Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 2574, the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act of 2019.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source