IV 
116TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 66 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the obligation 
of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education and 
the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to enforce title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations, 
and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding 
the obligation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
to ‘‘build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimina-
tion’’, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JANUARY 22, 2019 
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself and Mr. NADLER) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 
in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to 
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consider-
ation of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
concerned 
RESOLUTION 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regard-
ing the obligation of the Office for Civil Rights of the 
Department of Education and the Civil Rights Division 
of the Department of Justice to enforce title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regula-
tions, and expressing the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives regarding the obligation of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development to ‘‘build inclusive 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:24 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6652
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 66 IH 
and sustainable communities free from discrimination’’, 
and for other purposes. 
Whereas, 64 years ago, in the case of Brown v. Board of 
Education of Topeka, Kansas, a unanimous Supreme 
Court held that segregated school systems based on race 
are inherently unequal and violate the 14th Amendment 
to the Constitution; 
Whereas Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in 
part, to address ‘‘Massive Resistance’’, a collection of 
State laws passed in response to the Brown decision that 
aggressively tried to forestall and prevent school integra-
tion, and the ‘‘Declaration of Constitutional Principles’’ 
(known colloquially as the ‘‘Southern Manifesto’’) signed 
on March 12, 1956, by Members of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Senate, that attacked the decision 
and opposed integrated schools; 
Whereas title VI of that law prohibits programs and activities 
that receive Federal funds from discriminating based on 
race, color, or national origin; 
Whereas former President John F. Kennedy eloquently ex-
plained the need for title VI by stating that ‘‘[s]imple 
justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers 
of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which 
encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial 
discrimination. Direct discrimination by Federal, State, 
or local governments is prohibited by the Constitution. 
But, indirect discrimination, through the use of Federal 
funds, is just as invidious; and it should not be necessary 
to resort to the courts to prevent each individual viola-
tion.’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:24 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 66 IH 
Whereas title VI requires policies and practices to be devel-
oped and administered in a manner that does not inten-
tionally discriminate against students on the basis of 
race, color, or national origin, and that does not ‘‘have 
the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination be-
cause of their race, color, or national origin, or . . . of 
defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of 
the objectives of the program as respects individuals of 
a particular race, color, or national origin.’’; 
Whereas racial discrimination in the public school systems 
nationwide continues to persist, as exemplified by— 
(1) a recent appellate court decision holding that a 
White community’s attempt to secede from a majority 
Black Alabama school district was racially discriminatory 
in violation of the Constitution; and 
(2) a recent Department of Education Office for 
Civil Rights resolution of a complaint filed against Dur-
ham Public Schools in North Carolina regarding discrimi-
nation against Black students and students with disabil-
ities in the application of school discipline requiring Dur-
ham Public Schools to take actions to end discriminatory 
discipline practices; 
Whereas recent reports by the Government Accountability Of-
fice and other national education advocacy organizations 
detail racial disparities in the Nation’s education systems, 
including that— 
(1) the percentage of schools that are isolated by 
poverty and race increased from 9 percent during the 
2000–2001 school year to 16 percent during the 2013– 
2014 school year; 
(2) high-poverty schools that are majority Black and 
Latino are less likely to offer a range of math courses, 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:24 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 66 IH 
and such lack of access is linked to lower completion 
rates for higher level math and science courses in high 
school, which are critical components of preparing stu-
dents for college and careers; 
(3) only 12 percent of students took Advanced 
Placement courses at high-poverty schools that are ma-
jority Black and Latino and offer such courses, compared 
to 24 percent of all students in low-poverty schools with 
lower Black and Latino enrollment; 
(4) students of color on average have lower enroll-
ment in prekindergarten programs, and attend lower 
quality prekindergarten programs, than their White 
peers; 
(5) Black students are disproportionately excluded 
from school, beginning as early as preschool, and stu-
dents who are suspended are more likely to fail a grade, 
drop out of school, and become involved in the juvenile 
justice system; 
(6) with few exceptions, Black students, boys, and 
students with disabilities experience disparities in the ad-
ministration of school discipline, regardless of the type of 
disciplinary action, poverty level of the school, or type of 
public school attended; and 
(7) research suggests that implicit biases—stereo-
types or unconscious associations that people, including 
teachers and other school staff, hold about other people— 
are a contributing factor to these discipline disparities be-
cause they cause school staff to judge students differently 
based on their race; 
Whereas disparate impact analysis is an essential tool to com-
bat discrimination across other areas of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:24 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 66 IH 
Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ac-
knowledged that the disproportionate placement of indus-
trial polluters in low-income and minority neighborhoods 
in Flint, Michigan, is discriminatory, and whereas the en-
tirety of the environmental justice movement is premised 
on a disparate impact analysis; 
Whereas Federal appellate courts have determined that viola-
tions of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also 
known as the Fair Housing Act (FHA), may be estab-
lished through the disparate impact theory of liability; 
Whereas, in Texas Department of Housing and Community 
Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, the Supreme 
Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable 
under the FHA, with Justice Kennedy writing, ‘‘Recogni-
tion of disparate-impact claims is also consistent with the 
central purpose of the FHA, which, like Title VII and the 
ADEA, was enacted to eradicate discriminatory practices 
within a sector of the Nation’s economy. Suits targeting 
unlawful zoning laws and other housing restrictions that 
unfairly exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods 
without sufficient justification are at the heartland of dis-
parate-impact liability. . . . Recognition of disparate-im-
pact liability under the FHA plays an important role in 
uncovering discriminatory intent: it permits plaintiffs to 
counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus 
that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.’’; 
Whereas the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of 
Education and the Civil Rights Division of the Depart-
ment of Justice are charged with enforcing title VI and 
its regulations, which prohibit both intentional discrimi-
nation and unintentional discrimination resulting from 
policies and practices that have a discriminatory effect, 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
02:01 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 66 IH 
or disparate impact, on students based on race, color, or 
national origin; 
Whereas racial discrimination cases decided under title VIII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 provide guidance on how to analyze 
intentional discrimination and unintentional discrimina-
tion based upon disparate impact claims brought under 
title VI; 
Whereas the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is 
charged with administration of the FHA, and has pro-
mulgated rules to clarify the application of disparate im-
pact to FHA cases; 
Whereas the EPA’s External Civil Rights Compliance Office 
(ECRCO) (formerly Office of Civil Rights (OCR)), within 
the Office of General Counsel, is charged with enforcing 
civil rights under title VI and since 1973 has prohibited 
recipients of EPA financial assistance from taking ac-
tions in their programs or activities that are intentionally 
discriminatory and/or have a discriminatory effect; 
Whereas the Department of Transportation’s Office of Civil 
Rights is responsible for ensuring that recipients of Fed-
eral funds from that agency conduct their federally as-
sisted programs and activities in a nondiscriminatory 
manner in compliance with title VI; 
Whereas the Office for Civil Rights for the Office of Justice 
Programs (OJP) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) en-
sures that recipients of financial assistance from OJP 
comply with Federal antidiscrimination laws, including 
title VI; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:24 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 66 IH 
Whereas a DOJ memo was recently leaked to the Washington 
Post in which senior Civil Rights Division officials were 
directed ‘‘to examine how decades-old ‘disparate impact’ 
regulations might be changed or removed . . . and what 
the impact might be’’; 
Whereas the Washington Post reports that similar directives 
to eliminate regulations using disparate impact analysis 
are being considered at the Department of Education and 
are already underway at the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development; 
Whereas Federal agencies under both Democratic and Repub-
lican administrations have a history of bringing title VI 
disparate impact claims; and 
Whereas the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander v. 
Sandoval overturned four decades of statutory protections 
against discrimination by eliminating an implied private 
right of action under title VI to challenge disparate im-
pact, leaving Federal agencies as the only entities that 
can bring disparate impact claims: Now, therefore, be it 
Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
(1) reaffirms that the original intent of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to broadly prohibit all 
forms of discrimination by providing for both the 
Federal Government and private attorneys general 
to bring cases under causes of action to enforce 
against both disparate treatment and disparate im-
pact; 
(2) reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that 
the elementary, secondary, and college educational 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:24 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 66 IH 
systems of the United States prepare all students for 
successful careers, regardless of their race, color, or 
national origin; 
(3) reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that 
all communities are inclusive, sustainable, and free 
from discrimination; 
(4) recognizes that the Office for Civil Rights 
of the Department of Education, the Civil Rights 
Division and Office of Justice Programs of the De-
partment of Justice, the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, and other Federal agencies have an ob-
ligation to enforce title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 and its implementing regulations; 
(5) expects the Department of Education, the 
Department of Justice, and other Federal agencies 
to enforce title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
and its implementing regulations, as they have done 
in the past under Democratic and Republican ad-
ministrations, using all legal theories including dis-
parate treatment and disparate impact, given the 
growing evidence that racial discrimination in edu-
cation, housing, and other aspects of public life con-
tinue to adversely impact individuals and commu-
nities; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:24 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 66 IH 
(6) will hold oversight hearings to ensure that 
the Department of Education, the Department of 
Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
and other Federal agencies enforce title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regu-
lations, including enforcement with respect to unin-
tentional discrimination resulting from policies and 
practices that have a discriminatory effect, or dis-
parate impact, on individuals and communities based 
on race, color, or national origin; and 
(7) will consider legislation that acknowledges 
and reaffirms the original intent of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 and the original intent to prohibit all 
forms of discrimination and discriminatory effects, 
including H.R. 2486 (115th Congress), the Equity 
and Inclusion Enforcement Act, a bill that restores 
the title VI private right of action in cases involving 
disparate impact, creates title VI monitors to ensure 
that every school has at least one employee respon-
sible for investigating any complaints of discrimina-
tion based on race, color, or national origin, and cre-
ates a position of Assistant Secretary in the Depart-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:24 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 66 IH 
ment of Education to coordinate and promote title 
VI enforcement of equity and inclusion in education. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
01:24 Jan 23, 2019
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR66.IH
HR66
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS