[House Report 118-558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress }                                             { Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session    }                                             { 118-558

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



 
     PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF  
      TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE  
      DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RELATING TO ``NONDISCRIMINATION ON   
      THE BASIS OF SEX IN EDUCATION PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING 
      FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE'' 

                                _______
                                

 June 25, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

      Ms. Foxx, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce,  
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                      [To accompany H.J. Res. 165]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 
referred the joint resolution (H.J. Res 165) providing for 
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex 
in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial 
Assistance'', having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the joint 
resolution do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of H.J. Res. 165 is to provide Congressional 
disapproval and reverse the Title IX rule finalized by the 
Department of Education. H.J. Res. 165 formally dispenses with 
the Biden administration's final Title IX rule so that 
educational institutions can continue protecting the safety of 
women and girls and their access to educational opportunities.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

                             117TH CONGRESS

First Session--Hearing

    On June 23, 2021, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing on ``Examining the Policies and 
Priorities of the U.S. Department of Education.'' The purpose 
of the hearing was to review the Fiscal Year 2022 budget 
priorities of the U.S. Department of Education, including on 
the topic of the Biden administration's interpretation of 
regulations on Title IX. Testifying before the Committee was 
The Honorable Miguel Cardona, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
Education, Washington, DC.

Second Session--Hearing

    On May 26, 2022, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing on ``Examining the Policies and 
Priorities of the U.S. Department of Education.'' The purpose 
of the hearing was to review the Fiscal Year 2023 budget 
priorities of the U.S. Department of Education. Testifying 
before the Committee was The Honorable Miguel Cardona, 
Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. At 
this hearing, concerns regarding Title IX were raised, such as 
the rewriting of Title IX regulations by the Biden 
administration to undermine protections for girls and women.

                             118TH CONGRESS

First Session--Hearings

    On February 8, 2023, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing on ``American Education in Crisis.'' 
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the state of American 
education, including K-12 education, postsecondary education, 
and workforce development. Testifying before the Committee were 
Ms. Virginia Gentles, Director, Education Freedom Center, 
Independent Women's Forum, Arlington, VA; Dr. Monty Sullivan, 
President, Louisiana Community and Technical College System, 
Baton Rouge, LA; Mr. Scott Pulsipher, President, Western 
Governors University, Salt Lake City, UT; and Mr. Jared Polis, 
Governor, State of Colorado, Denver, CO. During this hearing, 
Ms. Gentles highlighted several troubling developments related 
to Title IX, including the need to protect women's sports and 
combat radical gender ideology.

Legislative Action

    On February 1, 2023, Representative Greg Steube (R-FL) 
introduced H.R. 734, Protection of Women and Girls in Sports 
Act of 2023 with Committee on Education and the Workforce 
Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Representatives Mariannette 
Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Robert Wittman (R-
VA), Daniel Webster (R-FL), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Ken Buck (R-
CO), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Buddy Carter (R-GA), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), 
Jason Smith (R-MO), Jake Ellzey (R-TX), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), 
Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Jerry Carl (R-AL) as original co-sponsors. 
The bill was referred solely to the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce. On March 8, 2023, the Committee considered H.R. 
734 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as 
amended, to the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 
25-17. The Committee adopted the following amendment to H.R. 
734:
          1. Representative Burgess Owens offered an Amendment 
        in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that made one 
        technical change.
    On June 5, 2024, Representative Mary Miller (R-IL) 
introduced H.J. Res. 165, Providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of 
the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to 
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs 
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance'' with 
Chairwoman Foxx and Representatives Elise Stefanik (R-NY), 
Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Tenney (R-
NY), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Lisa McClain (R-MI), Julia Letlow (R-
LA), Ashely Hinson (R-IA), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Harriet 
Hageman (R-WY), Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA), Monica De La Cruz 
(R-TX), Stephanie Bice (R-OK), Jim Banks (R-IN), Rick Allen (R-
GA), Ben Cline (R-VA), Bill Posey (R-FL), John Rutherford (R-
FL), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Brian Babin (R-TX), Guy 
Reschenthaler (R-PA), Tim Burchett (R-TN), Ralph Norman (R-SC), 
Scott Franklin (R-FL), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), William Timmons (R-
SC), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Randy Weber (R-TX), Steube, Bob Good 
(R-VA), Keith Self (R-TX), Andrew Ogles (R-TN), Clay Higgins 
(R-LA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Jefferson Van Drew (R-NJ), Kevin 
Hern (R-OK), Alexander Mooney (R-WV), Josh Brecheen (R-OK), 
Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Austin Scott 
(R-GA), Barry Moore (R-AL), Michael Guest (R-MS), Dan Bishop 
(R-NC), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Paul Gosar 
(R-AZ), Richard McCormick (R-GA), Tom Tiffany (R-WI), Doug 
Lamborn (R-CO), Daniel Webster (R-FL), Glenn Grothman (R-WI), 
Burgess Owens (R-UT), Michael Cloud (R-TX), Elijah Crane (R-
AZ), Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Aaron Bean (R-FL), Eric Burlison 
(R-MO), Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Nick LaLota (R-NY), Pete Stauber 
(R-MN), Mike Ezell (R-MS), Mike Bost (R-IL), Richard Hudson (R-
NC), Chip Roy (R-TX), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Brad Finstad (R-
MN) as original co-sponsors. The bill was referred solely to 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. On June 13, 2024, 
the Committee considered H.J. Res. 165 in legislative session 
and reported it favorably to the House of Representatives by a 
recorded vote of 24-16. The Committee did not consider any 
amendments to H.J. Res. 165.

                            COMMITTEE VIEWS

                              INTRODUCTION

    In April, the Biden administration announced its final 
Title IX rule,\1\ which erases the fundamental protections 
Title IX promises to women and girls. If this rule stands, no 
longer will Title IX be a tool for protecting the access of 
women and girls to equal educational opportunities. It is 
imperative that Congress passes this resolution to restore the 
promise of Title IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-29/pdf/2024-
07915.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title IX Has Worked

    In 1972, Congress enacted Title IX to increase educational 
opportunities for women and girls. Since then, Title IX has 
paved the way for tremendous strides in access to education, 
scholarships, athletics, and more for millions of students 
across the country. Since Title IX's enactment, female 
participation in high school sports has grown more than 1,000 
percent and in collegiate sports more than 600 percent.\2\ 
Unfortunately, the Biden administration rule will undermine 
this progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\https://www.billiejeanking.com/equality/title-ix/
#::text=The%20law%20opened%20doors%20
and,percent%20at%20the%20college%20level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden Administration Rule Is Unlawful

    The Title IX rule is unlawful in multiple ways. First, the 
Biden administration justifies its interpretation of Title IX 
by pointing to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton 
Count (Bostock). However, the Biden administration ignores the 
Supreme Court's own explicit warning against interpreting its 
Bostock opinion as applying to Title IX or other civil rights 
laws prohibiting sex discrimination. In that case, the Court 
stated, ``But none of these other laws are before us; we have 
not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of 
their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. 
Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, 
locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, this rule strips students, educators, and parents 
of their legal rights. Disagreeing with the radical left's view 
of gender is now unlawful under this rule, which is a blatant 
violation of students' and educators' Free Speech rights. In 
addition, this rule's overturning of longstanding Supreme Court 
precedent establishing what constitutes sexual harassment will 
further chill speech in classrooms.
    This rule also strips due process protections from students 
previously enshrined in Title IX regulations. Institutions are 
now able to return to single investigator models in which one 
staff member serves as investigator, judge, and jury. The rule 
eliminates the right of students on college campuses to a live 
hearing in which competing claims can be fairly evaluated. 
Access to evidence for the accused has also been curtailed.
    Worst of all, this rule enshrines in law the left's ongoing 
war against parental rights. Under this rule, educators are 
encouraged not to tell parents about physical, mental, and 
emotional struggles their children are experiencing. The Biden 
administration is actively encouraging schools to hide the 
emotional distress of kindergarteners from their parents.
    Third, this rule violates the Supreme Court's major 
questions doctrine. In West Virginia v. EPA,\4\ the Supreme 
Court prohibited agencies from resolving questions of [quote] 
``vast economic and political significance'' [unquote] without 
clear statutory authorization. Congress has given no clear 
statutory authorization to the Department of Education to 
justify this radical reinterpretation of Title IX, and this 
rule is clearly of vast economic and political significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden Administration Rule Is Radical

    At a time when medical associations around the world are 
waking up to the tremendous harm being done by the radical 
left's efforts to cancel biology,\5\ this rule doubles down. It 
also runs counter to the values and desires of the American 
public, the vast majority of whom are horrified at the thought 
of boys showering and changing in locker rooms with girls. They 
are equally outraged at the prospect of young men taking away 
athletic awards and opportunities from young women. But this 
rule makes clear that Democrats believe they actively support 
these changes and that they will strip communities of education 
funding if those communities refuse to go along with this 
radical new agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-
report/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Democrats argue that this rule does not affect women's 
sports, but this is not true. Section 106.31(a)(2) of the 
regulation states:

          In the limited circumstances in which Title IX or 
        this part permits different treatment or separation on 
        the basis of sex, a recipient must not carry out such 
        different treatment or separation in a manner that 
        discriminates on the basis of sex by subjecting a 
        person to more than de minimis harm, except as 
        permitted by 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(1) through (9) and the 
        corresponding regulations Sec. Sec. 106.12 through 
        106.15, 20 U.S.C. 1686 and its corresponding regulation 
        Sec. 106.32(b)(1), or Sec. 106.41(b). Adopting a policy 
        or engaging in a practice that prevents a person from 
        participating in an education program or activity 
        consistent with the person's gender identity subjects a 
        person to more than de minimis harm on the basis of 
        sex.

    Athletic competition is not included in the listed 
exceptions to this general rule. In addition, the Biden 
administration intervened in a court case in West Virginia in 
opposition to a state law ensuring that only biological women 
would participate in women's sports.\6\ While the Department of 
Education is sitting on a separate regulation dealing 
specifically with athletics,\7\ it is clear the Biden 
administration intends to force educational institutions to 
give biological men women's athletic opportunities at the 
expense of women and girls. For all these reasons, it is clear 
that this final rule is a deliberate attempt by the Biden 
administration to rip athletic opportunities away from women 
and girls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/17/biden-doj-
sides-transgender-athletes-against-west-/.
    \7\https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/13/2023-07601/
nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-
activities-receiving-federal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    Congress must pass this resolution of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act to send a clear message to the Biden 
administration that Congress stands with women and girls.

                                SUMMARY

    H.J. Res. 165 is a resolution of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act that would overturn the Department of 
Education's rule relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis 
of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal 
Financial Assistance.''

                H.J. RES. 165 SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY

    H.J. Res. 165 is a resolution of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act that would overturn the Department of 
Education's rule relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis 
of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal 
Financial Assistance.''

                       EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

    No amendments to the resolution were adopted.

              APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch. H.J. Res. 165 provides for congressional disapproval 
under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Department of Education relating to 
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs 
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.''

                       UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

    Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344 (as amended 
by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-4), the Committee traditionally adopts as 
its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to section 402 of 
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    H.J. Res. 165 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

                            ROLL CALL VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for 
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter 
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the 
total number of votes for and against and the names of the 
Members voting for and against.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the 
goal of H.J. Res. 165 is to provide for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of 
the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to 
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs 
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.''

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    No provision of H.J. Res. 165 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

   STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE  
                           COMMITTEE  

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

                       REQUIRED COMMITTEE HEARING

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII the 
following hearing held during the 118th Congress was used to 
develop or consider H.J. Res. 165: On May 7, 2024, the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on, 
``Examining the Education Department's Policies, Priorities, 
and FY 2023 Financial Audit Failure.''

               NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following estimate for H.R. 7683 from the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Legislation summary: On June 13, 2024, the House Committee 
on Education and the Workforce ordered to be reported eight 
bills and one joint resolution. This document provides 
estimates for seven of those bills and the resolution.
    Generally, the legislation would:
     Repeal a rule submitted by the Department of 
Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex 
in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial 
Assistance;''
     Allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants 
to diagnose, treat, and certify an injury and extent of 
disability for the purposes of federal workers' compensation;
     Require elementary and secondary schools and 
institutions of higher education to meet new requirements in 
order to maintain eligibility for funding from the Department 
of Education;
     Prevent student athletes from being considered the 
employees of an institution of higher education; and
     Authorize appropriations for the educational 
activities of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
    Estimated Federal cost: The estimated costs of the 
legislation fall within budget function 500 (education, 
training, employment, and social services).
    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
legislation will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2024. 
The estimated costs do not include any interaction effects 
among the pieces of legislation. If all seven bills and the 
resolution were combined and enacted as a single piece of 
legislation, the estimated costs could be different than the 
sum of the separate estimates, although CBO expects that any 
difference would be small.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 8606 would cost $8 
million over the 2024-2029 period. Implementing the remaining 
bills and the joint resolution would each cost less than 
$500,000 over the same period. Any related spending would be 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
    H.J. Res. 165, a joint resolution providing for 
Congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex 
in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial 
Assistance:'' H.J. Res 165 would disapprove the rule submitted 
by the Department of Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination 
on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities 
Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,'' as published in the 
Federal Register on April 29, 2024.
    The rule amends title IX of the Education Amendments of 
1972 (title IX), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
sex in any education program or activity receiving federal 
financial assistance. The rule clarifies definitions related to 
sex-based discrimination and harassment and specifies the 
requirements for grievance procedures, and requirements for 
preventing sexual discrimination and remedying its effects.
    Institutions that fail to comply with title IX, as amended 
by the rule, could lose federal funding. However, CBO expects 
that institutions will comply with the regulations to avoid 
doing so. On that basis, CBO estimates that disapproving the 
rule would not affect institutions' eligibility for federal 
student aid.
    Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates 
that implementing the resolution would cost less than $500,000 
over the 2024-2029 period. Any related spending would be 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
    H.R. 618, Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for 
Injured Federal Workers Act: H.R. 618 would allow nurse 
practitioners and physician assistants to diagnose, prescribe 
treatment, and certify an injury and the extent of disability 
for the purpose of compensating federal workers under the 
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). Using information 
from the Department of Labor, CBO expects that nonphysician 
providers would be compensated at the same rate as physicians 
and that total benefits provided to injured federal workers 
would not significantly change. Some people may receive 
treatment more quickly under the bill, which could increase 
costs over the 10-year period because some payments to medical 
providers that would have occurred in 2035 under current law 
could be paid in 2034. On the other hand, if injured workers 
receive treatment faster, some may return to work more quickly, 
which could reduce costs. CBO has no basis to estimate which 
effect would predominate, but we expect that those effects 
would roughly offset each other. Thus, CBO estimates that 
enacting H.R. 618 would affect net direct spending by an 
insignificant amount.
    The FECA payments are mandatory. The costs of those 
payments are charged to a claimant's employing agency, which 
reimburses the Department of Labor out of its salaries and 
expense accounts. Any effect on discretionary spending would be 
subject to future appropriation actions.
    H.R. 5567, CLASS Act: H.R. 5567 would require public 
elementary and secondary schools that receive funding from the 
Department of Education to disclose to the department funds 
received or contracts signed with foreign sources that are more 
than $10,000.
    CBO expects schools would comply with the new requirements; 
thus, enacting the bill would not affect their eligibility to 
receive federal funds. Based on the costs of similar 
activities, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost 
the Department of Education less than $500,000 over the 2024-
2029 period. Any related spending would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    H.R. 6816, PROTECT Our Kids Act: H.R. 6816 would prohibit 
elementary and secondary schools that receive direct or 
indirect support from the government of the People's Republic 
of China (including Confucius Institutes), from receiving funds 
from the Department of Education.
    The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act prohibited 
institutions of higher education from using federal funding for 
Chinese language programs at Confucius Institutes. As a result, 
nearly all Confucius Institutes at postsecondary institutions 
have closed, according to a Government Accountability Office 
report released in 2023.\1\ On that basis, CBO expects schools 
would comply with the new requirements; thus, enacting the bill 
would not affect their eligibility to receive federal funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Government Accountability Office, China: With Nearly All U.S. 
Confucius Institutes Closed, Some Schools Sought Alternative Language 
Support, GAO-20-105981 (October 2023), www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-
105981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates 
that implementing the bill would cost the Department of 
Education less than $500,000 over the 2024-2029 period. Any 
related spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    H.R. 8534, Protecting Student Athletes' Economic Freedom 
Act: The bill would prohibit student athletes from being 
considered an employee of an institution based on the athletes' 
participation in a varsity intercollegiate athletic program or 
competition. Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO 
estimates that implementing the bill would cost the Department 
of Education less than $500,000 over the 2024-2029 period. Any 
related spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    H.R. 8606, Never Again Education Reauthorization and Study 
Act of 2024: H.R. 8606 would authorize the appropriation of $2 
million each year from 2026 through 2030 for the Director of 
the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to support 
education and training related to the lessons of the Holocaust. 
Under current law, the authorization of appropriations for 
those activities expires at the end of 2025. The bill also 
would require the Director to conduct a study on the 
educational activities being carried out at the state and local 
level. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts and 
using historical spending patterns for those activities, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 8606 would cost $8 million 
over the 2024-2029 period and $2 million after 2029.
    H.R. 8648, Civil Rights Protection Act of 2024: H.R. 8648 
would require any institution of higher education that receives 
federal student aid to make publicly available its process for 
addressing violations of title VI of the Civil Rights Act and 
any complaints received regarding alleged violations. The bill 
also would require the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at 
the Department of Education to give monthly briefings on 
violations specific to race, color, or national origin, and 
report the findings of institutional complaints.
    CBO expects institutions would comply with the new 
requirements; thus, enacting the bill would not affect their 
eligibility for federal student aid. Based on the costs of 
similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing the bill 
would cost the Department of Education less than $500,000 over 
the 2024-2029 period. Any related spending would be subject to 
the availability of appropriated funds.
    H.R. 8649, Transparency in Reporting Adversarial 
Contributions to Education Act: The bill would require 
elementary and secondary schools that receive funding from the 
Department of Education to disclose to parents and the public 
any contributions received from foreign countries and the terms 
or conditions of such contributions.
    CBO expects schools would comply with the new requirements; 
thus, enacting the bill would not affect their eligibility to 
receive federal funds. Based on the costs of similar 
activities, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost 
the Department of Education less than $500,000 over the 2024-
2029 period. Any related spending would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 618 would affect net 
direct spending by less than $500,000 over the 2024-2034 
period.
    Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: CBO 
estimates that enacting the joint resolution or any of the 
seven bills in this estimate would not increase net direct 
spending or deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year 
periods beginning in 2035.
    Mandates: H.R. 8534 would impose an intergovernmental 
mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
by prohibiting states from designating varsity athletes of a 
school, conference, or association as employees of that entity. 
CBO estimates that the net costs of the direct effects of the 
legislation would not result in additional expenditures or 
losses in revenue; therefore, the cost of the preemption would 
not exceed the threshold established in UMRA for 
intergovernmental mandates ($100 million in 2024, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    The bill would not impose a private-sector mandate as 
defined in UMRA.
    Enacting the legislation may result in other secondary 
effects on private entities by denying employment-related 
benefits to varsity athletes that they may otherwise have 
qualified for as an employee. However, CBO's estimate of those 
effects is subject to uncertainty because the question of 
whether athletes affected by the bill should be recategorized 
as employees of their institutions remains unsettled as court 
rulings, administrative decisions, and changes in policies of 
the National Collegiate Athletics Association are announced. 
What effect, if any, the bill would have on private entities 
would depend on the final adjudication of the matter.
    None of the remaining pieces of legislation contained in 
this estimate would impose intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Meredith Decker 
(Department of Labor); Leah Koestner (Department of Education); 
Susanne Mehlman (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum); 
Garrett Quenneville (Department of Education). Mandates: Erich 
Dvorak, Brandon Lever, and Grace Watson.
    Estimate reviewed by: Elizabeth Cove Delisle, Chief, Income 
Security Cost Estimates Unit; Justin Humphrey, Chief, Finance, 
Housing, and Education Cost Estimates Unit; Kathleen 
FitzGerald, Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel 
Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
    Estimate approved by: Phillip L. Swagel, Director, 
Congressional Budget Office.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the 
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.J. Res. 165. 
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when, as with the present report, 
the Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    As reported by the Committee, H.J. Res. 165 makes no 
changes to existing law.

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                              INTRODUCTION

    H.J. Res. 165, Providing for congressional disapproval 
under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Department of Education relating to 
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs 
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance'', would 
nullify the Biden Administration's recently introduced final 
regulations on title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 
(Title IX).\8\ It would force the Department of Education (ED) 
to revert to enforcing a previous rule that received widespread 
condemnation for permitting educational institutions to turn a 
blind eye to sex discrimination and assault. Further, ED would 
be prevented from promulgating a similar comprehensive rule 
addressing sex discrimination in education programs or 
activities receiving federal assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 
Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial 
Assistance, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474 (Apr. 29, 2024) (to be codified at 34 
C.F.R. pt. 106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Majority claims the passionate intensity in support of 
this resolution is driven by the need to protect women and 
girls. Such a claim is contrary to statements from actual 
advocates for women and girls, who overwhelmingly support this 
rule. Pathetically, from their own words (or lack thereof), 
H.J. Res. 165 appears driven primarily by the desire to deny 
the existence of transgender youth. This is yet another chapter 
in the House Republican campaign of culture war legislation. 
Their target is a vulnerable class of students who, like their 
peers, simply want to learn in settings free from 
discrimination and harassment.

                          SUMMARY OF CONCERNS

The Importance of the Title IX Rule
    Instead of repealing the existing rule in its entirety, the 
rule recently finalized by the Biden Administration (``2024 
Rule'') built off certain provisions of the rule finalized by 
the Trump administration (``2020 Rule''), but made key 
distinctions and revisions that will be lost if H.J. Res. 165 
were to become law. For example, the 2024 Rule clarifies that 
institutions of higher education (IHEs) have to address off-
campus sex discrimination that's part of their educational 
activity.\9\ It clarified that even if an underlying incident 
occurred off campus, if it contributed to a hostile environment 
in the IHE's educational activity it must be addressed.\10\ The 
2020 Rule limited the number of employees required to report on 
incidents of sexual discrimination, and demanded actual 
knowledge before requiring their reporting.\11\ Comparatively, 
the 2024 Rule mandates that all non-confidential employees have 
a duty to report possible sex-based harassment or sex 
discrimination to the IHE's Title IX Coordinator, or provide 
information to the victim of the harassment on how to contact 
that Coordinator.\12\ The 2020 Rule presented schools with a 
Hobson's choice of standards of evidence, with wording that 
would invariably force victims of sex discrimination to prove 
their cases at a standard higher than that for other comparable 
harassment offenses (race, physical disability).\13\ The 2024 
Rule ensures that sex discrimination and sexual harassment 
claims would have standards of proof equivalent to those other 
harassment charges.\14\ The 2024 Rule is a comprehensive 
improvement over the 2020 Rule in myriad ways, and H.J. Res. 
165, if successful, would force schools and students back into 
an inequitable regime of enforcement that would allow 
recipients of federal funds to ignore all but the most severe 
and extreme forms of sex discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See 34 C.F.R. pt. 106.11(2024).
    \10\Id.
    \11\See 85 Fed. Reg. 30574 (2020) (highlighting the standard under 
now-repealed 34 C.F.R. pt. 106.44).
    \12\See 34 C.F.R. 106.44 (2024).
    \13\See 85 Fed. Reg. 30575 (2020) (highlighting the standard under 
now-repealed 34 C.F.R. pt. 106.45).
    \14\See 34 C.F.R. 106.45 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When the 2020 Rule was finalized, then-Chairman Bobby Scott 
(D-VA) joined with then-Chairman of the House Committee on the 
Judiciary Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to issue the following 
statement, which will accurately describes what students will 
face if H.J. Res. 165 were to become law.

          The Department's final Title IX rule creates new 
        barriers to justice for survivors of sexual misconduct. 
        It imposes a higher burden of proof for survivors--
        which is more challenging than the standard used in 
        other civil rights laws and will be particularly 
        difficult to meet given the nature of many sexual 
        misconduct cases.
          The rule finalized today also requires schools to 
        address only the most severe and pervasive forms of 
        sexual misconduct, and only if that misconduct is 
        reported to a designated Title IX officer in 
        postsecondary cases. Accordingly, institutions may now 
        be permitted to overlook many instances of harassment 
        that they were previously obligated to address.
          Even when schools fail to fulfill their new, more 
        limited obligations, the rule makes it unlikely that 
        they will be held accountable. Only schools found to be 
        `deliberately indifferent' to complaints--rather than 
        the existing standard that required `prompt and 
        effective action'--will be considered in violation of 
        Title IX.
          While the Department's stated intent was to secure 
        due process for those accused of sexual misconduct, the 
        actual effect of its rule will be to erode protections 
        for students, weaken accountability for schools, and 
        make it more difficult for survivors seeking redress. 
        Both the timing and substance of this rule are 
        unacceptable.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Press Release, Rep. Bobby Scott, Scott, Nadler Statement on 
Education Department's Final Title IX Rule (May 6, 2020), https://
bobbyscott.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/scott-nadler-
statement-education-departments-final- title-ix-rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Women the Majority ``Advocates'' for Reject H.J. Res. 165
    The Majority claims H.J. Res. 165 is necessary to protect 
girls and women. This seems to fly directly in the face of 
statements from every major women's advocacy group who 
denounced the Trump Rule when it was finalized in May 2020, and 
praised the 2024 Rule when it was issued. For example, the 
American Association of University Women said this in 2020:

          In the best of times, the rule is ill-advised: It 
        threatens to turn back the clock, reversing policies 
        that were put in place to make it easier for survivors 
        to report sexual misconduct. The rules will stack the 
        deck against survivors, making it too onerous, even 
        traumatic, for many to come forward. In short, the rule 
        is antithetical to the fundamental promise of Title IX, 
        that all students deserve access to an education free 
        from sex discrimination.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Press Release, Am. Ass'n of U. Women, AAUW Statement on 
Rollback of Title IX Protections (May 6, 2020), https://www.aauw.org/
resources/news/media/press-releases/aauw-statement-on-rolling-back-
title-ix-protections/.

    In 2024 when the rule was finalized, the President of the 
AAUW described the revised rule as ``lifechanging'' for college 
women.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Press Release, Am. Ass'n of U. Women, AAUW Applauds Updated 
Title IX Rules from U.S. Department of Education (Apr. 19, 2020), 
https://www.aauw.org/resources/news/media/press-releases/aauw-applauds-
updated-title-ix-rules-from-u-s-department-of-education/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2020, the President of the National Women's Law Center 
(NWLC) had this to say about the Trump rule:

          [Department of Education Secretary] Betsy DeVos and 
        the Trump Administration are dead set on making schools 
        more dangerous for everyone--even during a global 
        pandemic. Releasing this rule during the unprecedented 
        challenges of COVID-19 unveils a disturbing set of 
        priorities. And if this rule goes into effect, 
        survivors will be denied their civil rights and will 
        get the message loud and clear that there is no point 
        in reporting assault. We refuse to go back to the days 
        when rape and harassment in schools were ignored and 
        swept under the rug. And we won't let DeVos succeed in 
        requiring schools to be complicit in harassment, 
        turning Title IX from a law that protects all students 
        into a law that protects abusers and harassers. We will 
        fight this unlawful rule in the courts.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Press Release, Nat'l Women's L. Ctr., NWLC Responds to 
Department of Education's Gutting of Protections For Sexual Assault 
Survivors (May 6, 2020), https://nwlc.org/press-release/nwlc-responds-
to-department-of-educations- gutting-of-protections-for-sexual-assault-
survivors/.

    In stark contrast, the NWLC joined with the AAUW and 
multiple civil rights groups to release the following statement 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in celebration of the 2024 Rule:

          We commend the Biden administration for listening to 
        the expert voices of students, advocates, parents, 
        educators, and researchers, and for delivering on their 
        commitment to clarify Title IX's vital civil rights 
        protections. By rescinding the Trump administration's 
        harmful and restrictive sex harassment rule, and making 
        protections clearer for survivors, pregnant and 
        parenting students, and LGBTQIA+ students, this rule 
        will ensure every student has the freedom to learn and 
        to be themselves. We look forward to working with the 
        Biden administration and school administrators to 
        ensure the rule is implemented.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Press Release, Nat'l Women's L. Ctr., Advocates for Gender 
Justice, Civil Rights, and Student Rights Respond to Biden 
Administration's Finalization of New Title IX Rule (Apr. 19, 2020), 
https://nwlc.org/ press-release/advocates- for-gender-justice- civil-
rights-and-student- rights-respond-to-biden-administrations- 
finalization-of-new-title-ix-rule/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts the Majority Fears Admitting

            1. The Supreme Court has held that discrimination ``because 
                    of sex'' includes discrimination based on sexual 
                    orientation and gender identity
    While the Majority attempted to align its support for H.J. 
Res. 165 with advocacy for women, this was quickly belied 
during debate on the bill. It became clear that the Majority's 
ire with the underlying rule was its insistence that sex 
discrimination includes discriminatory actions based on a 
person's sexual orientation and gender identity.\20\ This 
determination is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, as we 
said earlier this Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\See, e.g., Press Release, Rep. Mary Miller, Rep. Mary Miller 
Introduces Legislation to Reverse Biden's Title IX Rule Which Violates 
Women and Girls' Private Spaces (June 5, 2024), https://
marymiller.house.gov/ media/press-releases/rep-mary-miller- introduces-
legislation-reverse- bidens-title-ix-rule-which (``Joe Biden is 
undermining years of progress women have made in securing their rights 
under Title IX. For more than half a century, Title IX has protected 
women and girls, ensuring they have equal opportunities in education. 
However, the Biden Administration is putting our girls at risk by 
allowing men to access women and girls' bathrooms and locker rooms.'').

          In 2020, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton 
        County that under a plain language interpretation of 
        title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) 
        discrimination based on an employee's sexual 
        orientation or gender identity is indeed discrimination 
        based on sex. This holding has since been applied to 
        Title IX, which has been recognized to prevent 
        discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or 
        gender identity. Courts across the country have held 
        that Title IX requires schools to treat transgender 
        students consistent with their gender identity. . . . 
        The Bostock decision had immediate repercussions for 
        Title IX. Although distinct statutes, federal courts 
        have recognized that Title VII jurisprudence informs 
        Title IX. As such, multiple Federal Courts of Appeal 
        have post-Bostock held that discrimination ``on the 
        basis of sex'' as defined by Title IX also includes 
        discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender 
        identity. The Departments of Justice and Education have 
        both issued similar determinations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\H.R. Rep. No. 118-135 at 16 (2023)(internal citations omitted).

    The excerpt above comes from the Minority Views 
accompanying the Committee Report on H.R. 734, the Protection 
of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023, discussed in fuller 
context below. In the time since those views were filed, there 
have been further rulings that suggest the Bostock holding 
applies to Title IX. Multiple federal circuit courts have held 
that following Bostock, the language of Title IX clearly 
includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender 
identity within its definition of ``discrimination on the basis 
of sex''. The Supreme Court has declined requests to hear 
cases, and instead let these lower court cases stand.\22\ 
Opponents of this interpretation are continuously looking to 
undermine this ruling, or wish it away. Multiple states have 
sought injunctions against the 2024 Rule, and last week, a 
federal court in Louisiana enjoined its enforcement in four 
states.\23\ While this case makes its way through the federal 
courts, it is important to remember that the majority's 
concerns with the 2024 Rule do not come from the rule itself, 
but from a holding of the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, 
written by a Justice appointed by former President Trump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Press Release, Am. C.L. Union, U.S. Supreme Court Declines to 
Hear Challenge to Title IX Victory for Transgender Rights (Jan. 16, 
2024), https://www.aclu.org/press- releases/u-s-supreme-court- 
declines-to-hear-challenge-to-title-ix- victory-for-transgender-rights.
    \23\Katherine Knott, Federal Judge Blocks Title IX Rule in Four 
States, Inside Higher Ed, June 14, 2024, https://
www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/06/14/federal-judge-
blocks-new-title-ix-regulations-four-
states::text=Finding%20that%20four%20states%20are,%2C%20
Mississippi%2C%20Montana%20and%20Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. Trans kids exist
    The Majority's desperation to link H.J. Res. 165 with the 
need to protect ``girls and women'' hearkens back to the first 
bill the Committee marked up this Congress, H.R. 734, the 
Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023. Much like 
H.J. Res. 165, the proponents of H.R. 734 made claims that 
their bill was necessary to protect girls and women sports, 
much to the dismay of women's and girls' sports advocates. In 
fact, this advocacy was mere window dressing attempting to 
justify what H.R. 734 was, an attack on transgender youth. What 
was true about H.R. 734 is equally true of H.J. Res. 165. 
Throughout the markup Majority members refused to even 
recognize that transgender students exist, using terms like 
``biological male'' in an attempt to appear clinical but in 
actuality refusing to recognize that trans kids exist. We must 
again remind our colleagues what we said in 2023:

          H.R. 734 is just one of many proposals that 
        collectively aim to ostracize trans youth and trans 
        individuals from the public arena. Research shows that 
        due to stigma, trans youth experience depression and 
        suicidal ideation at disproportionate rates compared to 
        their peers. Recent data from the CDC show that 
        transgender youth are 10 times more likely to 
        experience homelessness. Transgender students are also 
        more likely to feel unsafe at school, to experience 
        bullying and other forms of violence including being 
        threatened with a weapon at school, and social 
        isolation. Experiences of a hostile school climate, 
        potentially compounded by an unstable living situation, 
        lead to disproportionate drop out rates for these 
        students. Barriers to attaining school success have not 
        inspired our Republican colleagues to create policies 
        to improve outcomes for this group of students. Rather, 
        around the country we see organized attacks against 
        these students. In the first three months of 2023, more 
        than 380 anti-transgender state bills have been 
        introduced, including a bill in Florida that would 
        remove transgender children from their homes if their 
        parents support and affirm them.
          Bills targeting curriculum inclusion, often 
        referenced as ``Don't Say Gay'' bills, censor teacher's 
        speech by prohibiting mention of LGBTQ people or gender 
        diversity in their classrooms. The American Library 
        Association reports that attempts to ban books in 
        schools are up four-fold with the top three most banned 
        books addressing themes of transgender identity or 
        gender non-conformity. Twenty states now prohibit 
        transgender students from participating in school 
        sports aligned with their gender. The focus of these 
        coordinated attacks was made all the more clear in 
        early March 2023, when a speaker announced from the 
        Conservative Political Action Conference stage that 
        ``transgenderism must be eradicated from public life 
        entirely.'' This bill is an attempt to draw the federal 
        government into the on-going GOP attacks on transgender 
        people. Discriminating against a specific minority 
        group with whom the Majority disagrees cannot be a 
        legitimate governmental interest.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\H.R. Rep. No. 118-135 at 22-23 (2023) (emphasis added, internal 
citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    H.J. Res. 165 is another attempt by House Republicans to 
attack the Biden Administration, this time simply for 
promulgating a rule that will ensure that education programs 
that receive federal assistance fully live up to requirements 
in federal law to not discriminate on the basis of sex. It is 
also another attack on the transgender community, using the 
safety of girls to justify legislated animus against a group of 
students merely trying to learn without facing discrimination. 
Consideration of H.J. Res. 165 was not a worthwhile use of this 
Committee's time.
    The week prior to the Committee's consideration of H.J. 
Res. 165, Cobalt Sovereign, a 17-year old transgender girl, was 
assaulted at her Minnetonka, Minnesota high school after using 
the boy's restroom, the option proponents of H.J. Res. 165 
suggest she should be doing, to protect women and girls. 
Commenting on this incident, which left her with a broken jaw, 
Cobalt said, ``I try to use any general neutral or family 
restroom options if they're available but when I'm not given 
that option I . . . use the men's restroom because it's what 
makes everybody around me the least amount of uncomfortable and 
making other people uncomfortable is something that I tried not 
to do.''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Matt Lavietes, Transgender Teen Hospitalized After Allege 
Attack in High School Bathroom, NBC News (June 7, 2024), https://
www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/transgender-teen-hospitalized-alleged-
attack-high-school-bathroom-rena156105; Chandelis Duster & Justin 
Gamble, Father of transgender teen attacked in school says attackers 
should face criminal 
charges, CNN (June 7, 2024), https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/07/us/cobalt-
sovereign-minnesota-transgender-student-reaj/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2024 Title IX Rule recognizes Cobalt was the victim of 
sex discrimination. H.J. Res. 165 would say she is not. For the 
reasons stated above, all Committee Democrats present 
unanimously opposed H.J. Res. 165 when the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce considered it on June 13, 2024. We 
urge the House of Representatives to do the same.

                                   Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
                                     Ranking Member.
                                   Raul Grijalva,
                                   Joe Courtney,
                                   Frederica S. Wilson,
                                   Suzanne Bonamici,
                                   Mark Takano,
                                   Alma S. Adams,
                                   Mark DeSaulnier,
                                   Pramila Jayapal,
                                   Jahana Hayes,
                                   Frank J. Mrvan,
                                     Members of Congress.

                                  [all]