[House Report 116-496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


116th Congress     }                                     {     Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                     {    116-496

======================================================================



 
                   STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY ACT OF 2019

                                _______
                                

 September 8, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Scott of Virginia, from the Committee on Education and Labor, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2639]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2639) to establish the Strength in Diversity 
Program, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that 
the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     5
Committee Action.................................................     6
Committee Views..................................................    10
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    23
Explanation of Amendments........................................    24
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    24
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................    24
Earmark Statement................................................    24
Roll Call Votes..................................................    25
Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives....................    27
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    27
Hearings.........................................................    27
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    27
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate.......................    27
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    28
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    29
Minority Views...................................................    30
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Strength in Diversity Act of 2019''.

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--
                  (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.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act, introduced by 
Congresswoman Marcia Fudge and Chairman Bobby Scott, if passed, 
would authorize the first new investment in school integration 
since the federal government began providing funding for magnet 
schools for the purposes of school desegregation in the 
Emergency School Aid Act of 1972.\1\ This legislation supports 
local educational agencies (LEAs) in realizing the promise of 
Brown v. Board of Education, that separate is inherently 
unequal and that educational opportunity is a ``right which 
must be made available to all on equal terms.''\2\ The bill is 
consistent with U.S Supreme Court precedent which holds that 
public schools may use race-conscious measures to ensure equal 
educational opportunity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Pub. L. No. 92-318, 86 Stat. 235, June 23, 1972.
    \2\Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).
    \3\Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 
U.S. 701, 797-98 (2007) (``This Nation has a moral and ethical 
obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated 
society that ensures equal opportunity for all of its children. A 
compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest 
that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to 
pursue . . . The decision today should not prevent school districts 
from continuing the important work of bringing together students of 
different racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds.'') (Kennedy, J., 
concurring).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our nation's system of public education has never come 
close to achieving full racial integration of public education. 
But there is now a growing prevalence of racial segregation 
and, in certain regions of the country, re-segregation in 
public schools that undermines meaningful progress made toward 
racial integration in the decades following the Brown decision, 
denying millions of students of color high-quality public 
education. According to recent reports, public schools are now 
more segregated by race and class than any time since the 
1960s.\4\ Federal intervention is needed to confront this 
persistent, pervasive injustice, yet the federal government has 
continually retreated from its role in promoting school 
integration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Erica Frankenberg, et al. Harming Our Common Future: America's 
Segregated Schools 65 Years after Brown, 10 May 2019, 
www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-
and-diversity/harming-our-common-future-americas-segregated-schools-65-
years-after-brown/Brown-65-050919v4-final.pdf.; see Nikole Hannah-
Jones, Segregation Now, ProPublica, Apr. 16, 2014, available at https:/
/www.propublica.org/article/segregation-now-full-text; see also U.S. 
Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-16-345, K-12 Education: Better Use of 
Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and address Racial 
Discrimination (2016) (documenting the growth in school districts with 
high concentrations of low-income Black and Hispanic students, and 
recognizing the inequitable conditions many of them share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The purpose of H.R. 2639 is to provide federal support for 
school integration. The bill authorizes funding for communities 
to develop and implement evidence-based plans to tackle racial 
and socioeconomic segregation in public schools. Planning 
grants authorized by the bill will allow LEAs to study 
segregation in their schools, evaluate current policies to 
identify revisions necessary to achieve integration, and 
develop a robust family, student, and community engagement plan 
to carry out voluntary integration efforts. Implementation 
grants authorized by the bill provide resources to LEAs to 
implement an evidence-based integration plan and rigorously 
evaluate the effectiveness of the plan. Implementation grants 
may also be used to recruit, hire, and train teachers to 
improve diversity in the teaching profession, support 
activities in a district under a court-ordered desegregation 
plan, and fund other innovative activities designed to increase 
racial and socioeconomic diversity in schools, prioritizing 
funding for school districts that address racial isolation in 
their schools. H.R. 2639 also strengthens other federal efforts 
to promote integration, including providing dedicated research 
funding. Funds authorized under H.R 2639 would not be subject 
to section 426 of the General Education Provisions Act 
(GEPA),\5\ an antiquated restriction on implementation of 
federal funds that hampers local efforts to integrate public 
schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\20 U.S.C. Sec. 1228 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As of the filing of this report, H.R. 2639 is supported by 
the following organizations: American Federation of Teachers 
(AFT); Association of University Centers on Disabilities 
(AUCD); Center on Law, Inequality, and Metropolitan Equity--
Rutgers Law School; Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race 
and Justice--Harvard Law School; Integrate NYC4me; Lawyers' 
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Legal Defense Fund, 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
(NAACP-LDF); Magnet Schools of America; National Association of 
Elementary School Principals (NAESP); National Association of 
Secondary School Principals (NASSP); National Coalition on 
School Diversity (NCSD); National Education Association (NEA); 
National Women's Law Center (NWLC); New York Appleseed; the 
Office of Transformation and Innovation at the Dallas 
Independent School District; Poverty & Race Research Action 
Council; Unidos; and the Voluntary Interdistrict Choice 
Corporation.

                            Committee Action


                             101ST CONGRESS

    On November 28, 1989, the Committee held a hearing titled 
``Hearing on the Federal Enforcement of Equal Education 
Opportunity Laws'' to assess the Department of Education's 
Office for Civil Rights' (OCR's) enforcement of laws 
prohibiting discrimination in federally-funded education 
programs on the basis of race, sex, or disability. This 
oversight hearing included an examination of OCR's lack of 
enforcement of civil rights, with a specific focus on racial 
discrimination and school desegregation orders, the 
resegregation of public schools, racial tensions on college 
campuses and concern that the policies of the George H.W. Bush 
Administration regarding school choice would entrench existing 
segregation and allow for more resegregation in public 
education. Testifying before the Committee were William L. 
Smith, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, 
Department of Education; James P. Turner, Acting Assistant 
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice; 
Phyllis McClure, Director, Division of Policy and Information, 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Elliott C. Lichtman, 
Attorney; Ethel Simon-McWilliams, Director, Desegregation 
Assistance Center, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory; 
Gary Orfield, Director, Metropolitan Opportunity Project, 
University of Chicago; David F. Chavkin, Senior Program 
Analyst, National Center for Clinical Infant Programs; Ellen J. 
Vargyas, Chair, National Coalition for Women and Girls in 
Education, National Women's Law Center; Pamela M. Young, 
Legislative Counsel, D.C. Bureau, NAACP; Norma V. Cantu, 
Director, Elementary and Secondary Programs, Mexican American 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Elliot M. Mincberg, Legal 
Director, People for the American Way, Citizens Commission on 
Civil Rights; and James J. Lyons, National Association for 
Bilingual Education.

                             114TH CONGRESS

    On February 11, 2015, the Committee marked up and ordered 
to be reported the bill H.R. 5, the Student Success Act to the 
House by a vote of 21-16. The bill was passed by the House on 
July 8, 2015 by a vote of 218-213. The Senate Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported the bill S. 
1177, the Every Child Achieves Act to the Senate on April 30, 
2015. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 79-18 on July 16, 
2015. Subsequently, both chambers agreed to a conference to 
resolve the differences between the two bills. The conference 
report on S. 1177, retitled the Every Student Succeeds Act 
(ESSA), was filed November 30, 2015. On December 2, 2015, the 
House agreed to the conference report on ESSA by a vote of 359-
64. The Senate agreed to the conference report on December 9, 
2015 by a vote of 85-12. ESSA was signed into law on December 
10, 2015.
    Among the provisions included in ESSA was the 
reauthorization of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program 
(MSAP). MSAP provides support to local educational agencies to 
establish and operate magnet schools for the purposes of 
implementing a court-ordered desegregation plan or a voluntary 
federally approved desegregation plan. ESSA exempted MSAP from 
GEPA section 426, allowing funds under the program to be used 
to provide transportation for students to and from magnet 
schools. ESSA also included provisions to support states and 
LEAs in using racial integration to support school improvement 
strategies required under Title I-A and support diversity in 
the Charter School Program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 6311(d)(1)(B), (2)(C) (requiring the 
identification of resource inequities at schools identified by the 
State for a comprehensive support and improvement plan and also 
requiring that same identification in the case of schools where a 
subgroup of students would on their own lead to identification for 
comprehensive support and improvement); 20 U.S.C. Sec. 7221d(b)(5)(A) 
(``In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary shall give 
priority to eligible entities that plan to operate or manage high-
quality charter schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse 
student bodies''); see generally GAO-16-345, supra note 4, at 10-15 
(``The Percentage of High-Poverty Schools with Mostly Black or Hispanic 
Students Increased over Time, and Such Schools Tend to Have Fewer 
Resources'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             115TH CONGRESS

First Session, Other Legislative Action

    The Committee worked with the Committee on Appropriations 
to develop a provision for inclusion in H.R. 3358, the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018. The provision 
revised one of two long-standing prohibitions on funds 
appropriated under the bill from being used for the 
transportation of students or staff to comply with title VI of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new language exempted the 
establishment of a magnet school from the relevant long-
standing prohibition. As modified, the language was eventually 
included in section 302 of H.R. 1625, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2018 (FY18 Omnibus), which was signed into 
law on March 23, 2018. In an explanatory statement in the 
Congressional Record, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman of 
the House Committee on Appropriations commented, ``[t]he 
agreement includes a new general provision to exempt the Magnet 
Schools program from one long-standing general provision on 
transporting students. ESSA reauthorized the Magnet School 
program in 2015 and allowed funds to be used for transportation 
and this agreement should not impede the Magnet School program 
from doing so. The agreement notes that the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
should consider a longer-term solution to this issue during the 
fiscal year 2019 appropriations process.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\164 Cong. Rec. H2697, 2707 (daily ed. Mar. 22, 2018) (statement 
of Rep. Frelinghuysen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Session, Other Legislative Action

    The Committee again worked with the Committee on 
Appropriations on longstanding anti-integration riders during 
the Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19) appropriations process. As a 
result, H.R. 6470, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2019, advanced without the rider prohibiting funds from 
being used for the transportation of students or teachers in 
order to overcome racial imbalances or to carry out a plan of 
racial desegregation. The bill also advanced without the rider 
prohibiting funds from being used to require the transportation 
of any student to a school other than the school which is 
nearest the student's home in order to comply with title VI of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Both riders were 
absent from H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense and Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 
2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (FY19 Omnibus), 
which was signed into law on September 28, 2019. Enactment of 
H.R. 6157 (115th) marked the first annual appropriations law 
since 1974 to be enacted without these anti-integration 
provisions.

                             116TH CONGRESS

    On April 30, 2019, the Committee held a legislative hearing 
on school integration and civil rights enforcement. A review of 
Committee archives suggests this is the first hearing focused 
on school segregation since the 101st Congress, nearly 30 years 
ago. The hearing, titled ``Brown v. Board of Education at 65: A 
Promise Unfulfilled,'' was used to inform the development of 
H.R. 2639. The Committee heard testimony on the following 
issues: the federal role in fulfilling the promise of Brown, 
the importance of the federal government in supporting local 
efforts to combat persistent segregation and discrimination in 
K-12 education, the rescission of Title VI sub-regulatory 
guidance documents by the Trump Administration, and the Trump 
Administration's enforcement of civil rights laws. The 
Committee heard testimony from: Mr. John C. Brittain, Professor 
of Law, University of the District of Columbia Law School, 
Washington, DC; Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond, Ed.D., President and 
CEO, Learning Policy Institute, Palo Alto, CA; Ms. Maritza 
White, Parent Advocate, Washington DC; Mr. Daniel J. Losen, 
M.Ed., J.D., Director, Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the 
Civil Rights Project at UCLA, Lexington, MA; Mr. Dion J. 
Pierre, Research Associate, National Association of Scholars, 
Ridgewood, NY; and Mr. Richard A. Carranza, Chancellor, New 
York City Schools, New York, NY.
    On May 9, 2019, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) introduced H.R. 
2639, the Strength in Diversity Act of 2019, with Chairman 
Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Rep. Gregorio Sablan (D-MP), Chair of 
the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 
Education, as original co-sponsors. On May 16, 2019, the 
Committee considered H.R. 2639 in a legislative session and 
ordered it reported favorably, as amended, to the House of 
Representative by a vote of 26-20. The Committee considered and 
adopted the following amendments to H.R. 2639:
    Rep. Fudge offered an Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute (ANS) that made numerous changes to H.R. 2639. The 
ANS improved provisions under section 5 of the bill to ensure 
outreach to parents and students is produced in commonly 
understandable language. It also ensured consultation with 
students and families in the district or region targeted for 
diversity improvement efforts. Under section 6, the ANS 
expanded planning grant activities to include the development 
of a robust family, student, and community engagement plan. It 
also explicitly stated that funds can be used to support school 
districts under a court-ordered school desegregation plan. The 
ANS expanded implementation grants activities to include the 
development of innovative and equitable school assignment plans 
and other innovative activities to increase racial and 
socioeconomic diversity. Under section 7, the ANS added 
reducing school discipline rates as a measure of a school 
integration plan's success. Under section 8, the ANS expanded 
the annual reporting requirement to includes a description of 
the entity's efforts to increase inclusivity in schools. 
Finally, the ANS added a new section to specify that GEPA 
section 426 does not apply to funds authorized by the bill.
    During the legislative session the Committee considered one 
amendment to the ANS:
    Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) offered an amendment to the ANS that 
proposed to strike the authorization of the new federal grant 
program created in H.R. 2639 to support voluntary community-
driven efforts to increase diversity in schools. The amendment 
instead amended section 4106 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965\8\ to allow school districts to use funds 
authorized by such act to develop or implement strategies to 
improve diversity and reduce or eliminate racial or 
socioeconomic isolation in schools. The amendment also 
permitted LEAs to use funds received under section 4106 to 
cover fees associated with accelerated learning examinations 
given to low-income students. Lastly, the amendment exempted 
funds used pursuant to the authorized uses from the 
requirements of GEPA section 426. Because the amendment 
proposed to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, a law not amended by the underlying bill, the amendment 
expanded the scope of the bill and was ruled out of order by 
the Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\20 U.S.C. Sec. 7116 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Session, Other Legislative Action

    The Committee again worked with the Committee on 
Appropriations on longstanding anti-integration riders during 
the Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) appropriations process. As a 
result, H.R. 7617, the Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science, 
Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General 
Government, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, 
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations 
Act, 2021 included a provision striking GEPA section 426 from 
law entirely. H.R. 7617 passed the House July 31, 2020 by a 
vote of 217-197.

                            Committee Views

    H.R. 2639, the Strength and Diversity Act, authorizes 
federal support for school districts seeking to improve racial 
and socioeconomic diversity through integration of public 
schools. With 2019 marking the 65th anniversary of Brown v. 
Board of Education, the Committee considered H.R. 2639 at a 
time of natural reflection on the legacy of the unanimous 
decision declaring racially segregated schooling 
unconstitutional.
    Despite meaningful progress in the decades following the 
Brown ruling due to robust federal enforcement of civil rights 
laws, the 65th anniversary of the ruling is marked by a growing 
prevalence of racial segregation and, in certain regions of the 
country, re-segregation in public schools that undermines such 
progress. In 2014, Ranking Member George Miller, House 
Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers, and 
now-Chairman Scott commissioned a Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) report on racial isolation in public schools and 
the impact of such segregation on educational equity. Released 
in 2016, the GAO found high-poverty schools where 75-100 
percent of the students were low-income and Black or Latino 
increased from 9 percent in 2000-2001 to 16 percent in 2013-
2014.\9\ The report also found that these schools had fewer 
resources and disproportionately high rates of exclusionary 
school discipline.\10\ Other reports and articles have all 
suggested that segregation in many public school settings is 
reaching levels unseen since the 1960s.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\GAO-16-345 (2016) at 10.
    \10\Id. At 16.
    \11\See, e.g., Alvin Chang, The data proves that school segregation 
is getting worse, Vox, Mar. 5, 2018, available at https://www.vox.com/
2018/3/5/17080218/school-segregation-getting-worse-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On its face, the Brown decision is not profound. The 
conclusion that the opportunity of an education, ``where the 
state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be 
made available to all on equal terms,''\12\ is a logical one 
based upon the most cursory interpretation of the foundational 
documents of the United States.\13\ It receives monumental 
status based largely on the 335 years of history and 
jurisprudence that precede it: a record of systemic racial 
subjugation of African-Americans, first as enslaved people, 
later as second-class citizens. The revolutionary impact of 
Brown demands regular examination of the federal government's 
role in realizing or hindering full integration of public 
education. Without recognizing the legally and socially 
enforced American racial caste system that existed in the 335 
years before Brown, it is hard to understand how revolutionary 
the decision truly was. Considering Brown merely as the end of 
the effort to integrate schools and not the beginning minimizes 
both the decades of local recalcitrance to the decision and the 
federal intervention necessary to enforce it. And, perhaps most 
importantly for the Committee's consideration of H.R. 2639, 
ignoring the concerted efforts to dismantle Brown and the 
subsequent retrenchment of school segregation over the last 30 
years threatens to leave us with a Brown decision that insists 
on school integration and a patchwork of state and federal 
policies that deftly undermine its mandate. The Committee 
believes H.R. 2639 is a small, but meaningful step toward 
ensuring the promise of equal educational opportunity for all 
children, regardless of race, in fulfillment of Brown 65 years 
ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).
    \13\The Declaration of Independence, para. 2 (U.S. 1776); U.S. 
Const. amend. XIV Sec. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

African American Education, 1619-1955

    The moral and practical implications of slavery are at the 
heart of every major political question in the United States 
prior to the Civil War, including the educational deprivation 
of African Americans. The racial caste system that stripped 
enslaved people of their agency and humanity also worked to 
keep them uneducated. State laws both prohibited enslaved 
people from learning to read and write and made the act of 
educating the enslaved a crime as well.\14\ While some slave 
owners saw a moral duty to educate the enslaved to at least 
read the Bible, revolts led by educated enslaved people in the 
early 1800s led to stricter enforcement of these anti-education 
laws.\15\ Even in parts of the country free of chattel slavery, 
the education of African Americans alongside White Americans 
was rare.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\See e.g., Peter H. Irons, Jim Crow's Children: the Broken 
Promise of the Brown Decision 3 (first ed. 2002). For example, in 1740, 
South Carolina passed a law that stated, ``. . . who shall hereafter 
teach or cause any slave or slaves to be taught to write, or shall use 
or employ any slave as a scribe, in any matter of writing whatsoever, 
hereafter taught to write, every such person or persons shall, for 
every such offense, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current 
money.'' An Act for the Better Ordering and Governing Negroes and Other 
Slaves in this Province, 1740 S.C. Acts, 670.
    \15\See Id. at 2-5.
    \16\Id. at 5-6. Inviting free African Americans into schools would 
further weave them into the fabric of America, a proposition that even 
some opposed to slavery felt went too far. ``If the free colored people 
were generally taught to read, it might be an inducement to them to 
remain in this country. WE WOULD OFFER THEM NO SUCH INDUCEMENT.'' 
American Anti-Slavery Society, American anti-slavery almanac, for 1839, 
Samuel J. May Anti-Slavery Collection, Cornell University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    African Americans' access to education improved after the 
Civil War, with the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and 
Fifteenth Amendments and Reconstruction. During Reconstruction, 
multiple states passed laws and state constitutional amendments 
enshrining African-American education, both in segregated and 
integrated settings.\17\ The Freedman's Bureau, the federal 
agency established by Congress to provide aid and services to 
recently-freed African Americans, established schools 
throughout the South.\18\ Twenty-one institutions of higher 
education, open to all, but dedicated to the education of 
African Americans, were founded in the first five years after 
the Civil War.\19\ This outbreak of progress in education, like 
other efforts to integrate African Americans into society, was 
eventually rolled back with the South's response to and the 
federal retreat from Reconstruction.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Irons, supra note 14, at 7.
    \18\Id. at 7-11.
    \19\``HBCU Timeline: 1837 to 1870'', ThoughtCo., available at 
https://www.thoughtco.com/hbcu-timeline-1837-to-1870-45451.
    \20\Irons, supra note 14, at 11-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Racially segregated schools proliferated in the U.S. during 
Jim Crow, the legal system of discrimination that began with 
the end of Reconstruction and the 1877 removal of federal 
troops from the South. Jim Crow laws in both Northern and 
Southern states established white supremacy, maintained the 
systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans, and 
physically separated communities based on race.\21\ Jim Crow 
laws were affirmed by the Supreme Court's 1896 holding in 
Plessy v. Ferguson upholding segregation in public 
transportation as constitutional and enshrining the legal 
fiction of ``separate but equal.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Id. at 13.
    \22\163 U.S. 537, 544-46 (1896).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jim Crow schools were not uniform in their quality. Some, 
especially in the rural South, were rife with indignities.\23\ 
Dilapidated schools with overcrowded classrooms, shortened 
school terms, underpaid teachers, fewer resources, and outdated 
curriculum were common.\24\ Even in Mid-Atlantic and Northern 
cities, where access to better education facilities was 
available, schools were still provided fewer resources at every 
level.\25\ In addition, some states passed laws that subjected 
African Americans to double taxation where African American 
parents were required to pay taxes for their children and white 
children to attend school.\26\ Further, states passed laws that 
excluded schools that taught African American children from 
receiving taxpayer dollars.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Irons, supra note 14, at 34-37.
    \24\Id.
    \25\Id. at 98-99 (``The disparities between white and black schools 
in Washington were not as glairing as those in the Deep South states, 
but they were nonetheless galling to the city's black parents, whose 
children were often forced to attend schools with double shifts while 
classrooms in nearby white schools had plenty of empty seats.'').
    \26\Noliwe Rooks, Cutting School: Privatization, Segregation, and 
the End of Public Education 52 (New Press, New York 2017).
    \27\Id. at 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This was the backdrop to the legal arguments mounted in a 
series of cases challenging racial discrimination in public 
settings leading up to Brown. As early as the 1930s, cases 
overturning segregation in various settings, including graduate 
school admissions, teacher pay, and interstate buses began to 
lay the groundwork to challenge segregation in public 
education.\28\ Chief Justice Earl Warren, who wrote and 
delivered the Court's unanimous decision in Brown, agreed with 
the appellants that psychological evidence showed African 
American children were severely harmed by segregation. The 
Court concluded that ``[t]o separate them [children] from 
others of similar age and qualification solely because of their 
race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in 
the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way 
unlikely ever to be undone.''\29\ He went on to deliver these 
words:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\E.g., Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950), Henderson v. 
U.S., 339 U.S. 816 (1950).
    \29\Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 494.

          ``Today, education is perhaps the most important 
        function of state and local governments. Compulsory 
        school attendance laws and the great expenditures for 
        education both demonstrate our recognition of the 
        importance of education to our democratic society. It 
        is required in the performance of our most basic public 
        responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It 
        is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is 
        a principal instrument in awakening the child to 
        cultural values, in preparing him for later 
        professional training, and in helping him to adjust 
        normally to his environment. In these days, it is 
        doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to 
        succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an 
        education. Such an opportunity, where the state has 
        undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made 
        available to all on equal terms. . . . In the field of 
        public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' 
        has no place. Separate educational facilities are 
        inherently unequal.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Id. at 493, 495.

    Education is no less important in 2020, and the harms 
inflicted on students in segregated schools are no less real as 
when they were presented in Brown. H.R. 2639 is as necessary 
now to ameliorate the effects of segregation as was the federal 
response to compel school integration post-Brown.

Federal Support for Integration after Brown Narrows the Achievement Gap

    The Court's historic ruling in Brown was not the end of 
school segregation, it was the beginning of a long and 
difficult struggle to fulfill the promise of equity in 
education. In 1955, in Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 
the Court ordered states to desegregate ``with all deliberate 
speed.'' Since the decision did not include a definitive 
timeline, many states and localities saw this lack of 
specificity as an invitation to drag their feet to integrate 
their schools.\31\ Such efforts included the denial of state 
funding to integrated schools, the state-mandated closure of 
public schools that agreed to integrate, the firing of African 
American teachers, and the diversion of public dollars from 
public schools to establish private schools for white 
children.\32\ Ten years after Brown, the ``Massive Resistance'' 
to integration across the South left many students stuck in 
segregated schools, and in some cases, without access to any 
public education.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
    \32\See generally Irons, supra note 14, at 172-209 (Chapters 10 and 
11, `War Against the Constitution' and ``Too Much Deliberation, Not 
Enough Speed' provide detail on the response to the Brown decision 
throughout the South.)
    \33\E.g., Charles Ogletree, All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on 
the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education Ch. 8 (``In fact, 
the southern segregated school system remained almost completely 
segregated for a full decade after Brown. By 1964, only one-fiftieth of 
all southern Black children attended integrated schools.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recognizing a constitutional duty to remedy inequality and 
inequity, President Lyndon Johnson and Congress crystallized 
the federal role in public education as an arbiter of equity, 
first with the Civil Rights Act of 1964,\34\ and subsequently 
with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
(ESEA).\35\ The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal 
government the legal tools to realize the promise of Brown. The 
law prohibits racial discrimination in schools, employment, and 
places of public accommodation, and expands the authority of 
federal agencies to protect the civil rights of all students. 
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also gave the federal government 
the power to enforce desegregation plans in local school 
districts under threat of federal sanction, but also authorized 
grants in title IV to support desegregation in communities that 
took voluntary action.\36\ Congress appropriated to Southern 
and border states $176 million for federal education funding in 
1964 and almost $590 million in 1966 under the new ESEA 
law.\37\ Pursuant to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
these states risked losing out on receiving this federal 
funding if they continued to drag their feet on integration, 
which many historians suggest accelerated States' efforts to 
implement desegregation plans.\38\ As evidenced by current data 
on racial isolation in public schools, racial segregation 
remains a national crisis that demands a comprehensive federal 
response like we saw with ESEA. While in and of itself 
insufficient, enactment of H.R. 2639 is central to such a 
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2000a et seq. (2018)).
    \35\Pub. L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. 
Sec. 6301 (2018)).
    \36\42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000c-4 (2018).
    \37\Erica Frankenberg & Kendra Taylor, ESEA and the Civil Rights 
Act: An Interbranch Approach to Furthering Desegregation, 1 Russell 
Sage Found. J. of the Sci. 3, 37 (2015).
    \38\Id. The concept behind title VI was first introduced by the 
former Chairman of the Committee, Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (D-NY). 
In 1946, when ``separate but equal'' was still the law, Rep. Powell 
successfully attached an anti-discrimination provision to a school 
lunch program bill, stating ``No funds made available pursuant to this 
title shall be paid or disbursed to any state or school if, in carrying 
out its functions under this title, it makes any discrimination because 
of race, creed, color or national origins of children or between types 
of schools, or with respect to a state that maintains separate schools 
for minority and majority races, it discriminates between such schools 
on this account.'' After Brown, Powell modified his amendment--it now 
prohibited funds from going to any school district that continued to 
segregate schools. The Powell amendment sank efforts to authorize 
federal education spending in both the Eisenhower and Kennedy 
administrations. See Joy Milligan, Subsidizing Segregation, 104 Va. L. 
Rev 847, 869-70, 891-94 (2018); Jeffrey Jenkins, Building Toward Major 
Policy Change: Congressional Action on Civil Rights, 1941-1950, 31 L. & 
Hist. Rev. 139 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ESEA sought to close opportunity and achievement gaps in 
public education through grants which targeted resources and 
services to communities with high concentrations of poverty. 
This poverty too often resulted in low-quality schools due to 
inequitable public education financing systems,\39\ many of 
which persist today. Since most communities fund their public 
school systems via property taxes,\40\ wealthier, typically 
whiter communities with higher property tax bases invariably 
can provide more resources for their educational facilities. 
Communities surrounding schools continue to be largely 
homogenized by wealth, or the significant lack thereof, due in 
large part to the impact of local, state, and federal housing 
policies intended to segregate white from nonwhite families. 
These policies continue to deny nonwhites access to asset 
accumulation and upward mobility and have corresponding effects 
on the quality of schools in these communities as well.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\E.g., Jeff Raikes & Linda Darling-Hammond, Money Matters: Why 
Our Education Funding systems Are Derailing the American Dream, LPI 
Blog (Feb. 18, 2019), https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/why-our-
education-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream.
    \40\Andrew Reschovsky, The Future of U.S. Public School Revenue 
from the Property Tax 1 (Lincoln Inst. of Land Policy, 2017) available 
at https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/future-us-
public-school-revenue-policy-brief_0.pdf.
    \41\Angela Hanks, et al., Systematic Inequality: How America's 
Structural Racism Helped Create the Black-White Wealth Gap, Ctr. for 
Am. Progress (Feb. 21, 2018, 9:03 am), https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/02/21/447051/
systematic-inequality/; see generally Richard Rothstein, The Color of 
Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America 
(2017) (describing the legacy of local, state, and federal policy in 
creating segregated neighborhoods throughout the United States, 
including the systemic destruction of integrated neighborhoods, and the 
subsidization of suburbs which denied land sale to African-Americans 
through restrictive covenants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1966, Congress appropriated $1 billion in education 
funding for ESEA title I, part A (ESEA Title I).\42\ This was 
monumental because in targeting federal aid to areas of 
concentrated poverty, federal supports were improving equity of 
educational opportunity in regions of the country where de 
facto segregation resulted in racially segregated and 
economically inequitable public schools. And again, because 
public schools received federal funding under ESEA Title I, 
they were now responsible for complying with Title VI and could 
not discriminate on the basis of race.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Rebecca Skinner & Leah Rosenstiel, Con. Research Serv., R44898, 
History of the ESEA Title I-A Formulas, 13 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite ever-present criticism, the federal efforts to 
promote integration and enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
had long-lasting effects. Court-ordered desegregation not only 
substantially reduced racial segregation, it also led to a 
dramatic increase in per-pupil spending, an average increase of 
more than 20 percent per student.\43\ In addition, test scores 
for African American students improved and the achievement gap 
narrowed. Specifically, at the height of school integration 
efforts in 1988: 44 percent of African American students 
nationwide attended integrated schools.\44\ The achievement gap 
in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress 
had fallen from 39 points in 1971 to 18 points\45\ and the 
mathematics achievement gap had fallen by 20 points over the 
same time period.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\Rucker C. Johnson, Long-run Impacts of School Desgregation & 
School Quality on Adult Attainments 16-17 (Nat'l Bureau of Econ. 
Research, Working Paper No. 16664, 2005) available at https://
gsppi.berkeley.edu/ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf.
    \44\Gary Orfield et al., Brown at 60: Great Progress, a Long 
Retreat and an Uncertain Future 10 UCLA C.R. Project, (2014).
    \45\Linda Darling-Hammond, Learning Policy Institute, Education and 
the Path to One Nation, Indivisible, Learning Policy Institute, 4 
(2018).
    \46\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Simply put, in the two decades the federal government was 
most active in supporting and advancing school integration, the 
U.S. was able to cut the achievement gap nearly in half. 
Notably, a recent report on the achievement gap from the Hoover 
Institution, a conservative think tank, found school 
integration was the only federal reform that has successfully 
narrowed the achievement gap.\47\ Enactment of H.R. 2639 would 
support participating LEAs to not only integrate their schools, 
but also narrow racial achievement gaps, a mandate of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every 
Student Succeeds Act.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Press Release, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, No 
Change in Student Achievement Gap in Last 50 Years (Apr. 1, 2019) 
available at https://www.hoover.org/news/no-change-student-achievement-
gap-last-50-years (``The only program that seems to have had national 
impacts over this period has been school desegregation . . . During the 
early period of our study, the gap narrowed, but this closing of the 
black-white achievement gap stopped a quarter of a century ago when the 
desegregation efforts slowed and stopped.'').
    \48\20 U.S.C. Sec. 6311(c)(4)(A)(III) (2018) (requiring statewide 
accountability systems to include ``ambitious . . . long-term goals'' 
with ``measurements of interim progress'' for subgroups of students who 
are behind on academic achievement and high school graduation rates 
toward the goal of the state making ``significant progress in closing 
statewide proficiency and graduation rate gaps'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research has shown that diverse learning environments lead 
to numerous academic, cognitive, and social benefits for 
students, including improved student academic achievement and 
high school graduation, and preparation for diverse collegiate 
and work environments.\49\ School integration did not 
negatively impact white student achievement or educational 
attainment,\50\ while the biases of white children increased in 
racially homogenous school environments.\51\ In an amicus brief 
in support of the respondents in the Parents Involved case, a 
group of over 500 researchers concluded the following about 
segregated schools:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\Brief for American Educational Research Association as Amici 
Curiae Supporting Respondents at 11, 27-28, 34, Parents Involved in 
Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2006) (No. 05-
908, 05-915), 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1038.
    \50\Id. at 36.
    \51\Id. at 15-17.

          . . . [M]ore often than not, segregated minority 
        schools offer profoundly unequal educational 
        opportunities. This inequality is manifested in many 
        ways, including fewer qualified, experienced teachers, 
        greater instability caused by rapid turnover of 
        faculty, fewer educational resources, and limited 
        exposure to peers who can positively influence academic 
        learning. No doubt as a result of these disparities, 
        measures of educational outcomes, such as scores on 
        standardized achievement tests and high school 
        graduation rates, are lower in schools with high 
        percentages of nonwhite students.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\Brief of 553 Social Scientists as Amici Curiae Supporting 
Respondents at 4-5, Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. 
Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2006) (No. 05-908, 05-915), 2006 U.S. S. Ct. 
Briefs LEXIS 1024.

    The positive effects of school integration also accrue over 
a lifetime. One of the most rigorous studies on the effects of 
court-ordered integration found a profound long-term impact on 
students born between 1945 and 1970 who attended integrated 
schools after the Brown decision.\53\ The study found that high 
school graduation rates increased by nearly 2 percentage points 
every year for African American students who attended 
integrated schools,\54\ while over time their wages increased 
by 15 percent, annual family income increased by 25 percent, 
annual earnings increased by 30 percent, and good health 
outcomes increased by 11 percent.\55\ At the same time, their 
chances of falling into adult poverty declined by 11 percent, 
and the probability of adult incarceration decreased by 22 
percent.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\Johnson, supra note 43 at 2.
    \54\Id. at 18-19 (``The results indicate that, for blacks, there is 
an immediate jump in the likelihood of graduating from high school with 
exposure to court-ordered desegregation, and each additional year of 
exposure leads to a 1.8 percentage-point increase in the likelihood of 
high school graduation with an additional jump for those exposed 
throughout their school-age years.'')
    \55\Id. at 20-24.
    \56\Id. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 2639 is a remedy for federal policy that has retreated from 
        integration

    Despite the successes of school integration, public 
backlash to the Civil Rights Movement never fully abated. While 
integration efforts did continue, the 1968 election of Richard 
Nixon marked the beginning of a gradual retreat in federal 
support for school integration and enforcement of civil rights 
law that led to the current state of racial segregation in 
America's schools.\57\ In Congress, resistance came both from a 
lack of a legislative agenda to build upon the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, and a concentration instead on legislation limiting 
federal power to aid integration efforts. At the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, successive Presidential administrations 
de-prioritized oversight of state and local school 
desegregation work, aided localities in evading that oversight 
in some cases, and nominated federal judges with ideologies 
antithetical to an expansive view of Brown. And over the last 
50 years the federal judiciary has, without overturning Brown, 
severely limited federal enforcement of its mandate and 
provided legal cover for localities to operate increasingly 
segregated schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\See Janel George & Linda Darling-Hammond, Learning Policy 
Institute, The Federal Role and School Integration: Brown's Promise and 
Present Challenges 7 (2019) available at https://
learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/
Federal_Role_School_Integration_REPORT.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As early as the late 1960s, federal support for 
desegregation begins to wane. Congress took many more (and 
longer sustained) actions to block how federal funds could be 
used to support school desegregation, especially when it came 
to the politically volatile subject of busing. This is despite 
a Supreme Court decision upholding busing as a remedy to 
achieve integration,\58\ and the application of that decision 
in both Southern communities with school systems segregated de 
jure and Northern communities segregated de facto.\59\ The use 
of busing to achieve desegregation and the groundswell of 
resistance to it in White neighborhoods across the country led 
the Democratically-controlled Congress to pass the Education 
Amendments of 1972, which included an amendment limiting the 
use of federal funds for busing to local, voluntary 
requests.\60\ Northern liberals in both parties, who had seen 
desegregation as a problem cabined to the South, now found 
themselves voting often with pro-segregation 
representatives.\61\ In 1974, Congress first attached a riders 
to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare (HEW, now the Department of Education) 
that prohibited federal funds from being used for 
transportation to support integration.\62\ These riders 
continued to appear in Education appropriations bills until 
fiscal year 2019.\63\ And as a final backstop to ensure federal 
funds would not support busing for desegregation purposes, the 
Education Amendments of 1974 included a provision that 
prohibits school districts from using federal funds for 
transportation to promote racial integration. This provision 
was codified as GEPA section 426\64\ and remains in federal law 
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 30-31 
(1971).
    \59\Irons, supra note 14, at 225 (``The distinction between de 
facto and de jure segregation struck many federal judges as artificial, 
and they issue a spate of busing orders in the months after the Swann 
decision. When the new school year began in September 1971, more than 
half a million students in dozens of cities were assigned to schools 
outside their neighborhoods . . .'').
    \60\Pub. L. No. 92-318 86 Stat. 235, 371(codified as amended in 
scattered section of 20 U.S.C.) (1972); see Jack Jennings, Presidents, 
Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform 126-
27; Irons, supra note 14, at 226-33.
    \61\Irons, supra note 14, at 226-33 (describing a liberal Democrat 
House Member who went from leading floor action against anti-busing 
amendments to assuring his constituents he would ``do whatever is 
necessary by way of further legislation or a constitutional amendment 
to prevent implementation of [desegregation orders] by cross-district 
busing'', after parts of his congressional district were placed under 
desegregation orders.).
    \62\Pub. L. No. 93-192, Sec. Sec. 208-09, 87 Stat. 746, 761 (1973).
    \63\See supra, Part COMMITTEE ACTION, 115th Congress, Second 
Session, Other Legislative Action.
    \64\20 U.S.C. Sec. 1228 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The opposition to school integration and efforts to reverse 
the promise of Brown legislatively culminated in 1979, when 
House members opposed to busing succeeded in bringing an anti-
busing constitutional amendment to the House floor (H.J. Res. 
74) via a discharge petition.\65\ The amendment failed to win a 
simple majority of the House, much less the two-thirds majority 
needed to move the amendment on the Floor.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\``House Rejects Anti-Busing Amendment.'' CQ Almanac 1979, 35th 
ed., 482-84. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980.
    \66\96th Cong. Roll Call Vote #374 (227-183), July 24, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Strength in Diversity Act nullifies GEPA section 426 as 
it pertains to funds in the bill. The GEPA provision was 
written to undermine the Court's mandate in Brown and 
enforcement of federal civil rights laws and keep students of 
color segregated in under-resourced schools. As such, it is the 
position of the Committee that it should be struck entirely. 
However, due to considerations of germaneness under the Rules 
of the House, H.R. 2639 as reported did not strike GEPA section 
426 entirely but ensures that the funds authorized under the 
Act would not be susceptible to it.
    While the Democratically-led Congress was undermining 
integration efforts legislatively, successive Republican 
presidential administrations took steps to limit federal 
oversight of school desegregation. Additionally, federal judges 
and Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican 
administrations also significantly narrowed the application of 
remedies to integrate public schools. The retreat began in 
Milliken v. Bradley (1974) which held that school districts in 
the suburbs of Detroit were not obligated to participate in 
intra-district desegregation unless they committed a 
constitutional violation, effectively ending state-ordered 
regional desegregation across school district lines.\67\ In the 
1990s, Supreme Court rulings in three cases reduced judicial 
oversight of school desegregation orders, allowing school 
districts to escape oversight.\68\ According to research, 45 
percent of school districts were released from court ordered 
desegregation orders between 1990-2009.\69\ And in 2007, in the 
Parents Involved case the Roberts Court found the use of racial 
balancing desegregation plans unconstitutional when used to 
achieve racial diversity where de jure segregation does not 
exist.\70\ Two school systems had developed voluntary school 
desegregation plans, where race served as the basis of 
assigning students to a particular school, in an effort to 
achieve racial diversity.\71\ The Court held that since in one 
district the schools were never legally segregated, and in the 
other county the court ordered segregation consent decree had 
been lifted, neither district had the compelling interest 
necessary to implement such a race-based scheme.\72\ As such 
the plans failed the strict scrutiny test and the use of race 
violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\418 U.S. 717, 721 (1974).
    \68\Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 
(1991); Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992); Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 
U.S. 79 (1995).
    \69\Sean F. Reardon, et al., ``Brown Fades: The End of Court-
Ordered School Desegregation and the Resegregation of American Public 
Schools.'' 31 J. of Pol'y Anal. & Mgmt. 876 (2012).
    \70\551 U.S. 701 (2007).
    \71\Id. at 710.
    \72\Id. at 720-21.
    \73\Id. at 730-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But Parents Involved did not completely foreclose on the 
use of race. Justice Kennedy broke with the four conservative 
judges to clarify in his concurrence, that it is constitutional 
for school districts to use race to promote school diversity, a 
stance informed by Grutter.\74\ In his concurring opinion, 
Justice Kennedy stated that the plurality opinion was 
``profoundly mistaken'' to suggest that states and school 
districts ``must accept the status quo of racial isolation in 
schools.''\75\ Justice Kennedy decreed school integration 
strategies such as drawing attendance zones and ``allocating 
resources for special programs'' such as magnet schools to 
promote diversity.\76\ These are the types of strategies H.R. 
2639 aims to provide funding to support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\Id. at 788 (Kennedy, J. concurring).
    \75\Id.
    \76\Id. at 789 (``. . . recruiting students and faculty in a 
targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other 
statistics by race. These mechanisms are race conscious but do not lead 
to different treatment based on a classification that tells each 
student he or she is to be defined by race . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These are also the same types of strategies the Obama 
administration sought to promote with its ``Opening Doors, 
Expanding Opportunities'' program. Introduced in 2016, this $12 
million grant program was designed to help school districts 
increase diversity in their schools.\77\ All school districts 
that received or were eligible for ESEA School Improvement 
Grants\78\ were eligible to apply for the grant, which was 
designed to help school districts develop plans to improve 
socioeconomic diversity and complete pre-implementation 
diversity initiatives.\79\ Twenty-six school districts from 22 
different states and the District of Columbia applied for the 
funds, demonstrating a nationwide desire and commitment to 
address segregation in schools.\80\ Under the Trump 
Administration, the Department of Education discontinued this 
program in 2017.\81\ Sadly although there was an outpouring of 
support from school districts to voluntarily take on the work 
of promoting integration in their schools, many were not able 
to do so without the possibility of federal funding.\82\ The 
choice to discontinue this program is especially disheartening 
in the face of the research we have showing the regrowth of 
segregated schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\Press Release, Department of Education, U.S. Education 
Secretary Announces Grant Competitions to Encourage Diverse Schools, 
(Dec. 13, 2016), available at https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/
us-education-secretary-announces-grant-competitions-encourage-diverse-
schools.
    \78\Every Student Succeeds Act Sec. 1003(g), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 6303(g) 
(2018).
    \79\Applications for New Awards; Opening Doors, Expanding 
Opportunities 81 Fed. Reg. 90343 (Dec. 14, 2016) available at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-12-14/pdf/2016-29936.pdf.
    \80\List of Potential Applicants, Opening Doors, Expanding 
Opportunities -Intent to Apply, available at https://www2.ed.gov/
programs/odeo/odeolistofapp2017.pdf.
    \81\Emma Brown, ``Trump's Education department nixes Obama-era 
grant program for school diversity'', Wash. Post Mar. 2, 2017, 
available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/03/
29/trumps-education-department-nixes-obama-era-grant-program-for-
school-
diversity/.
    \82\Kalyn Belsha, ``Dozens of school districts applied to an Obama-
era integration program before Trump officials axed it. Since then, 
many plans have gone nowhere'', Chalkbeat Dec. 2, 2019, available at 
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/12/02/what-happened-after-trump-
administration-killed-obama-era-school-integration-program/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research shows that the gains made on school integration in 
the 1960s and 1970s have reversed as schools have become 
increasingly segregated.\83\ The share of racially segregated 
schools has tripled to nearly 20 percent since the 1980s.\84\ 
This finding indicates that nearly one in five schools in 
America enroll 90-100% non-white students.\85\ 40 percent of 
African American students and 41 percent of Latino students 
nationwide attend these intensely segregated schools where 
students of color makeup 90-100 percent of the student 
population.\86\ The report also found that these schools had 
fewer resources, less access to math, science, and college 
preparatory courses, and disproportionately suspended, 
expelled, or held back students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\See Frankenberg, supra note 4, at 21-22.
    \84\Id. at 21.
    \85\Id.
    \86\Id. at 25, 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 2019 report by EdBuild found that school district 
secessions to create wealthy white school districts are 
accelerating.\87\ According to the report, there have been at 
least 128 attempts by school districts to secede from their 
larger school district since 2000, with a total of 73 
successful secessions. Historically, after the Brown decision, 
school district secessions were a mechanism for communities 
within county-based school districts to resist integration. 
Currently, 30 states have laws permitting secession and there 
are states considering laws to permit secession. This action is 
deeply troubling as it undermines the Brown decision and 
exacerbates inequality and segregation, leaving high-poverty 
school districts behind with fewer resources since public 
education is largely funded using property tax revenue. 
Further, school districts cannot be compelled to work with 
other school districts to integrate. H.R. 2639 addresses the 
problem of secession by allowing consortium of LEAs or regional 
education entities to be eligible entities for purposes of the 
grant. The goal is to ensure that where a secession has 
occurred, or one may occur, steps could be taken using funds 
from the bill to ensure racial diversity was maintained in 
these instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\EdBuild, Fractured: The Accelerated Breakdown of America's 
School Districts, EdBuild, Apr. 2019, available at https://edbuild.org/
content/fractured/fractured-full-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EdBuild recently produced another report that found a $23 
billion racial funding gap between school districts serving 
students of color and school districts serving predominantly 
white students.\88\ This data indicates that the relationship 
between integration and resources is often overlooked but 
cannot be overstated. Further, in 2017, the National Center on 
Education Statistics issued a report that found that most Black 
and Latino students in the 2014-2015 school year attended high-
poverty schools.\89\ Moreover, in 2018, Chairman Scott and 
Chairman Nadler released a GAO report that found that African 
American students, boys, and students with disabilities are 
disproportionately disciplined at high rates and African 
American students are subject to harsher discipline than their 
white counterparts in schools across the country.\90\ This is 
alarming given the dramatic increase in segregation in public 
schools by race and poverty, especially as students of color 
are more likely to experience harsh discipline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\EdBuild, $23 Billion, (last visited Dec. 6, 2019), http://
edbuild.org/content/23-billion.
    \89\Nat'l Ctr. For Educ. Stats., The Condition of Education 2017, 
134 available at https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017144.pdf.
    \90\U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-18-258, K-12 Education: 
Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with 
Disabilities (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sixty-five years after the landmark Brown v. Board of 
Education decision, educational inequity remains pervasive and 
persistent in the U.S. Like the Jim Crow education system, 
children of color and low-income students are consigned to 
learning in segregated schools with crumbling infrastructure 
that offer demonstrably worse opportunity for a quality 
education. As a result, millions of children are robbed of 
their constitutionally guaranteed educational rights. As Dr. 
Rucker Johnson recently stated, ``[s]segregation is not only 
the isolation of schoolchildren from one another; it is the 
hoarding of opportunity. Opportunity for smaller class sizes, 
access to high quality teachers supported by higher teacher 
salaries, teacher diversity, multicultural and college-
preparatory curricular access all remain elusive for lower-
income and minority children.''\91\ A profound question and 
answer exchange during the April 30th Committee hearing on 
fulfilling the Brown decision took place between Rep. Mark 
Takano (CA-41) and Chancellor Carranza. Rep. Takano asked 
Chancellor Carranza, ``[w]hat does it mean for children of 
color who suffer the repercussions of widening achievement and 
opportunity gaps?'' Mr. Carranza stated, ``[w]e are robbing the 
very future of this country of future talent.'' This statement 
fully encapsulates the cost of school segregation and the lack 
of inaction by the federal government. The Committee believes 
it is the role of the federal government and the duty of 
Congress to address the segregation that exists in our public 
education system today to ensure that all children have access 
to an equal education regardless of their race, ethnicity, 
family wealth, or zip code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\Valerie Strauss, ``Why School Integration Works'', Wash. Post, 
May 16 2019, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/
2019/05/16/why-school-integration-works/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Conclusion

    Congress must recommit to investing in school integration 
to fulfill the promise of Brown. Approximately 200 school 
districts remain under court-desegregation orders.\92\ But that 
number is hardly reflective of how pervasive racial segregation 
remains in public education. According to scholars at 
Pennsylvania State University, there are more than 100 school 
districts that have voluntary integration plans to promote 
diversity.\93\ Their research shows that school districts are 
experiencing multiple challenges defining diversity and 
developing diversity and desegregation initiatives.\94\ H.R. 
2639, the Strength in Diversity Act would provide much needed 
support to these school districts. Under the bill, there are 
mandatory application requirements to ensure funding is 
targeted to improve school diversity. But the plans funded 
under the bill could also include a comprehensive set of 
strategies to improve student outcomes, evidence of family and 
community engagement, goals to increase school diversity, 
development of innovative and equitable school assignment 
plans, and other strategies. The Secretary of Education is 
required to establish performance measures to assess the 
progress of outcomes and activities funded by the grants and 
may set aside funding for research development and technical 
assistance. The bill reinforces the notion that the federal 
government is committed to supporting efforts to desegregate 
our schools and level the educational playing field to ensure 
equal access to education for all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\Jeremy Anderson & Erica Frankenberg, ``Voluntary Integration in 
Uncertain Times'', Phi Delta Kappan, Jan. 21, 2019, available at 
https://www.kappanonline.org/voluntary-integration-in-uncertain-times-
anderson-frankenberg/.
    \93\Id.
    \94\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accordingly, the Strength in Diversity Act would provide 
public school districts with the tools to support their 
voluntary community-driven strategies for promoting racial and 
socioeconomic diversity in schools. On April 30, 2018, 
Chancellor Richard Carranza of New York City Department of 
Education testified before the Committee about the diversity 
efforts in School District 15 in Brooklyn, which is comprised 
of 50 schools serving over 30,000 students. The community 
engaged in a diversity planning process to address racial 
isolation by studying data and research, including racial 
housing segregation, school enrollment demographics, and 
student academic outcomes. This process resulted in a 
comprehensive plan to address school segregation that was 
approved by Mayor DeBlasio and Chancellor Carranza. The 
Strength in Diversity Act would provide support to school 
districts in New York City and across the country that are 
working to develop and implement school integration 
initiatives.
    Congress must act to support communities that are committed 
to studying the scope of their challenges and tackling those 
challenges with innovative, evidence-based plans to address 
racial isolation in schools. The Strength in Diversity Act is a 
small investment in the much larger fight to remedy decades of 
purposeful inaction--including inaction by the federal 
government--that intentionally segregated communities and 
schools to deny people of color equal opportunity. There was a 
federal role in the creation of school segregation, and there 
is certainly a federal role in eradicating its hold in public 
education.
    Justice Kennedy provided a powerful goal for our country in 
his concurring opinion in the 2007 Parents Involved decision:

          Our Nation from the inception has sought to preserve 
        and expand the promise of liberty and equality on which 
        it was founded. Today we enjoy a society that is 
        remarkable in its openness and opportunity. Yet our 
        tradition is to go beyond present achievements, however 
        significant, and to recognize and confront the flaws 
        and injustices that remain. This is especially true 
        when we seek assurance that opportunity is not denied 
        on account of race. The enduring hope is that race 
        should not matter; the reality is that too often it 
        does.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 
551 U.S. 701, 787 (2007) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

    Congress has the power and authority to challenge history 
and help change it. History shows that when Congress accepts 
its responsibility to desegregate schools, the closing of the 
racial achievement gap is tangible. It is time for Congress to 
recommit to investing in school integration to ensure the 
constitutionally guaranteed educational rights of children of 
color by passing the Strength in Diversity Act.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    This Act is called ``The Strength in Diversity Act of 
2019.''

Section 2. Purpose

    This section provides that the purpose of the Strength in 
Diversity Act of 2019 is to support the development, 
implementation, and evaluation of strategies to address the 
effects of racial isolation or concentrated poverty by 
increasing racial and socioeconomic diversity in public 
schools.

Section 3. Reservation for national activities

    This section allows the Secretary of Education to set aside 
no more than 5 percent of funding for national activities. The 
national activities include research, development, data 
collection, monitoring, technical assistance, evaluation, 
dissemination activities, and development and maintenance of 
best practices on school diversity.

Section 4. Grant program authorized

    This section provides detail on the two types of grants 
authorized under the bill (planning and implementation), 
criteria for evaluating applications, award priority, and 
duration of grants, (one year for a planning grant and up to 
three years for an implementation grant). Implementation grants 
can be extended for an additional two years. Priority in 
awarding is given to eligible entities that address racial 
isolation in public schools.

Section 5. Applications

    This section provides information for grant application 
submissions to the Secretary of Education. Application 
requirements include a description of the program, how the 
grant will be used, outreach to parents and students in a 
language that parents and students can understand, consultation 
with students and families in the district or region targeted 
for diversity improvement efforts, and how the eligible entity 
will identify and define racial isolation, income level, and 
socioeconomic status.

Section 6. Uses of funds

    This section provides further detail on planning and 
implementation grant funds may be spent. Under the act, 
planning grants will be used to create a comprehensive 
assessment of the geographic area served and to develop a 
robust family, student, and community engagement plan. 
Implementation grants will apply the high-quality plan, which 
will include a comprehensive set of strategies to: improve 
student outcomes; evidence of family and community engagement, 
goals to increase school diversity, development of innovative 
and equitable school assignment plans, collection and analysis 
of data, and a rigorous method of evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the program. Implementation grant funding can 
be used to recruit, hire, and train teachers and other 
innovative activities designed to increase racial and 
socioeconomic diversity and engagement among students from 
different, racial, economic, and cultural backgrounds. Grant 
funding also supports school districts under a court-ordered 
school desegregation plan.

Section 7. Performance measures

    This section provides information on performance measures 
for the programs and activities carried out through use of the 
grants. These performance measures include but are not limited 
to academic performance, school readiness, achievement gaps, 
graduation rates, reducing school discipline rates, and post-
secondary career readiness.

Section 8. Annual reports

    This section provides that entities that receive a grant 
will submit a report to the Secretary of Education with a 
description of the efforts to increase inclusivity and 
information on the progress of the grant in respect to 
performance measures and data to support said progress.

Section 9. Applicability

    This section specifies that Section 426 of the General 
Education Provisions Act (GEPA) does not apply to funding 
authorized in the bill.

Section 10. Authorization of appropriations

    This section provides that the program is to be funded for 
fiscal year 2020 and for five succeeding fiscal years.

Section 11. Definitions

    Provides definitions found within the bill.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    The ANS is explained in other descriptive portions of this 
report.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    H.R. 2639 does not apply to terms and conditions of 
employment or to access to public services or accommodations 
within the legislative branch.

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Pub. L. 104-4), the Committee 
adopts as its own the estimate of federal mandates regarding 
H.R. 2639, as amended, prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office.

                           Earmark Statement

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 2639 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as described in clauses 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule 
XXI.

                            Roll Call Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following roll call vote occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 2639.
{GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT}

             Statement of Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the goals of H.R. 2639 are to support 
the development, implementation, and evaluation of strategies 
to address the effects of racial isolation or concentrated 
poverty by increasing racial and socioeconomic diversity in 
public schools.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee states that no 
provision of H.R. 2639 establishes or reauthorizes a program of 
the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another 
federal program, a program that was included in any report from 
the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of Section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 for the 
116th Congress, the legislative hearing titled ``Brown v. Board 
of Education at 65: A Promise Unfulfilled,'' held of April 30, 
2019 was used to inform the development of H.R. 2639.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and Clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in the descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives and Section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and Section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for 
H.R. 2639 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, June 4, 2019.
Hon. Bobby Scott,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2639, the Strength 
in Diversity Act of 2019.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Leah 
Koestner.
            Sincerely,
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

    {GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT}
    

    H.R. 2639 would authorize the appropriation of whatever 
amounts are necessary through 2025 for the Department of 
Education to operate a grant program for eligible entities to 
develop or implement plans to improve diversity, and to reduce 
or eliminate racial or socioeconomic isolation in schools. That 
authorization would be extended through 2026 under the General 
Education Provisions Act.
    Because of the program's similarities to the grant program 
called Opening Doors, Expanding Opportunities, which provided 
$12 million for similar purposes in fiscal year 2017, CBO 
estimates the bill would authorize the appropriation of $12 
million in fiscal year 2020. After accounting for anticipated 
inflation, CBO estimates that amount would be $14 million in 
2026. Based on historical spending patterns of similar 
programs, and assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts, 
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2639 would cost $48 
million over the 2019-2024 period and $89 million over the 
2019-2029 period.
    The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 2639 is shown in 
Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall within budget 
function 500 (education, training, employment, and social 
services).

                                   TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER H.R. 2639
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2019   2020   2021   2022   2023   2024   2025   2026   2027   2028   2029  2019-2024  2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Authorization..............................      0     12     12     12     13     13     13     14      0      0      0        62         89
Estimated Outlays....................................      0      1      6     15     13     13     13     13     11      4      1        48         89
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Leah Koestner. 
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the 
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2639. 
However, Clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with Clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, in H.R. 2639, as reported, makes 
no changes to existing law.

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                              Introduction

    In 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the unanimous 
Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (Brown) that, 
``[Education], where the state has undertaken to provide it, is 
a right which must be made available to all on equal 
terms.''\1\ This was a long-overdue and welcomed acknowledgment 
that separate is not, and can never be, equal. Discrimination 
and segregation are repugnant, illegal, and blatantly immoral. 
Unfortunately, while segregation is gone from our laws, its 
lingering effects are not. We know that too many students 
attend racially and economically isolated schools\2\ and that 
better integrated schools have academic benefits for all 
students.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Page 
493.
    \2\``Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify 
Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination.'' U.S. Government 
Accountability Office. May 17, 2016. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-
16-345
    \3\Ayscue, Jennifer, et. al. Research Brief: The Complementary 
Benefits of Racial and Socioeconomic Diversity in Schools. The National 
Coalition on School Diversity. March 2017. https://school-
diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Committee Consideration of H.R. 2639--Bipartisan Opportunity Lost

    On May 16, 2019, the House Committee on Education and Labor 
met to mark up H.R. 2639. Because Republicans and Democrats 
largely agree on the importance of integrated schools, this 
topic afforded the Committee an opportunity to work across the 
aisle to find bipartisan compromise. Unfortunately, the 
majority took a different approach.
    H.R. 2639 authorizes a new grant program within the 
Department of Education (ED) for ``the development, 
implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive strategies to 
address the effects of racial isolation or concentrated poverty 
. . .''\4\ Committee Republicans support this goal. 
Unfortunately, Democrats are pursuing it in a way sure to add 
to the federal government's long list of broken promises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act of 2019. Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1975, Congress enacted the predecessor to the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In that 
law, Congress promised a maximum grant to every state equal to 
40 percent of the national average per-pupil expenditure 
(APPE). When Republicans took over the House in 1995 for the 
first time in more than 40 years, and nearly 20 years after 
IDEA was originally enacted, the federal government was funding 
IDEA at 8 percent of the national APPE and Republicans more 
than doubled that contribution. When Democrats regained the 
majority in 2007, the federal government was funding IDEA at 17 
percent of the national APPE. Unfortunately, the federal 
government's contribution has steadily declined since then. In 
fiscal year (FY) 2020 the federal government is funding IDEA at 
about 13 percent of the national APPE.
    Funding progress on this core program has stalled because 
Democrats have pursued other agendas. For example, in FYs 2012 
and 2013, Republicans controlled the House, but Democrats 
controlled the Senate and the White House. In FY 2012, IDEA was 
funded at $11.578 billion. The Republican House proposal for FY 
2013 was $12.078 billion while President Obama proposed flat 
funding and Senate Democrats proposed a modest increase to 
$11.678 billion. The President's level-funding proposal was 
enacted.
    Where did funding increases for ED go? Among other places, 
Democrats in Congress and the White House spent nearly $6 
billion on Race to the Top, a program used to coerce states 
into sweeping policy changes, but which provided actual funding 
to only a lucky few school districts nationwide. Republicans 
have consistently prioritized IDEA while Democrats have 
shortchanged this core program to fund their own initiatives.
    Now here we are again. The Democrats are advancing H.R. 
2639, yet another federal program sure to be underfunded while 
existing priorities continue to be ignored. Rep. Rick Allen (R-
GA) offered a better way to address the issue in Committee 
Republicans' substitute amendment to the bill. Rep. Allen's 
substitute would have expanded the Student Support and Academic 
Enrichment Grants (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 
significant resources to address local needs and received $1.21 
billion in FY 2020 appropriated funding.
    Committee Republicans offered Democrats an easy bipartisan 
victory. The Committee could have adopted Rep. Allen's 
substitute amendment to ensure that school districts have 
federal funds available for school diversity efforts. Instead, 
they opted to pass a partisan bill that will only add to the 
federal government's long list of broken promises.

         Fulfilling the Promise of Brown--Expanding Opportunity

    While there is significant alignment between Committee 
Democrats' and Committee Republicans' goals with respect to 
H.R. 2639, Committee Republicans also believe expanding 
opportunities for students should be a priority. School choice 
gives families the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty 
and enroll their children in challenging environments that 
better develops their skills and intellects, encouraging them 
to reach higher. 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Chingos, Matthew, et. al. ``The Effects of the Florida Tax 
Credit Scholarship Program on College Enrollment and Graduation.'' 
February 2019. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/
effects-florida-tax-credit-scholarship-program-college-enrollment-and-
graduation?utm_source=
urban_EA&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=florida_school_choice&utm_term=ed
u&
utm_content=r.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In April 2019, the Committee held a hearing examining the 
legacy of Brown as its 65th anniversary approached. Virginia 
Walden Ford, a parent who advocates for more educational 
freedom for families wrote to the Committee and said:

          The same schools that we fought hard to get into in 
        the 1960's after the [Brown] decision have become the 
        schools we must diligently find a way to get minority 
        children out of. These schools and programs that our 
        children are now forced to attend are creating 
        environments where our kids cannot get the education 
        they deserve.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Ford, Virginia Walden. Letter to the Committee on Education and 
Labor. April 27, 2019.

    Loisa Maritza White, another parent advocate, testified to 
the Committee about her family's use of the DC Opportunity 
Scholarship Program and the importance of school choice. She 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
said:

          Each family has the right to decide what education 
        works best for their individual child(ren) . . . No, 
        indeed, [the Brown] mandate has NOT been fulfilled in 
        the last 65 years. But school choice is a step in the 
        right direction in reaching the mandated outcome.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\White, Loisa Maritza. Testimony Before the Committee on 
Education and Labor. April 30, 2019.

    Committee Republicans stand ready to work with our 
colleagues in the majority to expand educational opportunities 
to families. Brown prohibited the state from assigning students 
to schools based on race. We should take the next step and 
eliminate the right of the state to trap children in low-
performing schools with no means of escape.

                               Conclusion

    As outlined in these Minority Views, H.R. 2639 is a lost 
opportunity. Bipartisan compromise was possible to advance the 
shared goals of addressing the effects of racial and 
socioeconomic isolation in education. Unfortunately, Committee 
Democrats chose a partisan path. Additionally, 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. We invite Democrats to listen to parents 
desperate for better educational options for their children.

                                   Virginia Foxx,
                                     Ranking Member.
                                   David P. Roe, M.D.
                                   Glenn ``GT'' Thompson.
                                   Tim Walberg.
                                   Brett Guthrie.
                                   Bradley Byrne.
                                   Glenn Grothman.
                                   Rick W. Allen.
                                   Jim Banks.
                                   Mark Walker.
                                   James Comer.
                                   Ben Cline.
                                   Russ Fulcher.
                                   Daniel Meuser.
                                   Dusty Johnson.
                                   Fred Keller.
                                   Gregory F. Murphy.
                                   Jefferson Van Drew.

                                  [all]