Pursuant to the instructions of the House on the Motion to Recommit the amendment was considered.

EQUITY AND INCLUSION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2019

General Leave

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

H.R. 2574

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Equity and Inclusion
Enforcement Act of 2019''.

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

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

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

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

SEC. 4. SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR EQUITY AND INCLUSION.

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

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

[[Page H4440]]

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

{time}  1030

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

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

[[Page H4441]]

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

{time}  1045

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

[[Page H4442]]

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

[[Page H4443]]

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

{time}  1100

Motion to Recommit

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

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

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

[[Page H4444]]

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

____________________