[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 159 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4400-H4414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY ACT OF 2019


                             General Leave

  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Espaillat). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1107, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 2639) to establish the Strength in Diversity Program, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, in lieu 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Education and Labor printed in the bill, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 116-62, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2639

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Strength in Diversity Act of 
     2020''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to support the development, 
     implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive strategies to 
     address the effects of racial isolation or concentrated 
     poverty by increasing diversity, including racial diversity 
     and socioeconomic diversity, in covered schools.

     SEC. 3. RESERVATION FOR NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       The Secretary may reserve not more than 5 percent of the 
     amounts made available under section 10 for a fiscal year to 
     carry out activities of national significance relating to 
     this Act, which may include--
       (1) research, development, data collection, monitoring, 
     technical assistance, evaluation, or dissemination 
     activities; and
       (2) the development and maintenance of best practices for 
     recipients of grants under section 4 and other experts in the 
     field of school diversity.

     SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--From the amounts made available under 
     section 10 and not reserved under section 3 for a fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall award grants in accordance with 
     subsection (b) to eligible entities to develop or implement 
     plans to improve diversity and reduce or eliminate racial or 
     socioeconomic isolation in covered schools.
       (2) Types of grants.--The Secretary may, in any fiscal 
     year, award--
       (A) planning grants to carry out the activities described 
     in section 6(a);
       (B) implementation grants to carry out the activities 
     described in section 6(b); or
       (C) both such planning grants and implementation grants.
       (b) Award Basis.--
       (1) Criteria for evaluating applications.--The Secretary 
     shall award grants under this section on a competitive basis, 
     based on--
       (A) the quality of the application submitted by an eligible 
     entity under section 5; and
       (B) the likelihood, as determined by the Secretary, that 
     the eligible entity will use the grant to improve student 
     outcomes or outcomes on other performance measures described 
     in section 7.
       (2) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to the following eligible 
     entities:
       (A) First, to an eligible entity that proposes, in an 
     application submitted under section 5, to use the grant to 
     support a program that addresses racial isolation.
       (B) Second, to an eligible entity that proposes, in an 
     application submitted under section 5, to use the grant to 
     support a program that extends beyond one local educational 
     agency, such as an inter-district or regional program.
       (c) Duration of Grants.--
       (1) Planning grant.--A planning grant awarded under this 
     section shall be for a period of not more than 1 year.
       (2) Implementation grant.--An implementation grant awarded 
     under this section shall be for a period of not more than 3 
     years, except that the Secretary may extend an implementation 
     grant for an additional 2-year period if the eligible entity 
     receiving the grant demonstrates to the Secretary that the 
     eligible entity is making significant progress, as determined 
     by the Secretary, on the program performance measures 
     described in section 7.

     SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS.

       In order to receive a grant under section 4, an eligible 
     entity shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time and in such manner as the Secretary may require. Such 
     application shall include--
       (1) a description of the program for which the eligible 
     entity is seeking a grant, including--
       (A) how the eligible entity proposes to use the grant to 
     improve the academic and life outcomes of students in racial 
     or socioeconomic isolation in covered schools by supporting 
     interventions that increase diversity in such covered 
     schools;
       (B) in the case of an implementation grant, the 
     implementation grant plan described in section 6(b)(1); and
       (C) evidence, or if such evidence is not available, a 
     rationale based on current research, regarding how the 
     program will increase diversity;
       (2) in the case of an eligible entity proposing to use any 
     of the grant to benefit covered schools that are racially 
     isolated, a description of how the eligible entity will 
     identify and define racial isolation;
       (3) in the case of an eligible entity proposing to use any 
     portion of the grant to benefit high-poverty covered schools, 
     a description of how the eligible entity will identify and 
     define income level and socioeconomic status;
       (4) a description of the plan of the eligible entity for 
     continuing the program after the grant period ends;
       (5) a description of how the eligible entity will assess, 
     monitor, and evaluate the impact of the activities funded 
     under the grant on student achievement and student enrollment 
     diversity;
       (6) an assurance that the eligible entity has conducted, or 
     will conduct, robust parent and community engagement, while 
     planning for and implementing the program, such as through--

[[Page H4401]]

       (A) consultation with appropriate officials from Indian 
     Tribes or Tribal organizations approved by the Tribes located 
     in the area served by the eligible entity;
       (B) consultation with other community entities, including 
     local housing or transportation authorities;
       (C) public hearings or other open forums to inform the 
     development of any formal strategy to increase diversity; and
       (D) outreach to parents and students, in a language that 
     parents and students can understand, and consultation with 
     students and families in the targeted district or region that 
     is designed to ensure participation in the planning and 
     development of any formal strategy to increase diversity;
       (7) an estimate of the number of students that the eligible 
     entity plans to serve under the program and the number of 
     students to be served through additional expansion of the 
     program after the grant period ends;
       (8) an assurance that the eligible entity will--
       (A) cooperate with the Secretary in evaluating the program, 
     including any evaluation that might require data and 
     information from multiple recipients of grants under section 
     4; and
       (B) engage in the best practices developed under section 
     3(2);
       (9) an assurance that, to the extent possible, the eligible 
     entity has considered the potential implications of the grant 
     activities on the demographics and student enrollment of 
     nearby covered schools not included in the activities of the 
     grant; and
       (10) in the case of an eligible entity applying for an 
     implementation grant, a description of how the eligible 
     entity will--
       (A) implement, replicate, or expand a strategy based on a 
     strong or moderate level of evidence (as described in 
     subclause (I) or (II) of section 8101(21)(A)(i) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801(21)(A)(i))); or
       (B) test a promising strategy to increase diversity in 
     covered schools.

     SEC. 6. USES OF FUNDS.

       (a) Planning Grants.--Each eligible entity that receives a 
     planning grant under section 4 shall use the grant to support 
     students in covered schools through the following activities:
       (1) Completing a comprehensive assessment of, with respect 
     to the geographic area served by such eligible entity--
       (A) the educational outcomes and racial and socioeconomic 
     stratification of children attending covered schools; and
       (B) an analysis of the location and capacity of program and 
     school facilities and the adequacy of local or regional 
     transportation infrastructure.
       (2) Developing and implementing a robust family, student, 
     and community engagement plan, including, where feasible, 
     public hearings or other open forums that would precede and 
     inform the development of a formal strategy to improve 
     diversity in covered schools.
       (3) Developing options, including timelines and cost 
     estimates, for improving diversity in covered schools, such 
     as weighted lotteries, revised feeder patterns, school 
     boundary redesign, or regional coordination.
       (4) Developing an implementation plan based on community 
     preferences among the options developed under paragraph (3).
       (5) Building the capacity to collect and analyze data that 
     provide information for transparency, continuous improvement, 
     and evaluation.
       (6) Developing an implementation plan to comply with a 
     court-ordered school desegregation plan.
       (7) Engaging in best practices developed under section 
     3(2).
       (b) Implementation Grants.--
       (1) Implementation grant plan.--Each eligible entity that 
     receives an implementation grant under section 4 shall 
     implement a high-quality plan to support students in covered 
     schools that includes--
       (A) a comprehensive set of strategies designed to improve 
     academic outcomes for all students, particularly students of 
     color and low-income students, by increasing diversity in 
     covered schools;
       (B) evidence of strong family and community support for 
     such strategies, including evidence that the eligible entity 
     has engaged in meaningful family and community outreach 
     activities;
       (C) goals to increase diversity in covered schools over the 
     course of the grant period;
       (D) collection and analysis of data to provide transparency 
     and support continuous improvement throughout the grant 
     period; and
       (E) a rigorous method of evaluation of the effectiveness of 
     the program.
       (2) Implementation grant activities.--Each eligible entity 
     that receives an implementation grant under section 4 may use 
     the grant to carry out one or more of the following 
     activities:
       (A) Recruiting, hiring, or training additional teachers, 
     administrators, and other instructional and support staff in 
     new, expanded, or restructured covered schools, or other 
     professional development activities for staff and 
     administrators.
       (B) Investing in specialized academic programs or 
     facilities designed to encourage inter-district school 
     attendance patterns.
       (C) Developing or initiating a transportation plan for 
     bringing students to and from covered schools, if such 
     transportation is sustainable beyond the grant period and 
     does not represent a significant portion of the grant 
     received by an eligible entity under section 4.
       (D) Developing innovative and equitable school assignment 
     plans.
       (E) Carrying out innovative activities designed to increase 
     racial and socioeconomic school diversity and engagement 
     between children from different racial, economic, and 
     cultural backgrounds.

     SEC. 7. PERFORMANCE MEASURES.

       The Secretary shall establish performance measures for the 
     programs and activities carried out through a grant under 
     section 4. These measures, at a minimum, shall track the 
     progress of each eligible entity in--
       (1) improving academic and other developmental or 
     noncognitive outcomes for each subgroup described in section 
     1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)) that is served by 
     the eligible entity on measures, including, as applicable, 
     by--
       (A) increasing school readiness;
       (B) increasing student achievement and decreasing 
     achievement gaps;
       (C) increasing high school graduation rates;
       (D) increasing readiness for postsecondary education and 
     careers;
       (E) reducing school discipline rates; and
       (F) any other indicator the Secretary or eligible entity 
     may identify; and
       (2) increasing diversity and decreasing racial or 
     socioeconomic isolation in covered schools.

     SEC. 8. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       An eligible entity that receives a grant under section 4 
     shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and in such 
     manner as the Secretary may require, an annual report that 
     includes--
       (1) a description of the efforts of the eligible entity to 
     increase inclusivity;
       (2) information on the progress of the eligible entity with 
     respect to the performance measures described in section 7; 
     and
       (3) the data supporting such progress.

     SEC. 9. APPLICABILITY.

       Section 426 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1228) shall not apply with respect to activities 
     carried out under a grant under this Act.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2020 and 
     each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

     SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Covered school.--The term ``covered school'' means--
       (A) a publicly-funded early childhood education program;
       (B) a public elementary school; or
       (C) a public secondary school.
       (2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a 
     local educational agency, a consortium of such agencies, an 
     educational service agency, or regional educational agency 
     that at the time of the application of such eligible entity 
     has significant achievement gaps and socioeconomic or racial 
     segregation within or between the school districts served by 
     such entity.
       (3) ESEA terms.--The terms ``educational service agency'', 
     ``elementary school'', ``local educational agency'', 
     ``secondary school'', and ``Secretary'' have the meanings 
     given such terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (4) Publicly-funded early childhood education program.--The 
     term ``publicly-funded early childhood education program'' 
     means an early childhood education program (as defined in 
     section 103(8) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1003(8)) that receives State or Federal funds.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, racial segregation in public education has been illegal 
for more than 66 years in the United States. Still, American public 
schools are more segregated today than at any time since the 1960s. The 
average African-American or Latino student attends schools with a 
majority of children of their own race.
  Most of these schools serve a high number of low-income students 
forced to learn in old, broken-down buildings with fewer resources and 
disproportionately high rates of discipline.
  Segregated schools are inherently unequal, creating barriers for the 
students who reside in underserved communities. It has been 66 years 
since the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and the 
promise of equal access to education has yet to be realized.
  Today, public schools are not segregated because the law requires it, 
they are segregated by their ZIP Codes.
  Segregation exists due to the erosion of a middle-class tax base. An 
erosion that has caused communities of color to become systemically 
poor. Essential services and public education are continuously 
underfunded.
  These communities have been denied access to the intergenerational 
wealth that comes from homeownership due to discriminatory housing 
patterns and mortgage lending policies. This is particularly true for 
Black communities.

[[Page H4402]]

When districts split schools between affluent and poor neighborhoods, 
it draws a bright line between the haves and the have-nots. This type 
of separation inflicts the same harm on students today as legalized 
segregation did prior to 1954.
  That is why I introduced H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act. It 
directly addresses inequities in public education by authorizing 
funding to support local education leaders in their efforts to lessen 
racial and socioeconomic isolation in public schools.
  The Strength in Diversity Act will ensure every student has equitable 
access to a quality education. This is one step toward remedying the 
issue of segregated schools.
  The bill provides support for school districts that are developing, 
expanding, or implementing school diversity initiatives.
  Eligible school districts can devote funding to study the adverse 
effects of segregation, provide equitable access to transportation, 
create programs to attract children from neighboring communities, and 
recruit new specialized teachers.
  Studies show school integration benefits students of all races. Even 
the conservative think tank, the Hoover Institution, agrees that 
diverse learning environments help close the achievement gap and lead 
to numerous academic, social and cognitive benefits. Research tells us 
school integration results in cross-racial friendships and a decline in 
stereotyping, allowing students to better navigate an increasingly 
diverse society and preparing them for real world experiences.
  Mr. Speaker, the Strength in Diversity Act is not new policy. It is 
practically the same policy the Obama administration sought to pursue 
in its 2016 Opening Doors, Expanding Opportunities program, which 
provided $12 million to help school districts increase diversity.
  Nearly 30 school districts from 22 States and the District of 
Columbia applied for the Obama-era integration grant, but the program 
was eliminated by the current administration in 2017 without 
explanation. That decision came at a time when research clearly showed 
a resurgence in segregated schools.
  Totally ignoring this increase in separate educational facilities, 
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos moved to rescind Federal guidance to 
assist school districts in pursuit of racial diversity. When my 
Education and Labor Committee colleague Representative Trone asked the 
Secretary about this rescission, she said she was ``unfamiliar with the 
guidance.'' That was 2 years ago. Since then, things have gotten worse, 
not better.
  Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing a racial reckoning in this country. 
Despite efforts from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to sow racial division, I 
remain hopeful.
  Now is the time to enact the Strength in Diversity Act and provide 
school districts with the support they need to tackle the task of true 
integration.
  This is hard work, but necessary work, and it is past time the 
Federal Government support local leaders to fulfill the promise of 
Brown.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to make a commitment to put an end to 
racial and socioeconomic isolation and segregation in our Nation's 
public schools by voting in favor of the Strength in Diversity Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity 
Act.
  Republicans and Democrats agree that discrimination and State-
sanctioned segregation are repugnant, illegal, and blatantly immoral. 
Studies have shown that integrated schools promote greater 
understanding, tolerance, and improved educational outcomes.
  I don't disagree with the intentions behind this bill but have major 
reservations about its efficacy. Will this bill stand the test of time? 
Will these ideas have helped the ongoing effort to achieve greater 
equality for children? Sadly, the answer is no.
  The Education and Labor Committee has a long history of reaching 
across the aisle and finding common ground to effect meaningful reform 
for our Nation's schools and students.
  The legislation before us today was another opportunity for committee 
Republicans and Democrats to find bipartisan compromise. Unfortunately, 
committee Democrats ignored commonsense approaches to this problem to 
impose a top-down, Big Government mandate that would have the Federal 
Government decide how best to address the issues of racial and 
socioeconomic isolation in America's schools.

  As we have seen many times before, additional government mandates and 
burdensome red tape are not the answer. Congress has already set up the 
Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, a block grant created 
to give school districts flexibility to pursue local solutions to their 
communities' educational challenges. Local and State leaders and those 
with their feet on the ground know how best to combat these challenges, 
not the Federal Government.
  That is why Representative Allen will offer a Republican alternative 
later today that will provide this House a bipartisan solution that 
could easily garner an overwhelming majority of support in this Chamber 
if every Member chose to focus on the importance of actually addressing 
racial and socioeconomic isolation in schools. His amendment would 
ensure that nearly every school district in the country would have the 
flexibility with Federal funds they may need to tackle this problem. 
This is how legislating for solutions, rather than legislating for 
headlines can work.
  Republicans want nothing more than to see all American children 
prosper. That means expanding opportunities for marginalized students 
to gain access to an education that prepares them for lifelong success. 
It also means school districts taking action to reduce racial and 
socioeconomic isolation in schools.
  A bipartisan path forward to make that possible is achievable, but 
Democrats would rather score political points than work with 
Republicans on solutions that will make a significant difference in the 
lives of our Nation's children.
  Instead of building upon a program that has bipartisan, bicameral 
support, Democrats' H.R. 2639 sets up a new grant program within the 
Department of Education that will inevitably be underfunded, if it is 
funded at all.
  Creating more government programs that have to scramble for funding 
in order to operate successfully is the last thing we need to foster 
the best environment for all students to learn.
  H.R. 2639 also ignores the biggest problem facing low-income students 
and students of color--a lack of high-quality educational options. 
Committee Republicans stand ready to work with our colleagues in the 
majority to expand educational opportunities to all families. But 
rather than bring a bill to the floor that would expand the 
availability of charter schools or offer marginalized families the kind 
of educational freedom that the wealthy exercise for themselves, 
Democrats decided teachers unions are more important to them than real 
families who are desperate for access to a better education for their 
children.
  My Republican colleagues and I believe that expanding opportunities 
for students should be a priority. We know school choice gives families 
the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and enroll their children 
in challenging environments that better develop their skills and 
intellect, encouraging them to reach higher. In fact, studies show that 
when students are given the freedom to attend school in a learning 
environment best suited to their abilities, they pursue and complete 
postsecondary opportunities at higher rates.
  Access to opportunities, freedom to climb, these are aspects of a 
student's education that must be equal for all children nationwide. No 
one-size-fits-all structure can deliver on those essentials. Separate 
was never equal, but equality cannot simply mean uniformity if that 
uniformity doesn't prepare students for lifelong success. Equality is 
affirming that all children are fundamentally the same in dignity, 
importance, and worth but also understanding that not all children's 
needs are the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I think that we all want commonsense 
solutions, but as proven by Secretary

[[Page H4403]]

DeVos, common sense is not always common, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott), the chair of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Strength 
in Diversity Act.
  It has been 66 years since the Supreme Court unanimously struck down 
public school segregation in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of 
Education. In that case, the Court declared that public education where 
the State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made 
available to all on equal terms.
  The Court went on to say that, ``in the field of public education, 
the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational 
facilities are inherently unequal.''
  More than six decades later, we have failed to fulfill that promise. 
According to the Government Accountability Office, our public schools 
are more segregated today by race and class than at any time since the 
1960s, and segregation is actually getting worse according to the 
Government Accountability Office.

                              {time}  1330

  School segregation has profound consequences for students. Today, 
low-income students of color are more likely to attend schools with 
fewer experienced teachers and resources. In fact, schools serving 
predominantly students of color face a $23 billion funding gap compared 
to schools serving predominantly White students.
  Now, we know that integration works. Black students who attend 
integrated schools have higher test scores and are more likely to 
graduate from high school, complete college, and even earn higher wages 
throughout their lives.
  Communities across the country have recognized the importance of 
school diversity for student success and have developed integrative 
strategies to promote diversity in education.
  In 2016, dozens of school districts applied for funding under the 
Opening Doors, Expanding Opportunities grant program, which was 
designed to help schools to pursue voluntary, community-driven school 
integration strategies. Regrettably, one of Secretary Betsy DeVos' 
first actions in office was to terminate that program before any money 
was disbursed.
  The Strength in Diversity Act corrects this action by providing 
Federal support to help school districts develop, implement, or expand 
efforts to integrate their local schools.
  The legislation will also shield these resources from the whims of 
changing administrations and allow communities to compile best 
practices for tackling segregation.
  This expertise is critical because of a series of Supreme Court 
rulings that have been hostile to integration. Most recently, in the 
Parents Involved case, the Court struck down two voluntary integration 
plans, one in Louisville, Kentucky, and the other in Seattle, 
Washington. The Court held that using race in desegregation plans is 
constitutional, but only if the plan is narrowly tailored to address 
the compelling interest of integrating the public schools. 
Unfortunately, they ruled in those cases that the plans were not 
narrowly tailored.
  The Strength in Diversity Act will provide resources so that the 
localities will be able to design plans that will be not only 
effective, but also be able to withstand constitutional challenge.
  Addressing America's legacy of racial discrimination is often 
uncomfortable and complicated. However, we must confront, not ignore, 
inequities in education if we are to reckon with this legacy and 
overcome a global pandemic that threatens to worsen the achievement 
gaps.
  Our former colleague, Congressman John Lewis, once stated: ``When you 
see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak 
up. You have to say something. You have to do something.''
  Let's follow his guidance and vote for the first time in more than 
three decades to provide new resources that will help integrate our 
public schools and fulfill the promise of equity in education.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the Strength in 
Diversity Act. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) for her 
distinguished leadership in this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), my good friend.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, first, let me just thank the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) for yielding and for her tremendous 
leadership on behalf of our children, but also for demonstrating what 
strength in diversity means throughout her life's work. I thank her for 
bringing this Strength in Diversity bill to the floor, H.R. 2639.
  Let me just say a couple of things. First of all, this bill takes 
action where Secretary DeVos and the administration have failed to act 
to make sure that all of our children, no matter what color they are, 
get the same opportunities to get an education and pursue their dreams. 
We have had this discussion over and over and over again in the 
Appropriations Committee with the Secretary.
  Sixty years ago, Ruby Bridges was the first African-American student 
to attend an integrated school in the South. Yes, as has been said by 
our chair and also the gentlewoman authoring this bill, this is 66 
years after Brown v. Board of Education.
  We still have segregation in our school districts, and it is leading 
to measurably unjust outcomes for Black and Brown students, robbing 
them of their future.
  Now, when I started school, mind you, schools were segregated. My 
family in El Paso, Texas, fought to desegregate schools, especially my 
beloved mother, Mildred Parish Massey, who was one of the first 
students to integrate the University of Texas at El Paso.
  In addition to the GAO report, a 2019 report out of Stanford 
University also reviewed hundreds of millions of test scores from 
students across the Nation. Their findings show that racial segregation 
leaves Black and Brown students concentrated in high-poverty schools, 
leading to a huge opportunity deficit even for high-performing 
students.
  In fact, they found large achievement gaps in every single school 
district with just moderately high segregation. This fact remains. This 
data is the same. Also, these schools have fewer resources, and the 
students experience more disciplinary actions than in more diverse 
schools.
  The Strength in Diversity Act would help reverse this segregation by 
promoting diversity, increasing student achievement and readiness, and 
investing in our children.
  The bill would authorize Federal funding to provide grants to support 
new and existing local efforts to increase racial and socioeconomic 
diversity in our schools.
  It would further document segregation in our public schools, 
implement programs to recruit and hire diverse teachers, and work to 
ensure our students have equitable access to resources.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Fudge for 
yielding the additional time.
  Let me conclude by saying, in doing this, Congresswoman Fudge and 
Chairman Scott have documented this, that by having equitable access to 
resources, we actually found that racial prejudice is reduced by making 
sure that our children are in diverse schools and classrooms.
  All of our students should receive the best education regardless of 
their race and ethnicity. That is what this bill is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Fudge, the gentlewoman from Ohio, 
for putting forth this bill, because she more than most knows the 
importance of diversity.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, Ms. Fudge,

[[Page H4404]]

for allowing me the time. I acknowledge Mr. Scott for the outstanding 
work that he has done on this legislation, among many other pieces of 
legislation.
  I have an amendment that speaks for itself. This amendment deals with 
the entry exams that fail the diversity test at many elite schools--
elite schools, by the way, that are funded with tax dollars that come 
from poor communities, elite schools that can accept tax dollars but 
cannot accept the students who are from communities that are affording 
the schools the tax dollars.
  The amendment reads: If applicable--meaning if you haven't done it 
already--develop an implementation plan to replace entrance exams or 
other competitive application procedures with methods of student 
assignments to promote racial and socioeconomic diversity.
  This amendment does deal with minorities, but it also deals with 
other persons who happen to be disadvantaged. Mr. Speaker, that is 
another way of saying poor White people. They, too, suffer from 
disadvantages associated with the elite tests that can fail even some 
of the best that come from schools that have little resources.
  I believe that if this amendment is passed, this amendment is going 
to encourage schools to do what John Lewis would call the right thing, 
the just thing, the fair thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment and beg that my colleagues would 
support it as well.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Foxx for yielding. I 
appreciate the opportunity to address this issue today.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 2639, and I oppose it because I believe 
every child should have access to a good education. I have long 
advocated for the need to expand choice to each student so that they 
have the opportunity to live out the American Dream regardless of their 
ZIP Code or family resources. In fact, we talked about this very thing 
on the steps of the Capitol this morning.
  H.R. 2639 is a partisan proposal that would impose a top-down, Big 
Government solution--that is the problem--allowing the Federal 
Government to decide how best to address the issues of racial and 
socioeconomic isolation in America's schools.
  Unfortunately, this debate is not about equality for all children. If 
it were, we would have ensured no State had the ability to trap 
students in low-performing schools.
  Rather than bring a bill to the House floor that would expand the 
availability of charter schools or offer families educational freedom, 
Democrats have decided the teachers unions are more important to them 
than real families who are desperate for access to a better education 
for their children.
  Additionally, this partisan proposal would create another Federal 
program while ignoring existing priorities.
  During committee markup, I offered a substitute amendment to the bill 
that would have expanded the Student Support and Academic Enrichment 
Grants, or SSAEG, in the Every Student Succeeds Act to allow school 
districts to use funds to reduce or eliminate racial or socioeconomic 
isolation in schools.
  The SSAEG were authorized on a bipartisan basis to give school 
districts flexible funding to address local needs and receive $1.21 
billion in fiscal year 2020 appropriated funds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, committee Democrats rejected 
my amendment and chose to push forward a partisan bill that would only 
result in another broken promise from the Federal Government.
  Instead of working in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to implement a 
commonsense solution, Democrats are once again choosing partisan 
political messaging over sound policy.
  It has been a tough year, especially on families who have had to 
adapt to learning in the age of coronavirus. So, let's have a real 
conversation on how we can best serve our students and families by 
working to expand choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this partisan bill before 
it is too late.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what bill my colleagues are 
reading. There is nothing in this bill about teachers unions or 
anything else that they are talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Adams), my colleague, who is also a member of the Education and 
Labor Committee.

  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) 
for yielding and for her incredible leadership on this issue.
  It has been 66 years since the Brown v. Board of Education decision 
when this country took a step toward making amends for its legacy of 
oppression and discrimination against African Americans. But 
policymakers haven't always done the work necessary to make the 
promises of Brown a reality.
  After years of gains, the last three decades have been marked by 
increased racial isolation for Black and Brown students.
  Since 1988, the percentage of schools where less than 10 percent of 
the student body is White has increased from 6 to 18 percent. More than 
half of our Nation's schoolchildren are in districts where over 75 
percent of students look just like them.
  So, I am happy that today, after 30 years of backsliding, the House 
will take a vote to live up to the legacy of Brown.
  The Strength in Diversity Act is as good as its name. It will restore 
the government's commitment to school desegregation and to ensuring 
that every child receives equal opportunity because as Brown told us, 
separate is inherently unequal.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help this Nation live up to 
those ideals by voting in support of the Strength in Diversity Act. I 
thank my colleague from Ohio for bringing this bill forward.

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2639, the Strength in Diversity Act. I thank this bill's sponsor, 
Congresswoman Fudge, and Chairman Scott for shepherding this bill 
through the Education and Labor Committee.
  Nearly 20 years after Brown v. Board of Education, lesser-known 
Supreme Court cases like Milliken v. Bradley determined that 
segregation was allowed, if not considered an explicit policy, of each 
school district.
  This meant schools and communities were not held responsible for 
desegregation. Busing policies meant to integrate city and suburban 
schools were abandoned and the inequality created by racist redlining 
and exclusionary housing policies continued, keeping Black Americans 
out of the suburbs and trapped in underfunded schools to this day. 
Today, the school system at the center of Milliken v. Bradley, 
Detroit's, is more segregated than it was in 1974.
  This bill will provide grants to improve racial and socioeconomic 
diversity in public schools, an essential step toward fulfilling the 
promise of Brown v. Board, ending the segregation that continues to 
plague school districts across this country, including in my own 
district, Michigan's Ninth.
  Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court's first Black Justice, warned in 
his dissent in Milliken v. Bradley, ``unless our children begin to 
learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to 
live together and understand each other.''
  As we reckon with our Nation's past and work to dismantle racist 
institutions that have stood for far too long, let us not forget our 
children.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats' approach in H.R. 2639 is wrong for our 
Nation's schools and students if we hope to achieve greater equality 
for children nationwide. Not only does this bill push another Democrat-
led, top-down, Big Government mandate, but it has

[[Page H4405]]

also been crafted to mirror a failed Obama administration program.
  At the Rules Committee yesterday, and also referenced today, Chairman 
Scott touted the fact that 30 school districts applied under the 
Opening Doors, Expanding Opportunities program created during the Obama 
administration. For the sake of debate, let's say that half of those 
school districts had been awarded funding. That is only 15 school 
districts nationwide that would have received Federal funding under 
President Obama's program that this bill is modeled after.
  In contrast to this failed approach, Representative Allen will offer 
an amendment that would allow school districts to use funds from an 
existing Federal grant program to accomplish the same goals as the 
Democrats' bill.
  About 12,000 school districts receive ESEA block grant funding every 
year. By supporting Representative Allen's amendment, we can ensure 
that nearly every school district in the country has the flexibility to 
tackle this problem using taxpayer funds at the Federal level. This is 
how legislating for solutions, rather than legislating for headlines, 
can work.
  A high-quality education is an indispensable tool, and America's 
children deserve nothing less than an education that empowers them to 
reach their greatest potential. This bill doesn't move us in that 
direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Shalala).
  Ms. SHALALA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2639 and 
congratulate my fellow Clevelander, Representative Fudge, and Chairman 
Scott for their leadership, and all the members of the committee on 
Education and Labor who have worked tirelessly to get us here today.
  We know that modern school segregation is largely related to housing 
and income segregation, with the worst cases concentrated in urban and 
suburban areas.
  Research shows that schools with a large proportion of middle-class 
White students tend to have access to more resources. They benefit from 
challenging, college-level courses, teachers and guidance counselors 
who can help plan for college, and from wide-ranging extracurricular 
activities in sports, the arts, and music, all of which greatly 
contribute to a student's academic achievement.
  The impact, however, goes well beyond academic opportunities. 
Children who aren't regularly exposed to people from other backgrounds 
are less likely to see racial and economic disparities as a problem.
  Diversity, almost everyone agrees, is good; inclusion is good; 
exposure to different cultures and ideas is good.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent Miami, a city that values 
diversity and multiculturalism as the backbone of our society.
  Miami is the second largest minority-majority school district in the 
Nation, where more than 92 percent of the students are Black or 
Hispanic, students whose families often escaped political persecution 
and extreme poverty. Yet the typical Black or Hispanic student attends 
an underresourced school where more than 60 percent of other students 
come from low-income families.
  Similarly, schools with large Black enrollment don't excel in State 
ratings, and Black students are woefully underrepresented in the 
district's stellar magnet program.
  The grants in H.R. 2639 would fund efforts to explore different 
approaches to integration, recruit or train staff to better serve 
minority students, and engage local communities on specialized academic 
programs.
  If we as policymakers say we have an interest in increasing the 
academic success rate for Black and Hispanic youth, then we support 
H.R. 2639.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.

  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2639, the 
Strength in Diversity Act.
  I thank Congresswoman Marcia Fudge and Chairman  Bobby Scott for 
their leadership and for affording me the opportunity to speak today, 
and I am proud to support this important step toward addressing the 
legacy of segregation in America's schools.
  ``Segregation distorts the soul,'' Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in 
1936 from a Birmingham jail. Yet 66 years after the Supreme Court 
unanimously held in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation 
of children in public schools is unconstitutional, segregation remains 
a reality for many of America's children. It is a persistent stain on 
the soul of our country.
  The Strength in Diversity Act incentivizes inclusive educational 
environments and promotes racial and socioeconomic diversity in schools 
as instrumental to the education and development of every single child. 
This act encourages school districts to study the effects of 
segregation, evaluate their current policies, and implement evidence-
based solutions to deepen diversity in their schools through inclusive 
policies.
  We all wish that racism was a thing of the past. It is not. We must 
actively confront our Nation's sins, past and present. We must confront 
the fear and the hatred embedded in our institutions, embracing, once 
and for all, the strength of our diversity.
  America can do better for our children, and we must. And it is 
important to remember, discrimination robs the victim of the ability to 
become all that they can, of their full potential. But it also robs the 
entire community of what that person could contribute and do, free of 
the pernicious discrimination that is at the heart of this legislation.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 2639.
  I thank Congresswoman Fudge and Chairman Scott for their 
extraordinary leadership.
  I am really proud that this bill is on the floor today, and I hope my 
Republican colleagues will embrace their responsibility to help end 
racism in this country and in our schools and be sure that every child 
in America has the same opportunity to realize their full potential.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), my good friend.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Congresswoman 
Marcia Fudge, for bringing this bill to this Chamber.
  I stand here as the chair of the Subcommittee on Diversity and 
Inclusion. I have probably spent more hours and time looking into the 
difference diversity makes, whether it is a small business, whether it 
is an educational system, whether it is a child.
  I remind us to history. In 1960, a little Black girl by the name of 
Ruby Bridges was denied the right to enter a school--against the 
Supreme Court of this land--by a Governor.
  I stand here on this floor and hear indictments about President 
Obama. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, anything that his educational Secretaries did was better 
than what we have now with Secretary Betsy DeVos.
  Let me just say that it is so important when we think about diversity 
and inclusion and we think about those little children, Black children, 
marginalized White children.
  When I look at the votes for what my colleagues on the other side 
have said about us--and they don't vote for budgets; they don't vote 
for funding that can save lives--their arguments are weak. Their 
arguments are unfounded.
  This bill is about equal opportunity. This bill is about removing 
systemic racism.
  We already know that racism is a national crisis. So when I think of 
housing, when I think about feeding a child, what kind of Member of 
Congress would stand here against Congresswoman Fudge, Congressman  
Bobby Scott, who is the chair of this committee and has done more in 
his lifetime on education than anyone who has been to this microphone 
on the other side?
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we all want to create the 
maximum amount of opportunity for our children, regardless of their 
background. That is why it is unfortunate

[[Page H4406]]

that this legislation fails to fix the most tragic inequity in our 
education system: the absence of choice.
  The right to a high-quality education is fundamental to the promise 
of America, and no child should be denied that right because of income 
or background. Thankfully, President Trump and Republicans in Congress 
are working to provide that opportunity to all families.
  I am proud to have introduced the CHOICE Act, which creates 
opportunity grants that families can use for private school tuition, 
microschools, learning pods, and homeschooling costs.
  My bill ensures that all families--not just those with the means or 
those lucky enough to live in a wealthy school district--have access to 
the best possible education for their child. Giving families this 
choice is the only way to furnish equal access to the American Dream. 
Republicans are ready to take this step. If Democrats join us, we can 
make it a reality.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 6\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 17\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Mfume).
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, this bill, this movement, 
and this purpose that we are debating today really found its genesis 
long ago with a Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education 
of Topeka, Kansas, when, on May 17, 1954, nine men robed in black 
assembled not far from here to announce on the steps their unanimous 
decision to end segregation in public education. On that day, among the 
Nation's Black citizens, there was, indeed, a celebration, and it was a 
celebration, indeed, by many of its Whites.
  Many of us thought that this decision was the launching of the 
threshold of a new era in life when education all across this Nation 
would be treated the way it should be for all of its citizens. Many 
people felt in the bowels of their being and in their very existence 
that this Nation again at long last would find a way to launch itself 
into a new era.
  So this is the manifestation of that new era. This legislation 
extends the guarantees, the protections, and the expectations of that 
decision; and it is the expectations that we are talking about today: 
to be able to provide the kind of education and the kind of treatment 
of education that would extend to all people, to increase diversity, 
and to do away with those things that have held us back for so many, 
many years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the sponsor of this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to understand her intent and the expectations that it brings 
with it so that we might do the right thing and pass it. I urge an 
``aye'' vote, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats agree that discrimination and 
State-sanctioned segregation are repugnant, illegal, and blatantly 
immoral. Action must be taken to achieve greater equality for our 
Nation's students and in our schools.
  We continue to strive toward a future where all students, regardless 
of race or color, have the chance to succeed. Education and hard work 
are the paths out of poverty for millions, and education provides 
students with the tools and skills they need to build a successful 
life.
  It is disappointing that a bipartisan path forward to address these 
issues was possible but not attained because of political posturing 
from Democrats. Apparently, political wins are more important than 
building upon bipartisan, bicameral legislative solutions that will 
help our Nation's children prosper.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2639 so that we can have 
the opportunity to work on a bipartisan solution, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we started this out with the ranking member saying we 
just wanted headlines. I absolutely want headlines to bring to the 
attention of this country the poverty in our schools. I want headlines 
about the crumbling schools my children go to school in. I do want 
headlines about the disinvestment in public education that my 
colleagues continue to do.
  I want the headlines. So I admit it.
  We also talked this afternoon about how equality cannot mean 
uniformity, but it can also not mean doing nothing but giving lip 
service to a problem, which is what my colleagues do. They talk and do 
nothing. Not one solution comes from the other side of the aisle--not 
one. I didn't hear one today.
  Then we talk about this amendment that is coming to use another fund 
to help us do some of these things. They don't tell you, Mr. Speaker, 
that that fund is a fund that is used for mental health for children. 
So they want us to choose between integrating schools and the mental 
health of our children.
  I think if that is the best they have got then I am so very, very 
disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because at some point we have to reckon with 
what is going on in this country today and deal with the racial 
segregation of my children--and they are all my children.
  Mr. Speaker, if we fail to begin to address this issue--and this is 
only a beginning--then we can no longer say we agree that every child 
should have access to a quality education, that every child should go 
to a school that has the kind of equipment that they should have, that 
every child has internet and broadband access, and that every child has 
an opportunity to succeed. If we don't do this, we don't mean it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2639, the Strength in Diversity Act. This landmark legislation would 
allow our students to learn in an environment that is representative of 
America, rather than being in a bubble with other students who look 
like them or share the same backgrounds and experiences.
  66 years ago, the Supreme Court opened the door to school integration 
with their ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education. Soon after, schools 
in my home state of Texas and other states across the south started the 
process of integrating Black and White students so that one day there 
would be a level playing field for students in the classroom.
  However, since that period, we have slowly seen a creeping effect 
where students have been divided into bubbles based strictly on the 
neighborhoods where they live. Opposition to bussing, white flight to 
the suburbs, and lingering systematic racism have all contributed to 
the alarming situation we find ourselves in today as a country.
  A GAO report published in 2016 found that 61 percent of all high-
poverty schools served majority Black and Hispanic students. This 
separation by racial and socioeconomic lines prevents students in our 
poorest neighborhoods from getting the same educational outcomes as 
those in wealthier ones. Studies have shown that more diverse schools 
lead to better grades and test results, higher rates of college 
attendance, and lower dropout rates for students.
  This bill helps to stem the tide and reverse the wrongs of the past 
few decades by authorizing federal funding to provide grants to school 
districts across the country to promote racial and socioeconomic 
diversity. Specifically, this additional funding could be used by 
school districts to study the impact of segregation in their schools, 
create innovative programs like magnet schools to attract students from 
outside the local community, and to train, hire, and retain high 
quality teachers to support these diversified schools.
  Mr. Speaker, North Texas is blessed to have such a diversified 
community; however, I have seen how some neighborhoods in my district 
have had better educational outcomes for students than others. It's 
time that we level the playing field and give every student an 
opportunity at success. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2639, the 
``Strength in Diversity Act.'' H.R. 2639, directs the Department of 
Education (ED) to award grants to specified educational agencies, that 
may include local educational agencies, to develop or implement plans 
to improve diversity and reduce or eliminate racial or socioeconomic 
isolation in publicly funded early childhood education programs, public 
elementary schools, or public secondary schools. Specifically, ED may 
award planning and implementation grants to specified educational 
agencies.
  A recipient of a planning grant must use the grant to support 
students through certain activities, such as developing options to 
improve

[[Page H4407]]

diversity in schools that might include weighted lotteries or school 
boundary redesign. In addition, a recipient of an implementation grant 
must implement a high-quality plan to support students. This plan must, 
among other things, include a comprehensive set of strategies that are 
designed to improve academic outcomes for all students, particularly 
students of color and low-income students. A grant recipient may also 
use the grant for certain activities such as recruiting additional 
teachers and staff, investing in specialized academic programs, and 
developing innovative and equitable school assignment plans.
  This legislation will also allow ED to carry out national activities 
under the grant program, such as developing best practices for grant 
recipients and other experts in school diversity. The bill also 
requires ED to establish performance measures for the program and its 
related activities.
  H.R. 2639 is needed because for far too often, for reasons of legacy 
or policy, students of color or in low-income communities are shut out 
of the opportunity to get a good education. Just as intolerance and 
discrimination are learned behaviors, so are tolerance and inclusion 
learned behaviors. As years of research have shown us, school 
integration benefits students and communities. Research shows that 
racial and socioeconomic diversity in the classroom can provide 
students with a range of cognitive and social benefits. And school 
policies around the country are beginning to catch up.
  Today, over 4 million students in America are enrolled in school 
districts or charter schools with socioeconomic integration policies--a 
number that has more than doubled since 2007. Students in integrated 
schools have higher average test scores. On the 2011 National 
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) given to fourth graders in 
math, for example, low-income students attending more affluent schools 
scored roughly two years of learning ahead of low-income students in 
high-poverty schools.
  Students in integrated schools are more likely to enroll in college, 
when comparing students with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, those 
students at more affluent schools are 68 percent more likely to enroll 
at a four-year college than their peers at high-poverty schools. 
Students in integrated schools are less likely to dropout, with dropout 
rates that are significantly higher for students in segregated, high-
poverty schools than for students in integrated schools. Education 
policy is contributing to systemic racism that exists in how education 
is provided in the United States, which resists efforts to remove 
barriers that would allow all children to succeed.
  It has been well documented that integrated schools help to reduce 
racial achievement gaps. In fact, the racial achievement gap in K 
through 12 education closed more rapidly during the peak years of 
school desegregation in the 1970s and 1980s than it has overall in the 
decades that followed--when many desegregation policies were dismantled 
through federal court decisions allowing discriminatory segregated 
education to continue. Benefits are not limited to minority students, 
but also extend to white students.
  Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem solving, 
and creativity. We know that diverse classrooms, in which students 
learn cooperatively alongside those whose perspectives and backgrounds 
are different from their own, are beneficial to all students--including 
middle-class white students--because these environments promote 
creativity, motivation, deeper learning, critical thinking, and 
problem-solving skills.
  This bill will help in this effort by providing grants to school 
districts that want to increase diversity in schools. As many of you 
know the school-age population in the United States is becoming more 
racially and ethnically diverse. A National Center for Education 
Statistics (NCES) report released in February 2019, on ``Status and 
Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018,'' examined 
how education experiences and outcomes vary among racial/ethnic groups. 
The report contains 36 indicators that cover preprimary to 
postsecondary education, as well as family background characteristics 
and labor force outcomes.

  Prior research shows that living in poverty during early childhood is 
associated with lower-than-average academic performance that begins in 
kindergarten and extends through high school, leading to lower-than-
average rates of school completion. In 2016, the percentages of 
children living in poverty were highest for Black and American Indian/ 
Alaska Native children and lowest for White and Asian children.
  One of the casualties of COVID-19 are the millions of children and 
young people who have lost out on opportunities to learn and grow in 
diverse school settings during the spring and fall of this year. 
Between 2000 and 2017, the percentage of 5- to 17-year-olds who were 
White decreased from 62 to 51 percent, while the percentage who were 
Hispanic increased from 16 to 25 percent. The challenge of diversity in 
education is not just limited to racial diversity in schools. Questions 
of socioeconomic diversity combined with those of racial diversity are 
important to consider in determining how far we have come in school 
equality. This bill builds on the work already underway by schools and 
school districts who are pursuing diversity to have additional 
resources.
  In 2019, approximately 56.6 million students attended elementary and 
secondary school in the United States: 50.8 million students were in 
public schools; 5.8 million students were in private schools. Among the 
50.8 million students enrolled in elementary and secondary public 
schools: 1.4 million were in prekindergarten; 3.7 million were in 
kindergarten; 35.5 million attended elementary through middle school 
(K-8th grade); 15.3 million attended high school (9-12th grade). 
Through 2028, enrollment is projected to increase to 51.4 million.
  In 2018, 3.3 million students graduated from high school, marking 
nearly a 1 percent increase from 2017: 3.7 million were expected to 
graduate in 2020; 3.3 million from public high schools; 0.4 million 
from private schools. The average per-student expenditure in public 
schools is $13,440.
  In 2019, there are approximately 16,800 school districts in the 
United States. Thirteen percent of all public school students were 
served by the Individuals with Disabilities Act for the 2015-2016 
school year.
  Between 2000 and 2016, total public school enrollment increased for 
32 states. The following saw increases of 15 percent or more: Florida, 
Delaware, North Carolina, Idaho, Georgia, Colorado, Arizona, Texas, 
Utah, and Nevada. The following states saw decreases of 10 percent or 
more: Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. In 2018, 7 million 
or 13.7 percent of public school students received special education 
services. In 2017, 9.6 percent of public school students were learning 
English as a second language.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2639, Strength in 
Diversity Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Each further amendment printed in part B of House Report 116-502 not 
earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 4 
of House Resolution 1107, shall be considered only in the order printed 
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before 
the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on 
Education and Labor or his designee to offer amendments en bloc 
consisting of further amendments printed in part B of House Report 116-
502, not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education 
and Labor or their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Torres of California

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
1 printed in part B of House Report 116-502.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 2, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 3, line 7, strike the period at the end and insert ``; 
     and''.
       Page 3, after line 7, insert the following:
       (C) the likelihood that the grant will lead to a meaningful 
     reduction in racial and economic isolation for children in 
     covered schools.
       Page 3, after line 19, insert the following:
       (C) Third, to an eligible entity that demonstrates 
     meaningful coordination with local housing agencies to 
     increase access to schools that have a disproportionately low 
     number of low-income students.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

[[Page H4408]]

  

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, in 1954, Brown v. Board of 
Education unequivocally asserted that segregated schools are inherently 
unequal. When Thurgood Marshall argued this landmark case before the 
Supreme Court, he thought it would take just 5 years to integrate 
schools nationwide. Sadly, 60 years later, schools are more segregated 
now than any time since the early 1970s, and school segregation is 
occurring at alarming rates nationwide.
  In order to address increased school segregation, we must address one 
of the root causes of the problem: residential segregation. Housing 
segregation leads to school segregation. That is why I am taking an 
initial step to address the link between housing and school segregation 
by offering an amendment to the Strength in Diversity Act to prioritize 
grant recipients that coordinate with local housing agencies to 
integrate schools.
  My amendment will make sure that all grants have a meaningful 
reduction in racial and economic isolation for children in schools. 
Segregation in schools is propagated by housing segregation, and my 
amendment will work to address this underlying issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment and have great 
affection for the introducer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this 
amendment does nothing to correct the flaws of the underlying bill, but 
it doesn't make the bill any worse either. The amendment includes 
language that would ensure applicants are judged on their ability to 
meet the fundamental purposes of the bill, which should be done with 
all grant applications and by anyone receiving taxpayer funding, and 
that makes sense.
  However, the amendment doesn't change the fundamentally flawed 
approach this bill takes to tackle a problem we all agree that school 
districts should address. But nothing in the amendment itself is 
objectionable--in fact, it may be helpful--so I will support the 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, no child should receive a 
lesser education because of the color of their skin or the neighborhood 
where they live, and I am proud that my amendment will address school 
segregation holistically by supporting coordination between schools and 
housing agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
amendment and pass this legislation to fight discrimination and secure 
the future for all American children, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Allen

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
2 printed in part B of House Report 116-502.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 1 and all that follows through the end of 
     the bill and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        This Act may be cited as the ``Strength in Diversity Act 
     of 2020''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

        The purpose of this Act is to support the development, 
     implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive strategies to 
     address the effects of racial isolation or concentrated 
     poverty by increasing diversity, including racial diversity 
     and socioeconomic diversity, in covered schools.

     SEC. 3. ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY AND REDUCE OR 
                   ELIMINATE RACIAL OR SOCIOECONOMIC ISOLATION.

       (a) Local Uses of Funds.--A local educational agency, or 
     consortium of such agencies, that receives an allocation 
     under section 4105(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7115(a)) for a fiscal year 
     may use such funds to develop or implement comprehensive 
     strategies to improve diversity and reduce or eliminate 
     racial or socioeconomic isolation in covered schools.
       (b) Local Educational Agency Applications.--A local 
     educational agency, or consortium of such agencies, that 
     intends to use an allocation under section 4105(a) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7115(a)) for the purposes described in subsection (a) shall 
     include in the application such local educational agency or 
     consortium submits under section 4106 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     7116) a description of--
       (1) the comprehensive strategies to be carried out under 
     subsection (a);
       (2) the robust parent, student, teacher, school leader, and 
     community engagement that has been conducted, or will be 
     conducted, in the planning and implementation of such 
     comprehensive strategies, such as through--
       (A) consultation with appropriate officials of Indian 
     Tribes or Tribal organizations approved by the Tribes located 
     in the area served by such agency or consortium;
       (B) consultation with other community entities, which may 
     include local housing or transportation authorities;
       (C) public hearings or other open forums to inform the 
     development of such comprehensive strategies; and
       (D) outreach to parents and students, in a language that 
     parents and students can understand, and consultation with 
     students and families within such agency or consortium that 
     is designed to ensure participation in the planning and 
     development of such comprehensive strategies; and
       (3) how such projects or activities will comply with 
     Federal law.
       (c) Special Rules.--
       (1) Assurances.--A local educational agency, or consortium 
     of such agencies, that intends to use an allocation under 
     section 4105(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7115(a)) for the purposes described in 
     subsection (a) shall be required to provide only one of the 
     assurances described in subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) of 
     section 4106(e)(2) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7116(e)(2)).
       (2) Transportation.--Notwithstanding section 426 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1228), activities 
     carried out to meet the purposes of subsection (a) may 
     include transportation if such transportation--
       (A) is sustainable after the allocation received under 
     section 4105(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7115(a)) expires; and
       (B) does not represent a significant portion of such 
     allocation.
       (d) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Covered school.--The term ``covered school'' means--
       (A) a publicly-funded early childhood education program;
       (B) a public elementary school; or
       (C) a public secondary school.
       (2) ESEA terms.--The terms ``elementary school'', ``local 
     educational agency'', ``school leader'', and ``secondary 
     school'' have the meanings given those terms in section 8101 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 7801).
       (3) Publicly-funded early childhood education program.--The 
     term ``publicly-funded early childhood education program'' 
     means an early childhood education program (as defined in 
     section 103(8) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1003(8)) that receives State or Federal funds.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have got to be frank for a minute. I find 
it a shame that this amendment is even necessary.
  When we replaced the No Child Left Behind Act with the Every Student 
Succeeds Act, we created the Student Support and Academic Enrichment 
Grants program on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. We did this to provide 
school districts the flexibility they need to use Federal funds as they 
see fit to meet local needs.
  It is disappointing that my Democratic colleagues didn't invite 
Republicans to the table to negotiate in good faith to build on that 
consensus. Instead, Democrats once again ignored commonsense approaches 
and impose a top-down, Big Government solution that will have the 
Federal Government decide how best to address the issues of racial and 
socioeconomic isolation in American schools.

                              {time}  1415

  You know, we have heard story after story of the history of our 
schools and how we got to this point. The question is, will we continue 
with this top-down government approach or allow the

[[Page H4409]]

schools the flexibility to fix this problem.
  My amendment, on the other hand, offers a commonsense solution that 
could easily garner an overwhelming majority of votes in this body if 
every Member chose to focus on the importance of actually addressing 
racial and socioeconomic isolation in schools and not on scoring 
political points.
  This amendment would explicitly allow school districts to use funds 
they receive from the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 
program under the Every Student Succeeds Act to develop or implement 
comprehensive strategies to improve diversity and reduce or eliminate 
racial or socioeconomic isolation in public early childhood programs 
and public schools.
  This is a real solution. The SSAEG block grant is currently receiving 
just over $1 billion. The proposal before us today would have to fight 
for funding with the multitude of other Federal programs that currently 
exist.
  This amendment also ensures that school districts are engaging with 
their communities to design programs that comply with Federal law and 
have the support of parents and other constituents. It also alters 
requirements to distribute funds across multiple spending categories so 
that districts will have sufficient funding to design effective 
integration programs.
  The amendment uses the same language as the Magnet Schools Assistance 
Program under the Every School Succeeds Act to ensure that school 
districts choosing to use funds for improving diversity can fund 
transportation activities, if they see fit.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chairman.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  While I appreciate that the gentleman from Georgia acknowledges the 
importance of providing resources to support school diversity, 
encouraging the use of IV-A funds for this purpose is not a reasonable 
solution.
  Schools already rely on a very limited amount of IV-A funding for a 
wide range of activities and programs, including mental health 
resources, educational technology, STEM education, extracurricular 
activities, and other critical needs.
  This amendment would effectively force schools to choose between 
addressing school segregation and providing mental health services. 
Developing, implementing, and expanding school diversity initiatives is 
costly and should not come at the expense of important programs already 
being supported by title IV. We will not improve services for students, 
parents, and communities by cutting the same size pie into even smaller 
slices.
  The purpose of the Strength in Diversity Act is to provide direct and 
additional investments in education that helps communities integrate 
their schools without undermining existing school programs and 
services.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  I applaud the gentleman from Georgia for offering such an 
alternative. As has been said, it builds on bipartisan, bicameral 
agreements to ensure nearly every school district in the country has 
Federal funds to pursue the goals of the underlying bill rather than 
affording this opportunity to a select few school districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we even have to offer this amendment. 
We have got a problem, but I can tell you, my community solved this 
problem, which is the reason I ran for Congress.
  The faith-based community created a school for kids who are branded 
as losers in the public education system, and these moms don't have but 
one choice, and that is to send these children to this school. And it 
is amazing how kids who are branded as losers have become the most 
outstanding students in Richmond County.
  We keep talking about fixing these things and, like I said earlier, 
we continue to offer solutions, but we continue with the same problem. 
There is a way to fix this. This is a start. Rather than create a new 
program we know will be underfunded that will benefit, at best, a small 
handful of school districts, my amendment would ensure that nearly 
every school district in this country would have Federal funds 
available to improve diversity and reduce or eliminate racial or 
socioeconomic isolation in schools.
  I urge the majority to put the students and families and educators my 
amendment would benefit before their political interest and take 
``yes'' for an answer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that, once again, my 
colleagues have put forth an amendment that does nothing to stop or to 
help with integrating schools. Absolutely nothing. They have had time 
after time after time to address this issue, even as recently as 2017 
when Betsy DeVos decided to eliminate the program, as well as to start 
to roll back the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Education.
  So it is not like this just came up. I think part of the problem is 
when you have never experienced this kind of racism, it is hard to deal 
with it, but I am giving you an opportunity now to deal with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appear to have it.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.


            Amendments En Bloc Offered by Ms. Fudge of Ohio

  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1107, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 
11, and 12, printed in part B of House Report 116-502, offered by Ms. 
Fudge of Ohio:


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

       Page 10, line 11, insert ``school counselors,'' after 
     ``administrators,''.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

       Page 12, line 17, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 12, line 18, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 12, after line 18, insert the following:
       (4) a description of how the eligible entity will continue 
     to make improvements toward increasing diversity and 
     decreasing racial or socioeconomic isolation in covered 
     schools and sustaining inclusion.


           Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cooper of Tennessee

       Page 3, line 11, strike ``(A) First'' and insert ``(B) 
     Second''.
       Page 3, after line 10, insert the following:
       (A) First, to an eligible entity that submitted an 
     application for a grant under the Opening Doors, Expanding 
     Opportunities program described in the notice published by 
     the Department of Education in the Federal Register on 
     December 14, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 90343 et seq.).
       Page 3, line 15, strike ``(B) Second'' and insert ``(C) 
     Third''.


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Escobar of Texas

       Page 4, line 19, after ``diversity'' insert ``for 
     students''.
       Page 7, line 9, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 7, line 20, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 7, after line 20, insert the following:
       (11) in the case of an application by a consortium of local 
     educational agencies, a specification of which agency is the 
     lead applicant, and how the grant funds will be divided among 
     the school districts served by such consortium.

[[Page H4410]]

  



             Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

       Page 9, after line 7, insert the following:
       (8) If applicable, developing an implementation plan to 
     replace entrance exams or other competitive application 
     procedures with methods of student assignment to promote 
     racial and socioeconomic diversity.


        Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Moulton of Massachusetts

       Page 12, line 3, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
       Page 12, after line 2, insert the following:
       (E) improving access to mental health and social-emotional 
     learning;
       Page 12, line 4, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(G)''.


       Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Mucarsel-Powell of Florida

       Page 8, line 6, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 8, line 10, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 8, after line 10, insert the following:
       (C) teacher diversity in covered schools, and plans for 
     expanding teacher diversity.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Tlaib of Michigan

       Page 12, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 12, line 18, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 12, after line 18, insert the following:
       (4) information on the progress of regional programs on 
     reducing racial and socioeconomic isolation in covered 
     schools, if applicable.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize not 
just the hard work of my colleague from Ohio, Representative Marcia 
Fudge, but really a lifelong commitment to improving the quality of 
education for all of our children across this country, regardless of 
your background and experience, regardless of your ZIP Code, and that 
is what the Strength in Diversity Act does.
  I thank Representative Fudge for her leadership and for giving me an 
opportunity to present a portion of this en bloc amendment, the two 
amendments that I sponsored and that are part of the en bloc.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, in support of the Strength in 
Diversity Act and my amendments to this legislation, which will ensure 
that our reforms continue to have an impact well into the future. We 
still have work to do to address persistent racial and socioeconomic 
disparities that exist in our schools.
  According to the 2016 GAO report, 61 percent of all high-poverty 
schools were serving majority Black and Hispanic student populations. 
The COVID-19 pandemic has further exasperated the racial and 
socioeconomic isolation throughout our country and our school systems.
  Without proper support, the learning loss will be greatest among low-
income Black and Hispanic students during the period of remote 
learning. The Strength in Diversity Act will help create a level 
playing field by authorizing grants to localities that have significant 
achievement gaps and segregation in their schools.
  These grants will allow school districts to recruit, hire, and train 
additional teachers, administrators, and other instructional and 
support staff, knowing that our educators are essential to creating the 
world-class education that our children deserve.
  My first amendment would allow education systems to use grant funds 
to also recruit, hire, and train school counselors. School counselors 
serve a vital role in maximizing students' success, working with 
students individually and collectively to create an exclusive school 
climate.
  Numerous studies have shown the value of school counseling for 
students in academic and social-emotional development, as well as 
college and career readiness. Having the additional support of a school 
counselor helps develop well-rounded and prepared students.
  But hiring our best talent cannot be the end of our efforts. We need 
accountability now and into the future.
  The underlying bill requires grantees to submit an annual report to 
the Department of Education on their efforts to increase diversity and 
meet certain performance measures.
  My second amendment requires the annual report to include a 
description of how grantees will continue this important work following 
the grant period to ensure schools are thinking ahead to the future and 
creating sustainable strategies and programs to continue fostering 
diversity, inclusion, and achievement.
  We cannot task our schools to only address diversity and inclusion 
for the duration of a grant. Longstanding issues require long-term, 
community-driven solutions. School systems must readjust their 
frameworks so that increasing diversity and inclusion is always part of 
the conversation and curriculum.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the en 
bloc amendment and the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the majority of the 
amendments are unobjectionable, though none of them address the 
underlying problems with the bill.
  However, I highlight two problematic amendments:
  The amendment offered by Representative Cooper would give school 
districts priority in this program if those districts had previously 
submitted an application under an Obama-era predecessor to the program 
in the underlying bill. This amendment is flawed for two reasons:
  An application filed 4 years ago, may or may not still be adequate. 
Automatically giving those districts priority would disadvantage school 
districts who might have new and better ideas to propose.
  Submitting an application 4 years ago is not the same as being funded 
4 years ago. Applicants that never demonstrated their merit then should 
start on equal footing with new applicants now.
  Another amendment concealed within the en bloc is offered by 
Representative Green of Texas, which forces grantees' hands on a 
dilemma many are still considering for themselves. The amendment 
requires that participating school districts that utilize entrance 
exams and competitive application procedures must replace these 
processes with other methods.
  Republicans recognize that many school districts, as well as colleges 
and universities, are wrestling with the role entrance exams and other 
competitive application procedures have played in the admissions 
decisions and should play in the future. Democrats would, apparently, 
like to short-circuit that debate and make those determinations for 
school districts themselves.
  Ironically, entrance exams began as an earnest effort to combat 
discrimination and prejudice by creating objective criteria that 
weren't as easily manipulated by admissions personnel who were biased 
against certain populations. Objective enrollment criteria can decrease 
the potential for schools--especially highly competitive schools--to be 
able to justify discrimination against students based on their 
backgrounds or racial identities.
  Today, there are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the 
debate for keeping or eliminating this practice. But this amendment 
would proclaim that the House of Representatives has decided against 
the use of entrance exams, a conversation this body has never had.
  These two amendments--one undermining the quality of the application 
process, and the other unfairly deciding an outcome of an ongoing 
debate--cause me great concern and I oppose them.
  Ultimately, though, on balance, this en bloc consideration is worthy 
of support, even if it doesn't ultimately redeem the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her terrific 
leadership in the Strength in Diversity Act.
  I am afraid the gentlewoman from North Carolina completely 
misunderstood my amendment. My amendment would allow the 30 school 
districts that were prevented from applying for the Opening Doors, 
Expanding Opportunities grant--it would just give them the

[[Page H4411]]

first shot at reapplying. It does not guarantee acceptance for these 30 
school districts but, rather, gives them a first shot at correcting the 
racial injustices in their districts.
  It is very sad that Secretary DeVos' first action in office was to 
cut this critical program, so this offers an opportunity to right that 
wrong.
  I want to commend, again, the gentlewoman from Ohio for her terrific 
leadership on this bill. I would like to thank Chairman Scott,  Bobby 
Scott, the head of the whole committee. I would also like to thank 
Barbara Lee for her critical support of this amendment.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Mucarsel-Powell).
  Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to the Strength in Diversity Act, and I am very grateful to 
Representative Fudge for allowing me to introduce this amendment, a 
critical piece of legislation to begin reversing decades of 
resegregation in our schools.
  In Florida, nearly 63 percent of students are from minority 
communities, compared to only 30 percent of teachers. This disparity is 
exacerbating racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps.
  A teacher in my district, Sharon Rivers, emphasized the importance of 
diversity in the classroom, saying: ``Culture diversity in the 
classroom is essential in helping us recognize, respect, and welcome 
the many differences across the district. It is imperative that we 
allow our understanding of our differences to build a bridge of respect 
for one another.''
  I couldn't agree more, and my amendment would build upon that effort 
by increasing the diversity of our teaching workforce. Teachers of 
color can provide more culturally relevant education and better 
understand the situations their students of color are facing, helping 
develop stronger student-teacher relationships.
  Our teachers should reflect our communities and our schools. Recent 
studies show that increased teacher diversity results in better 
achievement scores, lower levels of disciplinary action, and reduced 
dropout rates. In fact, a Florida study showed that Black students had 
higher reading and math scores when taught by Black teachers.
  Unfortunately, in most States, as the proportion of students of color 
grows, the number of minority teachers is not keeping pace. We must do 
more to ensure that all students, regardless of their race or 
background, are set up for success.
  I urge everyone to vote to pass my amendment.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to the 
Strength in Diversity Act, which requires grantees to report on their 
progress in reducing racial and socioeconomic segregation in our 
schools.
  In the year 2020, our schools are still separate and unequal. My home 
district has some of the most racially segregated schools in the 
country, and this is no coincidence. This was by design.
  Forty-five years ago, rich White suburbs around my district decided 
they didn't want to bus their children to desegregate schools, and the 
highest court in our land agreed with them. The Supreme Court case of 
Milliken v. Bradley made racial integration of schools nearly 
impossible, and we are still seeing the negative impact of that 
decision today.
  We see it in our Detroit Public Schools, where students had to sue 
the State of Michigan for the right to literacy. We see it in the lead 
that poisons our school drinking fountains throughout my district. We 
see it in having just $7,000 per pupil while the neighboring the Grosse 
Pointe community, a largely White, affluent suburb, has nearly $14,000 
per pupil.
  I want to thank Representative Fudge for her tireless efforts in 
leading this legislation, which is a critically important step toward 
racial desegregation of our schools.
  I also want to thank Chairman Scott and his incredible staff for 
working with me on this amendment and for their leadership.
  I urge strong support for this amendment and for this bill.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Dean

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
6 printed in part B of House Report 116-502.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 10, insert ``AND STATE'' after ``national''.
       Page 1, line 11, strike ``The Secretary'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) National Activities.--The Secretary
       Page 2, after line 3, insert the following:
       (b) State Activities.--The Secretary may reserve not more 
     than 10 percent of the amounts made available under section 
     10 for a fiscal year for planning grants and implementation 
     grants made to State educational agencies under section 4.
       Page 7, line 9, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 7, line 20, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 7, after line 20, insert the following:
       (11) in the case of an application by a State education 
     agency, a demonstration that the agency has procedures in 
     place--
       (A) to assess and prevent the redrawing of school district 
     lines in a manner that increases racial or socioeconomic 
     isolation;
       (B) to assess the segregation impacts of new school 
     construction proposals and to prioritize school construction 
     funding that will foreseeably increase racial and economic 
     integration; and
       (C) to include progress toward reduction of racial and 
     economic isolation as a factor in its State plan under 
     section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311).
       Page 13, line 14, insert ``a State educational agency,'' 
     after ``means''.
       Page 13, beginning on line 23, strike ``and `Secretary' '' 
     and insert `` `Secretary', and `State educational agency' ''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment No. 6 to 
H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act. This amendment would allow 
State education agencies to apply for the grants provided under this 
bill and would require these agencies to have procedures in place to 
assess and to prevent the redrawing of school district lines in a 
manner that increases racial or socioeconomic isolation.
  Specifically, agencies applying for grants will have to demonstrate 
procedures to, number one, assess and prevent redrawing of school 
district lines that increase isolation; number two, assess segregation 
impacts of new school construction proposals and prioritize 
construction funding that will increase integration; and, number three, 
identify progress toward reduction of racial and economic isolation in 
their State plans.
  Mr. Speaker, diversity is our strength, and ensuring equity in our 
education systems will benefit all students and school districts across 
this Nation.
  I am a parent, a grandparent, and a former teacher. I know that 
access to a good education is the key to determining one's future, and 
each child deserves equal opportunity to that promise. Yet, we are 
reminded every day that we have a racial and economic divide in this 
country that leaves too many children behind.
  This amendment is about good government and about equitable 
education, giving all children the opportunities they deserve while 
also ensuring the prevention of school secessions, which usually create 
wealthy White enclaves separated from more diverse communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in 
opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H4412]]

  

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, while I support the goals of 
this amendment, I must reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Hidden within this amendment is potentially a sweeping change to how 
States evaluate their schools under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. The amendment requires States to include progress on 
reducing racial and economic isolation in evaluating schools as a 
factor under State's title I State plans.
  I say this is a potentially sweeping change because the language is 
unclear. However, I read it as intending to require States to consider 
racial and economic isolation as a factor in the State-driven 
accountability systems required under title I.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if such a change to how States evaluate 
schools is a good or bad idea. But I am sure that such a significant 
change should be debated as part of a proper reevaluation of title I, 
not in the context of a standalone competitive grant program.
  If this is not the gentlewoman's intent with this amendment, then 
this just highlights the flaws in legislating without bipartisan 
discussions. Perhaps there are steps we could agree States should take 
in the context of title I to reduce racial and economic isolation, but 
let's debate those changes in the proper context.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by those remarks. After 
all, the Allen amendment sought some rather drastic changes to ESEA, 
but that didn't seem to generate that same comment.
  We all know that equal educational opportunities enrich us all, and 
they are the right of all and lead to better financial outcomes later 
in life.
  Though we need to collectively do better across this Nation in 
increasing diversity in our educational systems, my home State of 
Pennsylvania, in particular, demonstrates the need for greater action.
  According to a 2015 report by the UCLA Civil Rights Project, the 
amount of majority-minority and intensely segregated schools statewide 
more than doubled, 21 percent and 11 percent, respectively, over two 
decades.
  In fact, 17 percent of Philadelphia schools have a student body that 
is 99 percent to 100 percent minority students. Also, in the 
Philadelphia metro area, a typical Black and Latino student attended a 
school with, respectively, 71 percent or 68 percent low-income 
students, while a typical White student attended a school with only 21 
percent low-income students.
  This is a problem. These inequities isolate and segregate students, 
which in turn separate our communities, limit student growth, and hurt 
the educational resources in highly segregated schools.
  Our schools are meant to serve all students equally, no matter their 
race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Without adequate educational 
resources, students do not have the necessary tools to perform to the 
best of their abilities and to further their education. This not only 
hurts students who are racially or socioeconomically isolated; it hurts 
us all because America works best when we all succeed.
  Despite Pennsylvania's need for further action to combat these 
problems, there is promise and hope in the fact that my State has shown 
real change can happen. From the early sixties to the late nineties, 
there were intentional desegregation efforts that resulted in evidence-
based decreases in segregation. New, competitive grants to State 
agencies would direct resources to States looking to advance and 
support these efforts moving forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to close by saying that I thank Chairman Scott 
and Representative Fudge for their leadership.
  I urge Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat something I 
said earlier. Republicans and Democrats agree that discrimination and 
State-sanctioned segregation are repugnant, illegal, and blatantly 
immoral. Action should be taken to achieve greater equality for our 
Nation's students and in our schools.
  We believe we should strive toward a future where all students, 
regardless of race or color, have the chance to succeed. Education and 
hard work are the paths out of poverty for millions, and education 
provides students with the tools and skills they need to build a 
successful life.
  My colleague mentioned that she didn't see the difference between her 
amendment and Representative Allen's amendment. Well, Representative 
Allen's amendment provides a way for all schools to achieve worthy 
goals through grant programs. This goes to the fundamental way schools 
are evaluated and would be a major change in policy.
  I, again, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. We 
should be debating this issue when we are debating the issues related 
to title I.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1445


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Moulton

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
9 printed in part B of House Report 116-502.
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 11, after line 7, insert the following:
       (F) Creating or improving systems and partnerships to 
     create a one-stop enrollment process for students with 
     multiple public school options, including making school 
     information and data more accessible and easy to understand, 
     in order to ensure access to low poverty or high-performing 
     schools for low-income children and to promote racial and 
     socioeconomic diversity.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, school segregation is inseparable from 
housing and the persistence of segregated communities, communities 
segregated by race largely due to decades of purposeful law and policy 
that supported White homeownership while denying people of color the 
same subsidies, things like the ways that Black World War II veterans 
were denied the use of GI Bill-guaranteed mortgages in suburban 
neighborhoods; purposeful policies and restrictive covenants allowing 
open and rampant discrimination in lending and homeownership; and 
policies like redlining that robbed Black and Brown Americans of access 
to public resources to grow wealth and opportunity--all of these things 
embodied, I think most clearly, by the underfunding of neighborhood 
schools serving communities of color that were on the wrong side of the 
red line. These purposeful policies, housing policies, created 
tremendous inequities in education.
  Now, some of my colleagues across the aisle claim that the underlying 
bill ignores the opportunity, the issue, of school choice. Well, my 
amendment brings these two things together. This amendment makes it 
clear that, where school choice supports diversity, it should be 
encouraged. And, indeed, there are great examples of this across the 
country.
  Public school choice is the most effective means of achieving racial 
and socioeconomic integration in K-12 education in diverse schools 
across the country today, supporting parents to enroll their children 
beyond their neighborhood schools.
  Public school choice did not exist in 1954. It did not exist in 1968. 
It did not exist at scale in the 1990s, but it does today. The problem 
is just that, all too often, school choice policies ignore the pressing 
issue of segregation by housing.
  When school choice is not intentional, it can serve to exacerbate 
inequity instead of remedying it. This has been confirmed by decades of 
research here in the U.S. and across the world.

[[Page H4413]]

  Many school choice systems are overly complex, parents aren't 
supported, and, too often, only the wealthy and well-connected take 
advantage of open enrollment policies.
  My amendment would support school districts in using public school 
choice to improve school diversity and, in turn, equity of opportunity. 
This commonsense amendment would ensure that districts receiving grants 
can use the funds to design or improve public school choice systems, 
while prioritizing diversity in school assignment, and make them easier 
for parents to navigate. These all should be bipartisan priorities.
  We have more public school choice now than we ever had before, yet 
our schools are more segregated by race and class than at any time 
since the 1960s. But it doesn't have to be this way.
  My amendment, a relatively small change, would make a big difference 
because it would say that the use of public school choice policies, 
like open enrollment across and between districts, that match parent 
choice with purposeful diversity planning can be used successfully to 
accomplish all of these goals.
  It is time we support school districts in using responsible public 
school choice as a tool to achieve equity of opportunity, a fundamental 
right in our Constitution.
  When public school choice controls for diversity in school 
assignment, we see not only improved diversity of the student body, but 
also resource equity among schools, higher parent and teacher 
satisfaction, and increased achievement for all students.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with me in supporting the use of public 
school choice to decrease racial and socioeconomic school segregation, 
and I urge a bipartisan ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my opening 
remarks that the underlying bill fails, in part, because it doesn't 
address the biggest challenge facing low-income families and families 
of color, namely, the lack of access to high-quality education options 
that will prepare their children for lifelong success. Unfortunately, 
this amendment doesn't directly address that problem either, but at 
least it takes a small step in that direction.
  As more and more communities embrace charter schools and other public 
school options, one-stop enrollment processes are one way some 
communities have made it easier for parents to understand and navigate 
their options.
  As charter school enrollment grew in Washington, D.C., to include 
nearly half of the city's students, the city implemented an open 
lottery system to provide parents a one-stop portal to apply to 
multiple schools.
  The system isn't perfect, but that is mostly because the open lottery 
system doesn't address the fact that there are an insufficient number 
of seats in high-performing schools to meet demand. I wish we were here 
debating solutions to that problem today, Mr. Speaker.
  But in the absence of a real effort to increase the availability of 
the high-quality education options, I will settle for an effort to 
facilitate easier selections of these options where they exist.
  I applaud the gentleman for bucking the trend in his party of 
opposing educational freedom for low-income families and families of 
color, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for her support and for understanding that, yes, this is not 
perhaps the sweeping change that we would all like to see to fix these 
truly historic inequities in our education system, but it is an 
important step in the right direction.
  And there are great examples across the county of school systems that 
have been able to use public school choice in positive ways to improve 
educational opportunities for all. It is simple common sense that 
access to these programs should be simple, it should be easy to 
navigate, and these programs should not effectively discriminate 
against certain families that do not have access to all the information 
or wealth or other opportunities to navigate them successfully.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my Republican colleagues for their support on 
this amendment, and I particularly want to thank the leaders of this 
committee, Chairman Scott and Representative Fudge, for continuing to 
push to recognize the fundamental values of our country and our 
education system. That opportunity should be equal for all, that 
education should be the great equalizer because, if we can do that, we 
will live up to our Founders' ideals.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's 
comments, and, as I said, this is a very small step in the right 
direction. I wish that there were more people in the gentleman's party 
who wanted to see this. We have tremendous evidence that school choice 
is the tide that lifts all boats in education. It does everywhere.
  It breaks my heart when I see places like New York City where people 
there--particularly, the mayor there, has done everything he can to 
snuff out choice and to snuff out the opportunities that exist there, 
such as Success Academy, which not only has provided extraordinarily 
high-quality education to the students, but has really helped raise the 
level in a very minor way in the other public schools there.
  We have way too many situations in this country where the teachers 
unions want to stop all opportunities for choice. And I will take a 
tiny, tiny step as a good faith movement in the direction of providing 
all students, particularly low-income students, with the opportunity 
for choice, because we know where there is choice, the quality 
increases.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appear to have it.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Allen

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the 
unfinished business is the question on amendment No. 2, printed in part 
B of House Report 116-502, on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk will redesignate 
the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 171, 
nays 243, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                               YEAS--171

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (LA)

[[Page H4414]]


     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Jacobs
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiffany
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--243

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Budd
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Abraham
     Calvert
     Castro (TX)
     DeFazio
     Graves (GA)
     McHenry
     Palazzo
     Quigley
     Riggleman
     Rooney (FL)
     Simpson
     Soto
     Timmons
     Walker
     Wright
     Young

                              {time}  1550

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mses. CASTOR of Florida, JOHNSON of Texas, 
GABBARD, Messrs. ESPAILLAT, COHEN, McEACHIN, RUTHERFORD, GOSAR, and 
HARRIS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BARR, SCHWEIKERT, GAETZ, and NUNES changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Barragan (Beyer)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Butterfield (Kildee)
     Chu, Judy (Takano)
     Clay (Davids (KS))
     Cohen (Beyer)
     Davis, Danny K. (Underwood)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Garcia (IL) (Raskin)
     Grijalva (Raskin)
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Khanna (Gomez)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawrence (Kildee)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Tonko)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Clark (MA))
     Pocan (Raskin)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Roybal-Allard (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Sewell (AL) (DelBene)
     Thompson (MS) (Fudge)
     Trahan (McGovern)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 2639 is postponed.

                          ____________________