Title: 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 discrimination", and for other purposes.
Policy area: Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues

Summary:
This resolution reaffirms the following on behalf of the House of Representatives:
This resolution also recognizes that the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies have an obligation to enforce title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations, and expects the agencies to do so. It resolves that oversight hearings will be held to ensure the agencies are enforcing title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations, including enforcement with respect to unintentional discrimination.
Finally, the resolution states that the House will consider legislation that reaffirms the original intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 66 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






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 
               discrimination'', 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 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  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 
               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 integration, and the ``Declaration of Constitutional Principles'' 
        (known colloquially as the ``Southern Manifesto'') signed on March 12, 
        1956, by Members of the House of Representatives 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 explained 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 violation.'';
Whereas title VI requires policies and practices to be developed and 
        administered in a manner that does not intentionally discriminate 
        against students on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and 
        that does not ``have the effect of subjecting individuals to 
        discrimination because 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 Durham Public Schools in North Carolina 
regarding discrimination against Black students and students with 
disabilities in the application of school discipline requiring Durham 
Public Schools to take actions to end discriminatory discipline practices;

Whereas recent reports by the Government Accountability Office 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, 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 students for college and 
careers;

    (3) only 12 percent of students took Advanced Placement courses at 
high-poverty schools that are majority 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 enrollment 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 students 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 administration 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--stereotypes or unconscious 
associations that people, including teachers and other school staff, hold 
about other people--are a contributing factor to these discipline 
disparities because they cause school staff to judge students differently 
based on their race;

Whereas disparate impact analysis is an essential tool to combat discrimination 
        across other areas of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acknowledged that the 
        disproportionate placement of industrial polluters in low-income and 
        minority neighborhoods in Flint, Michigan, is discriminatory, and 
        whereas the entirety of the environmental justice movement is premised 
        on a disparate impact analysis;
Whereas Federal appellate courts have determined that violations of title VIII 
        of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act 
        (FHA), may be established 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, 
        ``Recognition 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 disparate-
        impact liability. . . . Recognition of disparate-impact 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 Department of Justice are charged with enforcing 
        title VI and its regulations, which prohibit both intentional 
        discrimination and unintentional discrimination resulting from policies 
        and practices that have a discriminatory effect, 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 
        discrimination based upon disparate impact claims brought under title 
        VI;
Whereas the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing 
        and Equal Opportunity is charged with administration of the FHA, and has 
        promulgated rules to clarify the application of disparate impact 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 actions 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 Federal funds from that agency conduct 
        their federally assisted 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) ensures that recipients of financial 
        assistance from OJP comply with Federal antidiscrimination laws, 
        including title VI;
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 Republican 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 
        impact, 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 impact;
            (2) reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that the 
        elementary, secondary, and college educational 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 Department of Justice, the 
        Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
        Protection Agency, and other Federal agencies have an 
        obligation 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 
        administrations, using all legal theories including disparate 
        treatment and disparate impact, given the growing evidence that 
        racial discrimination in education, housing, and other aspects 
        of public life continue to adversely impact individuals and 
        communities;
            (6) will hold oversight hearings to ensure that the 
        Department of Education, the Department of Justice, the 
        Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental 
        Protection Agency, and other Federal agencies enforce title VI 
        of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing 
        regulations, including enforcement with respect to 
        unintentional discrimination resulting from policies and 
        practices that have a discriminatory effect, or disparate 
        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 responsible for 
        investigating any complaints of discrimination based on race, 
        color, or national origin, and creates a position of Assistant 
        Secretary in the Department of Education to coordinate and 
        promote title VI enforcement of equity and inclusion in 
        education.
                                 <all>