a nondiscriminatory
manner in compliance with title VI;
Whereas the Office for Civil Rights for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of
the Department of Justice (DOJ) ensures that recipients of financial
assistance from OJP comply with Federal antidiscrimination laws,
including title VI;
Whereas a DOJ memo was recently leaked to the Washington Post in which senior
Civil Rights Division officials were directed ``to examine how decades-
old `disparate impact' regulations might be changed or removed . . . and
what the impact might be'';
Whereas the Washington Post reports that similar directives to eliminate
regulations using disparate impact analysis are being considered at the
Department of Education and are already underway at the Department of
Housing and Urban Development;
Whereas Federal agencies under both Democratic and Republican administrations
have a history of bringing title VI disparate impact claims; and
Whereas the Supreme Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval overturned four
decades of statutory protections against discrimination by eliminating
an implied private right of action under title VI to challenge disparate
impact, leaving Federal agencies as the only entities that can bring
disparate impact claims: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) reaffirms that the original intent of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 was to broadly prohibit all forms of discrimination
by providing for both the Federal Government and private
attorneys general to bring cases under causes of action to
enforce against both disparate treatment and disparate impact;
(2) reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that the
elementary, secondary, and college educational systems of the
United States prepare all students for successful careers,
regardless of their race, color, or national origin;
(3) reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that all
communities are inclusive, sustainable, and free from
discrimination;
(4) recognizes that the Office for Civil Rights of the
Department of Education, the Civil Rights Division and Office
of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other Federal agencies have an
obligation to enforce title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and its implementing regulations;
(5) expects the Department of Education, the Department of
Justice, and other Federal agencies to enforce title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations, as
they have done in the past under Democratic and Republican
administrations, using all legal theories including disparate
treatment and disparate impact, given the growing evidence that
racial discrimination in education, housing, and other aspects
of public life continue to adversely impact individuals and
communities;
(6) will hold oversight hearings to ensure that the
Department of Education, the Department of Justice, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other Federal agencies enforce title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing
regulations, including enforcement with respect to
unintentional discrimination resulting from policies and
practices that have a discriminatory effect, or disparate
impact, on individuals and communities based on race, color, or
national origin; and
(7) will consider legislation that acknowledges and
reaffirms the original intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the original intent to prohibit all forms of discrimination
and discriminatory effects, including H.R. 2486 (115th
Congress), the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act, a bill
that restores the title VI private right of action in cases
involving disparate impact, creates title VI monitors to ensure
that every school has at least one employee responsible for
investigating any complaints of discrimination based on race,
color, or national origin, and creates a position of Assistant
Secretary in the Department of Education to coordinate and
promote title VI enforcement of equity and inclusion in
education.
<all>