[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 160 (Wednesday, September 16, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4439-H4444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              EQUITY AND INCLUSION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2019


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and insert extraneous materials on H.R. 2574, the Equity 
and Inclusion Enforcement Act of 2019.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Dingell). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
1107, I call up the bill (H.R. 2574) to amend title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 to restore the right to individual civil actions in 
cases involving disparate impact, and for other purposes, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Education and Labor, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
House Report 116-502, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2574

       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 ``Equity and Inclusion 
     Enforcement Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF RIGHT TO CIVIL ACTION IN DISPARATE 
                   IMPACT CASES UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS 
                   ACT OF 1964.

       Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Sec. 607.  The violation of any regulation relating to 
     disparate impact issued under section 602 shall give rise to 
     a private civil cause of action for its enforcement to the 
     same extent as does an intentional violation of the 
     prohibition of section 601.''.

     SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MONITORS UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL 
                   RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

       Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d 
     et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``Sec. 608. (a) Each recipient shall--
       ``(1) designate at least one employee to coordinate its 
     efforts to comply with requirements adopted pursuant to 
     section 602 and carry out the responsibilities of the 
     recipient under this title, including any investigation of 
     any complaint alleging the noncompliance of the recipient 
     with such requirements or alleging any actions prohibited 
     under this title; and
       ``(2) notify its students and employees of the name, office 
     address, and telephone number of each employee designated 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) In this section, the term `recipient' means a 
     recipient referred to in section 602 that operates an 
     education program or activity receiving Federal financial 
     assistance authorized or extended by the Secretary of 
     Education.''.

     SEC. 4. SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR EQUITY AND INCLUSION.

       Section 202(b) of the Department of Education Organization 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 3412(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3), the following:
       ``(4) There shall be in the Department, a Special Assistant 
     for Equity and Inclusion who shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary. The Special Assistant shall promote, coordinate, 
     and evaluate efforts to engender program compliance with 
     title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et 
     seq.) and inform individuals of their rights under such Act, 
     including the dissemination of information, technical 
     assistance, and coordination of research activities, in a 
     manner consistent with such Act. The Special Assistant shall 
     advise both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on matters 
     relating to compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Equity and Inclusion 
Enforcement Act. This legislation will restore the right of students 
and parents to address racial inequities in public schools.
  This legislation comes over 66 years after the Supreme Court ruled in 
1954, in the Brown v. Board of Education case, that in the field of 
education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate 
educational facilities are inherently unequal.
  This comes just 4 years after the General Accountability Office found 
that racial segregation in public schools is now as bad it was in the 
1960s and getting worse.
  For almost 40 years, the courts interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, title VI, as granting students and parents the right to bring 
discrimination claims against public schools and any other entities 
receiving Federal funds for discriminatory policies and practices.
  Victims of federally funded discrimination could use title VI to 
challenge both discriminatory policies and practices that were created 
with the intent to discriminate and policies and practices that, while 
neutral on their face, had the effect of discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, or national origin.
  To be clear, the mere presence of the policy's disproportionate 
impact does not alone constitute a violation of title VI, but allowing 
communities to use disparate impact analysis equipped them with an 
important tool to combat systemic inequities for decades.
  Unfortunately, in its 2001 decision in the case of Alexander v. 
Sandoval, the Supreme Court stripped private citizens, including 
students and parents, of their right to bring disparate impact claims 
against schools and other federally funded programs. While this ruling 
did not invalidate the use of disparate impact analysis to prove 
discrimination, it reserved that power to pursue such claims to the 
Federal Government through administrative enforcement of

[[Page H4440]]

title VI. In other words, this longstanding protection against 
discrimination in federally funded programs, including education, can 
now only be enforced if the administration in power so chooses.
  The effect of this ruling on antidiscrimination enforcement has been 
particularly acute in education. Since 2001, we have seen an increase 
in racial isolation in public schools and a decrease in resource 
equity. As a result, African-American and Hispanic children 
disproportionately attend schools that are both majority minority and 
underresourced.
  Whether this trend has been intentional or not is immaterial, but we 
do know that discrimination in 2020 is not the same as it was in 1964. 
Discrimination increasingly comes in the form of coded terminology, 
structural inequality, and implicit bias rather than explicit bigotry. 
So students and parents must be empowered to hold schools accountable 
for policies and practices that deny students access to quality 
education based on their race, color, or national origin whether or not 
they can prove the discriminatory policies were intentionally imposed.
  Understandably, parents and students have been expressing confusion 
and frustration because they can no longer use the Civil Rights Act to 
challenge discriminatory policies and practices in their schools.

                              {time}  1030

  By ceding this right to the Federal Government, the Supreme Court 
majority in Sandoval opened the door to civil rights enforcement 
becoming a political issue instead of a right. While the Office of 
Civil Rights, the OCR, at the Department of Education is staffed with 
career attorneys, it is led by a political appointee. This department 
has repeatedly shown its reluctance to enforce and defend the civil 
rights of all students.
  Our core civil rights protections should not be up for a vote every 4 
years. To that end, the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act would 
restore the private right of action of students and parents to bring a 
title VI discrimination claim based on disparate impact and hold 
schools accountable for providing equal access to quality education for 
all students.
  The legislation also requires school districts and institutions of 
higher learning to appoint a title VI monitor to ensure that at least 
one employee is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law. This 
includes, at a minimum, investigating complaints of discrimination 
based on race, color, or national origin. This provision in the bill is 
modeled after title IX officers in school settings. The legislation's 
aim is for title VI monitors to foster a culture of compliance, similar 
to what we now have under title IX.
  Finally, the bill creates an assistant secretary in the Department of 
Education to coordinate and promote title VI compliance. History has 
shown that we cannot support historically disadvantaged students or 
close persistent achievement gaps without robust civil rights 
enforcement. This is particularly true as public schools become more 
segregated, more segregated than they were in the 1960s and as the 
COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates inequitable access to quality education 
for underserved students.
  Today, we have the opportunity to restore and strengthen critical 
civil rights protections by passing the Equity and Inclusion 
Enforcement Act.
  Nearly seven decades after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in 
Brown v. Board of Education which struck down school segregation, this 
bill would bring us one step closer to delivering on its promise of 
equity in education.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2574, the Equity 
and Inclusion Enforcement Act.
  My Republican and Democrat colleagues agree that separate is not and 
never was equal; racism is wrong; segregation is wrong. I am going to 
repeat that. My Republican and Democrat colleagues agree that 
separation is not and never was equal; racism is wrong; segregation is 
wrong. Although this body has taken measures to ensure racism and 
segregation are not to be tolerated, its lingering effects still 
persist.
  We continue to strive toward a future where all students, regardless 
of race or color, have the chance to succeed. While there is more work 
to be done, the bill before us takes the wrong approach. This bill 
seeks to create a private right of action for disparate impact claims 
under section 602 of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI 
protects federally funded programs and entities from discriminating on 
the basis of race, color, or national origin.
  While the Democrats will falsely characterize this bill as restoring 
a right--and, indeed, my colleague has just done that--in reality this 
bill radically alters civil rights law without giving any consideration 
to its potential ramifications.
  The leftist Center for American Progress called title VI and 
disparate income impact claims the ``sleeping giant of civil rights 
laws'' that are a ``potentially powerful tool'' to advance liberal 
goals through activist litigation.
  While title VI is most used in the context of education, the law 
itself is not confined to that issue. Title VI applies to any program 
or entity that receives Federal funding, which would include education, 
policing, employment, and healthcare, the list goes on and on.
  This is more than an education bill. Despite its far-reaching 
implications, Democrats deprived the committee of primary jurisdiction 
any opportunity to debate or consider this bill. That is a really 
important point to consider, Madam Speaker.
  As the Republican leader of the Education and Labor Committee, the 
consequences of this legislation within the education community are 
very clear. The creation of a private right of action would lead to 
additional burdens on already taxed State and local agencies, 
especially school systems who would have to defend themselves against 
tenuous allegations advanced by parents and activists. Through such 
lawsuits, these activists could require State and local governments to 
adopt a myriad of policies that Congress and State and local lawmakers 
never authorized or intended and cost those entities a lot of money 
paid to trial lawyers.
  H.R. 2574 also creates a new special assistant for equity and 
inclusion at the Department of Education. Rather than create multiple 
siloed positions competing for resources and attention, committee 
Republicans believe an integrated approach to the Education 
Department's equity and inclusion efforts would lead to better results.
  Republicans and Democrats largely agree on the importance of equality 
and integrated schools. Unfortunately, instead of working toward a 
bipartisan solution, H.R. 2574 is the result of Democrats' choosing a 
partisan path.
  The question is whether in the long run these ideas will have helped 
or hurt the ongoing effort to achieve greater equality for children. 
H.R. 2574 fails on this front. Committee Republicans believe no effort 
to erase the evil legacy of segregation and discrimination can be 
complete without eliminating the State's ability to trap students in 
low-performing schools.
  Instead of debating this bill, we should look at bipartisan solutions 
that help expand educational freedom for all families. We know that 
school choice gives parents and families the opportunity to break the 
cycle of poverty and enroll their child in an institution that 
challenges them, develops their skills and intellect, and encourages 
them to reach higher.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The gentlewoman is exactly right. This will have ramifications that 
school districts will have to defend longstanding policies where they 
have a clear, provable disparate impact against minority children but 
the parents can't prove that it was imposed with discriminatory intent, 
and this administration won't do anything about it until they are just 
stuck.
  Yes, if this bill passes, the parents will be able to come forth and 
say that the Black children are stuck in woefully inadequate schools 
while the White children are not. Yes, they should have to defend 
themselves if

[[Page H4441]]

you can prove it. They ought to have their day in court. They can prove 
that the policy is having a disparate impact on their children, and 
according to the Sandoval decision they have to wait for this 
Department of Education to do something about it.
  On school choice, the recent studies have shown that when you don't 
very carefully regulate it, you can actually have more school 
segregation in school choice than you have now.
  The question on achievement is mixed. There are some studies a few 
years ago that said on average school choice produced results that were 
average. More recent studies have shown that on average school choice 
produces achievement numbers that are worse than average. So that is 
not a road we should be going down. We should make sure that people, if 
they prove discrimination, have their day in court.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, our colleagues say that this administration is doing 
nothing to help minority students. One of the biggest things that we 
could do to help minority students is to give them a choice about where 
to go to school. We talked about this yesterday, and we are talking 
about it again today. Minority students thrive in charter schools. 
Recent test scores show these students doing much better.
  Our colleagues are saying that choice creates segregation. I don't 
believe that, Madam Speaker. Choice creates the opportunity for 
success, and we know that. The research shows that over and over again. 
We can look at New York City and the results that Success Academy is 
getting for the students there. They are primarily minority students--
but it is because minority parents are choosing to send their children 
there--and they are succeeding. They are graduating at a very high 
rate; they are going to college at a very high rate. So giving choice 
to children of all races and all economic groups results in better 
achievement. That cannot be denied.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the question of segregation of school choice is not 
what the Democrats are saying; it is what the studies have shown, that 
there is more likely to be segregation when you give people the choice. 
That is why freedom of choice was thrown out by the Supreme Court as an 
answer to Brown v. Board of Education many years ago.
  You have Whites choosing the White schools, Blacks choosing the White 
schools, social isolation taking place, and nature taking its course. 
That is why you need the right to integrate the schools, and you can't 
do it with school choice.
  Madam Speaker, I think the question is clear. We have a lot of 
schools where the distribution of resources is done clearly along 
racial lines, and because you can't prove that it is with 
discriminatory intent, you can't do anything about it. So that is why 
you need the bill, and I would hope that we would pass the bill to let 
those who can prove that they are being discriminated against have 
their day in court.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have before me some very, very excellent results in 
terms of freedom of choice programs, and I would like to share those 
with the body.
  The largest private school choice program in America got more solid 
evidence of its effectiveness Monday. The lower-income, mostly minority 
students using the Florida tax credit scholarship to attend private 
schools are up to 43 percent more likely to enroll in 4-year colleges 
than White students in public schools and up to 20 percent more likely 
to earn bachelor's degrees according to a new study released Monday by 
the Urban Institute.
  I don't think the Urban Institute is a conservative group.
  The outcomes are even stronger for students who use the scholarship 4 
or more years. Those students are up to 99 percent more likely to 
attend a 4-year college than their public-school peers and up to 45 
percent more likely to earn bachelor's degrees. The new findings build 
on a 2017 study that was the first of its kind, but also more limited.
  The previous study found scholarship students were more likely to 
enroll in college and earn associate's degrees, but not significantly 
more likely to earn 4-year degrees. However, the 2017 study included 
only data from public colleges in Florida, and the researchers 
cautioned that as a result our results may understate the true impact 
of FTC participation on college enrollment and degree attainment.
  Madam Speaker, this is solid evidence that having programs like the 
Florida Student Scholarship Program is working for minority and low-
income students. And I find it incredible that our colleagues 
continually come out on the side of teacher unions, trial lawyers, and 
others who want to see gains for themselves but no gains for the 
children they should be serving.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, let me thank Chairman Scott for 
his tremendous leadership in putting forth this legislation. But also, 
just for his staying very vigilant as it relates to the issues of Black 
and Brown students in our country, and the power that we need to push 
back against systemic racism and really what it is, is creeping school 
segregation.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in total support of H.R. 2574, the Equity and 
Inclusion Enforcement Act.
  Just a little bit of history of myself. I was born and raised in El 
Paso, Texas, and schools were segregated when I started school. My 
family fought with the NAACP, and I believe El Paso was the first city 
in Texas to desegregate public schools.
  Fast forward, my mother, Mildred Parish Massey, she was one of the 
first 12 students to integrate into the University of Texas at El Paso. 
I know from personal experience the struggles and the fights that all 
of us mounted just so we could have access to public education.
  And now, fast forward to 2020, segregation in our Nation's schools is 
growing.
  We have turned the clock back immeasurably. It can no longer be 
ignored. Over the last three decades, African-American students have 
increasingly found themselves in intensely segregated schools, and we 
knew unraveling segregation in schools was going to be a long struggle. 
This segregation, though, is a product of a number of factors, 
including housing segregation, economic inequality, all tied to 
structural racism in our country.
  But while structural racism pervades so many elements of our society, 
it is really especially appalling in education, because we know that 
integrated schools help reduce racial prejudice and tension over the 
years.
  Public education is supposed to be the great leveler in our society. 
Schools are supposed to be the pathway where hard work and knowledge 
provide new pathways of opportunity. Instead, this growing segregation 
fuels the perpetual worsening systemic racial and ethnic wealth gap 
that exists in our Nation. It robs students of their future, and it 
makes a mockery, really, of the values of opportunity and the hard work 
that we hold dear.
  And what I think many of us weren't prepared for was the idea that we 
were going to have to fight tooth and nail now, which was a battle we 
fought in the 1950s and 1960s. We are fighting those battles again to 
make our own Federal Department of Education take this issue seriously. 
My God.
  Madam Speaker, for three-and-a-half years, from my seat on the 
Committee on Appropriations, I have asked Secretary DeVos over and over 
and over again to take this issue seriously. But after years of 
dissembling and delay from the Secretary, I have begun to question her 
commitment to ensuring the rights of equal education for kids in 
America--that includes Black and Brown kids. And I asked her, does she 
really care about the civil rights of these young people?

[[Page H4442]]

  And it is really the refusal by Secretary DeVos to acknowledge the 
clear evidence of increasing segregation. This is part of the reason 
why this bill is so important, and we need to act today.
  The Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act is one piece of the puzzle 
to start pushing back on segregation in schools. It allows parents of 
children most adversely affected by this growing racial and ethnic 
segregation to pursue legal action against a local jurisdiction to fix 
the problem.
  Without a private right of action, students of color face countless 
forms of irreparable damage without any remedy that they can use to 
seek justice.
  The bill would further provide that education programs that receive 
Federal financial assistance must designate at least one compliance 
coordinator to focus on reducing segregation and investigate 
complaints.
  And so if we truly want to turn the corner, turn the corner on the 
legacy of school segregation and unequal opportunity, we have a 
responsibility to put power back into the hands of parents and students 
to fight injustice and claim their right to a quality public education.
  Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote for H.R. 2574, and I 
thank the chairman for bringing forth this very important bill. I am so 
sorry that we have to do this once again.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume. I stated in my opening comments, Republicans do not 
believe in segregation. Segregation was not good for this country. But 
segregation was settled, we believe, despite what has been said by our 
colleagues, by Brown v. Board of Education.
  I find it very interesting that this bill is about a private right of 
action and, yet, it has become the discussion about segregation and 
about, again, Secretary DeVos and what she has or has not done. My 
knowledge of the Secretary is that she has worked all her life to 
expand opportunities for low-income and minority students. That is what 
giving choice to those students and those parents is all about--
expanding opportunities for them to choose where to go to school. And 
we even know that when we expand opportunities and we have school 
choice, that even the public schools get better.
  I just read statistics about what is happening in Florida, the 
largest place for school choice and for scholarships for low income and 
minority students to choose where they want to go to school. It shows 
what a great gift that has been to them, and how poorly, unfortunately, 
the students in the public schools are doing.
  Consigning students to public schools and not giving them a choice is 
not a good thing. It is totally unfair. But this bill is about a 
private right of action, which the Supreme Court has said does not 
exist in this legislation--the legislation that already exists.
  What it is is a gift to trial lawyers. And the implication is, from 
what we are hearing, is to go back to unequal opportunity. That is not 
what we want for low-income and minority children, or any children in 
this country.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, Democrats have made a habit of letting bipartisan 
solutions fall by the wayside in lieu of partisan politics in an 
attempt to help those who help them. The Equity and Inclusion 
Enforcement Act is no exception. Republicans and Democrats agree on the 
importance of equality and integrated schools. I am going to repeat 
that again. Republicans and Democrats agree on the importance of 
equality and integrated schools. Unfortunately, instead of working 
toward a bipartisan solution, H.R. 2574 is the result of Democrats 
choosing a partisan path.
  The creation of a private right of action could lead to additional 
burdens on school systems who would have to defend themselves against 
tenuous allegations advanced by activist lawyers and does nothing to 
eliminate the State's ability to track students in low-performing 
schools.
  This bill is designed to score political points rather than build on 
a history of bipartisan and bicameral solutions to racial inequality 
and discrimination.
  For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2574, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I 
have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Torres of California). The gentleman 
from Virginia has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words about what the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights found, since the ranking member mentioned 
the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, by name.
  It found that the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has rescinded 
critical guidance to protect students' civil rights, narrow the scope, 
and reduced the number of investigations conducted, and decreased the 
budget and staffing capacity of the Office of Civil Rights at the 
department.
  The Commission's report indicated that OCR issued 38 guidance 
documents to improve program understanding of and compliance with civil 
rights statutes under the Obama administration. By comparison, the OCR 
under the Trump administration has issued few guidance documents and 
has instead rescinded critical guidance documents.
  Specifically, in 2018 Secretary DeVos rescinded guidance documents in 
support of the constitutionally protected use of race in admission or 
assignments to improve diversity and higher education and K-12.
  Also, in 2018, Secretary DeVos rescinded 2014 school discipline 
guidance packages, which provided local educational agencies with 
technical assistance through reform, discipline policies, and practices 
that, although racially neutral, disproportionately impacted students 
of color in violation of title IV. And it goes on and on to talk about 
what has been going on in this administration.
  Madam Speaker, the ranking member talked about school segregation 
yesterday. We had the opportunity to do something to help those 
localities that wanted to voluntarily desegregate their schools. And it 
was a bipartisan result--21 Republicans joined Democrats in providing 
resources to localities that wanted technical assistance in how to 
voluntarily desegregate their schools.
  That can be complicated, because in the Supreme Court case involving 
two localities, Louisville, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington, 
voluntary school desegregation initiatives were found unconstitutional. 
The Court said you can do it, but in this case, you didn't do it right. 
So technical assistance, legal advice, is necessary to make sure that 
you can have an effective policy that can withstand constitutional 
challenge.
  Regrettably, 160 Republicans voted ``no'' to give those resources to 
those localities that want to voluntarily desegregate their schools.
  I mentioned the research on school choice. This is a very simple 
bill. It just gives the right of those who can prove discriminatory 
impact on their school systems--they can prove it, it just gives them 
the right to come to court to prove that they have been discriminated 
against to vindicate their rights.
  It is a very simple bill, and I hope that the House will pass it so 
their civil rights will be protected.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 
2574, the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act of 2019. This bill will 
take a meaningful step forward to ensure that programs receiving 
federal funding are upholding a high standard of equality and 
inclusion--similar to that which our country strives for.
  In 2001, the Supreme Court, in its ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval, 
stated that only the Department of Education can challenge schools and 
other programs over discriminatory practices. In the majority opinion 
written by Justice Antonin Scalia, supported by the court's 
conservative bloc, he claimed that students and parents did not own the 
right to challenge schools and other programs on their practices and 
policies. Let me repeat that--the Supreme Court ruled that instead of 
allowing those directly and adversely affected by discriminatory 
practices and policies to initiate legal proceedings, the 
responsibility would be

[[Page H4443]]

placed on government bureaucrats. Now, at a time when the Department of 
Education lacks competent leadership, it is more important than ever 
before to reverse the Supreme Court's decision.
  H.R. 2574 rectifies the Court's ruling and would allow students and 
parents to hold federally funded programs, like schools, accountable 
for any discriminatory practices and policies that impact people of 
color through a private right to action within the Civil Rights Act of 
1964. It also creates an Assistant for Equity and Inclusion position in 
the Department of Education, tasked with guiding and advising the 
agency as to the best practices and policies for students in every 
classroom across the country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation and ask for its immediate in consideration in the Senate.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary 
and Homeland Committees, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2574, the 
``Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act of 2019,'' which restores the 
power of students and parents to challenge discriminatory policies and 
practices in schools and other federally funded programs.
  In 2001, the Supreme Court decided in Alexander v. Sandoval to 
overturn four decades of statutory protections against discrimination 
by stripping victims of discrimination of the right to bring disparate 
impact claims under Title VI.
  However, this bill ensures that victims of discrimination no longer 
have to rely on the Department of Education to take legal action in 
order to challenge discriminatory practices in their schools.
  Instead, individuals will once again have the ability to address 
instances of racial inequities themselves.
  The Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act further protects students by 
making positive and substantive changes to Title VI, which prohibits 
discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or 
activities that receive federal financial assistance.
  For example, the bill creates Title VI monitors to ensure that every 
school district and institution of higher education has at least one 
employee who is specifically responsible for investigating any 
complaints of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
  It also establishes an Assistant Secretary in the Department of 
Education to coordinate and promote Title VI enforcement in education.
  In 1954, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of 
Education struck down the ``separate but equal'' premise that had 
allowed segregation in our public-school system.
  It has been 66 years since that monumental ruling, yet we still have 
not been able to fulfill the promise of equity in education for our 
children.
  Over the past few months, the United States has experienced seismic 
shifts in social consciousness regarding racial inequities that have 
permeated every aspect of American society.
  As the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Philando 
Castile, and so many others, become synonymous with today's civil 
rights movement, I believe this bill marks a step forward in the fight 
for equal rights.
  We cannot achieve true racial equality without addressing the 
systematic discrimination in our education system.
  For example, in December of 2018, Andrew Johnson, a Black high school 
wrestler, in New Jersey was forced to make an impossible choice when a 
referee told him to either cut his dreadlocks or forfeit the wrestling 
match.
  Although Johnson wore a hair covering for the match, as dictated by 
wrestling guidelines, the referee rejected the covering and gave the 
student 90 seconds to cut off his dreadlocks.
  In 2016, a Black teenager was escorted out of his high school 
graduation ceremony in Sacramento, California by three deputies after 
refusing to remove his kente cloth, a traditional Ghanaian silk and 
cotton fabric that symbolizes national cultural identity.
  Earlier this year, the Barbers Hill Independent School District in 
Texas refused to change its grooming policy that led to the suspension 
of two Black students.
  Despite public backlash against the policy, which forbids male 
students from keeping their hair at ``a length below the top of a t-
shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or below the ear lobes'', the school 
board voted unanimously to keep the policy in place.
  These instances of continued discrimination against minority students 
in our public-school system create a learning environment that is far 
from equal.
  It is imperative to recognize that the existence of these Eurocentric 
policies in our educational system have a disparate effect on Black 
students, who are either forced to suppress their cultural heritage and 
Black identity or forfeit their right to equal educational and 
extracurricular opportunities.
  While on the surface, such policies do not seem directed at specific 
races or ethnicities, in practice, they often discriminate against a 
Black person or person of color based on characteristics associated 
with them.
  It is also well known that Black students are more often over-
disciplined at school than their white counterparts.
  Between 2015 and 2016, Black children accounted for 15 percent of all 
students, yet they made up 31 percent of referrals to law enforcement 
and school-based arrests, perpetuating the school-to-prison pipeline.
  In Texas, black students in the Houston Independent School District 
(HISD) were four times more likely to receive a law enforcement 
referral, which includes citations, tickets, court referrals, and 
school-related arrests, than their white peers.
  According to the Texas Education Agency, HISD is also known for its 
stark disparities between black and white students in school 
discipline, with black students being seven times more likely to get an 
out-of-school suspension.
  These instances create a culture of inequality and reinforce barriers 
to education for students of color.
  Without a private right of action to challenge these patterns and 
policies, students of color face countless forms of irreparable harm, 
including missing countless hours of instruction, educational 
opportunities, and relationship development that promotes pro-social 
growth and positive life outcomes.
  Madam Speaker, by creating measures that give agency to individuals 
to identify, challenge, and change discriminatory practices in their 
own communities, we are creating an environment where all kids, 
regardless of race, color, or national origin, are given an equal 
chance to learn and excel.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize the 
opportunity we have here today to rectify some of the inequities in our 
schools and, more importantly, positively change the educational 
experience for students of color across the country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1100


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. I am in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Foxx of North Carolina moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     2574, to the Committee on Education and Labor with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, 
     with the following amendment:
       Page 4, line 11, strike the quotation mark and period at 
     the end.
       Page 4, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(c) Antisemitism Considered Discrimination.--In carrying 
     out the responsibilities of the recipient under this title, 
     the employee or employees designated under this section shall 
     consider antisemitism to be discrimination on the basis of 
     race, color, or national origin as prohibited by this 
     title.''.

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, as you have heard 
throughout this debate, Republicans agree that discrimination and 
segregation are repugnant and immoral.
  Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to address these problems. 
Instead, Democrats are trying to sneak in a radical partisan rewrite of 
civil rights law under the guise of an education bill. However, before 
the House takes action on this legislation, we have one final 
opportunity to address one particular flaw in this bill.
  On September 11, 2019, President Trump issued an executive order 
establishing the policy of the executive branch to consider 
discrimination against Jews to be illegal discrimination under title VI 
when such discrimination is based on an individual's race, color, or 
national origin.

[[Page H4444]]

  If this House is going to radically rewrite title VI, as this bill 
does, we should use this opportunity to show commitment to combating 
anti-Semitism.
  With anti-Semitism on the rise around the world, the need for this 
amendment is clear. In fact, here in the United States, we have seen 
horrific acts of violence against our Jewish friends over the last few 
years.
  In October 2018, 11 congregants lost their lives at a synagogue in 
Pittsburgh, the worst killing of Jews in American history. In December 
of last year, a gunman targeted a Jewish kosher deli, leaving six dead.
  This motion does one simple thing. The underlying bill requires 
recipients of funding from the Department of Education to designate 
title VI compliance coordinators. My motion inserts language into this 
provision directing such compliance coordinators to consider anti-
Semitism to be illegal discrimination on the basis of race, color, or 
national origin under title VI.
  Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity with this amendment to achieve 
an important goal. We can ensure that recipients of Federal education 
funding are doing all they can to protect members of our communities 
from horrific anti-Semitism.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, anti-Semitism is religious 
discrimination. As the motion reflects, religion is not covered by 
title VI. It covers discrimination based on race, color, or national 
origin. It doesn't cover religion.
  While we are picking just one religious kind of discrimination, anti-
Semitism, what about the other religions? Wouldn't they deserve 
attention, too?
  This is just a political attempt to insert religion into title VI. 
That is controversial. Might get support for that, but that is not part 
of this bill.
  This motion just diverts attention from the core provision of the 
bill, and that is to open the courts so that those who can prove 
discrimination can have their day in court if their proof is based on 
disparate impact.
  Now, let's not divert attention away from that core idea that people 
who have been discriminated against ought to be able to get into court. 
Let's let them have their day in court. Defeat this motion and pass the 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and the nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________