[House Report 118-593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 118-593
======================================================================
CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2024
_______
July 18, 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.R. 8648]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 8648) to increase the transparency of
colleges and universities in carrying out their civil rights
responsibilities, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Civil Rights Protection Act of 2024''.
SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE AND TRANSPARENCY RELATED TO TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.
(a) Program Participation Agreement Requirement.--Section 487 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(30) The institution will comply with the provisions of
subsection (i) and provide to the Secretary an annual
attestation of such compliance.''.
(2) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as subsections
(j) and (k), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new
subsection:
``(i) Compliance and Transparency Related to Complaints Under Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.--
``(1) Compliance and transparency.--With respect to
complaints received by an institution related to alleged
violations of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), the institution will--
``(A) have in effect, make publicly available
(including on the website of the institution), and
widely distribute to students and their families
(including in student orientation materials) a
description of the investigative processes of the
institution related to such complaints;
``(B) include in the description of investigative
processes described in subparagraph (A) at least the
following:
``(i) The processes and factors used to
determine whether such a complaint will be
investigated and how the outcome of an
investigation will be determined.
``(ii) A designation of at least one employee
to coordinate its efforts to comply with title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000d et seq.), including any investigation of
any complaint alleging the noncompliance of the
institution with requirements under the Act.
``(iii) The contact information and necessary
steps for reporting such a complaint to the
institution.
``(iv) A procedure to ensure that, for each
such complaint received by the institution, the
complainant will receive from the institution
timely notification of each of the following:
``(I) Confirmation of receipt of the
complaint.
``(II) Notification of whether or not
an investigation has been opened in
response to the complaint.
``(III) In the case that an
investigation was not opened in
response to the complaint, an
explanation of why an investigation was
not opened including a summary of the
information that was used to determine
that an investigation should not be
opened.
``(IV) In the case that an
investigation was opened--
``(aa) notification that an
investigation of the complaint
will be carried out, and that
the complainant will be
notified of the outcome of the
investigation; and
``(bb) notification of the
outcome of the investigation,
including an explanation of how
the outcome was reached, and
any remedial actions taken in
response to the complaint.
``(v) A system for keeping and maintaining
records of such complaints, including the
determination and reasoning for whether or not
an investigation into a complaint was opened,
notifications to and communications with the
complainant and, if applicable, the respondent,
a record of the investigation (including the
outcome thereof), and a record of any remedial
actions taken in response to the complaint.
``(vi) The contact information and necessary
steps for reporting a complaint related to an
alleged violation of title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) to
the Office for Civil Rights of the Department
of Education, including the hyperlink to the
electronic complaint form of the Office for
Civil Rights for an alleged violation of such
title VI; and
``(C) with respect to public awareness campaign
materials created and distributed by the Office for
Civil Rights of the Department relating to protections
for individuals under title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), display and publish
such materials, as applicable--
``(i) not later than 30 days after such
materials are distributed;
``(ii) for not less than 1 year or until new
such materials are distributed, whichever is
later;
``(iii) in high traffic, public places on the
campus of the institution; and
``(iv) on publicly available websites of the
institution.
``(2) Enforcement.--An institution of higher education that
fails to comply with any provision of subsection (a)(30) for
two consecutive award years shall be ineligible to participate
in the programs authorized by this title for a period of not
less than two years. To regain eligibility to participate in
the programs authorized by this title, an institution of higher
education shall demonstrate compliance with paragraph (1) prior
to the completion of the period during which the institution is
ineligible due to failure to comply with such paragraph.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take
effect on the first day of the first award year beginning after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Congressional Briefings.--
(1) In general.--Beginning not later than 30 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act and ending 2 years after such
date of enactment, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights of
the Department of Education shall give a monthly briefing to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions of the Senate regarding discrimination on the
basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.),
disaggregated by the basis of discrimination, including shared
ancestry, that--
(A) explains the number of complaints alleging such
discrimination that the Office for Civil Rights of the
Department of Education (referred to in this section as
the ``Office'')--
(i) is investigating; and
(ii) has received in the preceding month;
(B) describes--
(i) how the Office plans to address those
complaints; and
(ii) the investigations being carried out in
response to those complaints, as applicable;
and
(C) provides data about the length of time that those
complaints are pending after being received by the
Office.
(2) Report.--Not later than 48 hours prior to each briefing
required under paragraph (1), the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights of the Department of Education shall provide a written
report to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate that contains the
information that will be presented at such briefing, in a
manner that protects personally identifiable information in
accordance with applicable privacy laws.
(b) OCR Process Reforms.--
(1) Dismissals.--The Office shall not close or dismiss any
complaint regarding discrimination on the basis of race, color,
or national origin in violation of title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) due to the filing of a
complaint involving the same allegations against the same
recipient--
(A) by an individual other than the complainant with
another Federal, State, or local agency, a court, or
the recipient, unless the Office determines that--
(i) a court has certified a class action with
respect to the alleged violation of such other
individual's complaint;
(ii) such other individual is a member of
such class; and
(iii) the complainant is a member of such
class; or
(B) by the complainant with another Federal, State,
or local agency, a court, or the recipient.
(2) Investigations.--The Office shall not delay an
investigation of a complaint due to the filing of a complaint
involving the same allegations against the same recipient with
another Federal, State, or local agency or the recipient.
(3) Recipient defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term ``recipient'' means an institution of higher education (as
such term is defined in section 102 of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)) that receives funds under an
applicable program (as such term is defined in section 400 of
the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221)).
Purpose
The purpose of H.R. 8648, the Civil Rights Protection Act
of 2024, is to increase the transparency of colleges and
universities in carrying out their civil rights
responsibilities and to codify certain investigative procedures
at the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of
Education (OCR).
Committee Action
118TH CONGRESS
First Session--Hearings
On November 14, 2023, the Subcommittee on Higher Education
and Workforce Development held a hearing on ``Confronting the
Scourge of Antisemitism on Campus.'' The purpose of the hearing
was to discuss the proliferation of antisemitism on college
campuses. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Rabbi Moshe
Hauer, Executive Vice President, Orthodox Union, NY, NY;
Kenneth L. Marcus, Esq., Founder and Chairman, Brandeis Center,
Washington, DC; Ms. Stacy Burdett, Independent Consultant in
Antisemitism Prevention and Response, Washington, DC; and Sahar
Tartak, Jewish student, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
On December 5, 2023, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing on ``Holding Campus Leaders
Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to discuss the proliferation of antisemitism on
college campuses with key college presidents. Testifying before
the Committee were Dr. Claudine Gay, President, Harvard
University, Boston, MA; Ms. Liz Magill, President, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Dr. Pamela Nadell, Professor
of History and Jewish Studies, American University, Washington,
DC; and Dr. Sally Kornbluth, President, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Boston, MA.
Second Session--Hearings
On April 17, 2024, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing on ``Columbia in Crisis: Columbia
University's Response to Antisemitism.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to learn more about the pervasive environment of
antisemitism on Columbia's campus. Testifying before the
Committee were Dr. Nemat ``Minouche'' Shafik, President,
Columbia University, New York, NY; Professor David Schizer,
Dean Emeritus and Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law &
Economics, Columbia Law School, New York, NY; Ms. Claire
Shipman, Board of Trustees Co-Chair, Columbia University, New
York, NY; and Mr. David Greenwald, Board of Trustees Co-Chair,
Columbia University, New York, NY.
On May 8, 2024, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing on
``Confronting Pervasive Antisemitism In K-12 Schools.'' The
purpose of the hearing was to discuss the proliferation of
antisemitism in K-12 schools. Testifying before the
Subcommittee were Mr. David Banks, Chancellor, New York City
Public Schools, New York City Department of Education, New
York, NY; Ms. Karla Silvestre, President, Montgomery County
Board of Education, Montgomery County Public Schools,
Rockville, MD; Mr. Emerson Sykes, Senior Staff Attorney,
American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY; and Ms. Enikia
Ford Morthel, Superintendent, Berkeley Unified School District,
Berkely, CA.
On May 23, 2024, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing ``Calling for Accountability: Stopping
Antisemitic College Chaos.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
examine pervasive antisemitism and encampments on college
campuses. Testifying before the Committee were Mr. Michael
Schill, President of Northwestern University, Evanston, IL; Dr.
Jonathan Holloway, President of Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ; Mr. Frederick M. Lawrence, Secretary and CEO,
Phi Beta Kappa Society, Washington, DC; and Dr. Gene Block,
Chancellor, University of California--Los Angeles, Los Angeles,
CA.
Legislative Action
On June 7, 2024, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR) introduced
H.R. 8648, the Civil Rights Protection Act of 2024. The bill
was referred solely to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. On June 13, 2024, the Committee considered H.R. 8648
in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended,
to the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 25-15.
The Committee adopted the following amendments to H.R. 8648:
1. Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR) offered an
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that
requires communications with complainants and
respondents to be part of the IHE's record keeping and
makes other technical changes. The amendment also
clarifies that courts certify class actions.
2. Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) offered an
amendment that would authorize $280 million annually
for the Office for Civil Rights for five years starting
in FY 2025. The amendment failed by a recorded vote of
16-24.
3. Representative Kathy Manning (D-NC) offered an
amendment that would authorize ``such sums'' for
funding for fiscal years 2024 through 2028 to implement
the Act. The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 16-
23.
4. Representative Kathy Manning (D-NC) offered an
amendment that requires institutions to display and
publish public awareness materials created and
distributed by OCR relating to title VI of the Civil
Rights Act. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Committee Views
INTRODUCTION
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (title VI) prohibits
discrimination in federal taxpayer funded programs based on
race, color, or national origin. Administrations of both
parties have affirmed that discrimination against religious
groups is prohibited by title VI when that discrimination is
based on an individual's actual or perceived shared ancestry or
ethnic characteristics.\1\ Over the last several months, there
has been an explosion of antisemitism on college campuses. This
has raised questions about how institutions of higher education
(IHEs) investigate claims of discrimination and harassment
under Title VI and created calls for codifying certain
investigative processes at OCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/
executive-order-combating-anti-semitism/; https://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/us-department-education-reminds-schools-their-legal-
obligation-address-discrimination-including-harassment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing Transparence at Institutions of Higher Education
H.R. 8648 amends the program participation agreement under
the Higher Education Act to require IHEs to be transparent
about their procedures for investigating complaints of alleged
violations of title VI. The bill also establishes minimum
requirements for those procedures to ensure that institutions
are communicating regularly and clearly with complainants and
being transparent about decisions made over the course of an
investigation. The bill also requires institutions to
disseminate these procedures widely to their campuses so that
students and other members of their communities know how to
file a complaint and understand how complaints will be
investigated. These changes are important because neither the
title VI statute nor the title VI regulations provide
significant direction to campuses regarding how allegations of
discrimination based on race, color, or national origin should
be investigated.
Office for Civil Rights Investigative Procedures
H.R. 8648 also requires OCR to brief the Committee on
Education and the Workforce and the Senate Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee monthly for two years on the
progress the office is making investigating title VI
complaints. There is a significant backlog of title VI cases at
OCR, and this provision will provide Congress an opportunity to
hear directly from OCR about the progress being made on those
complaints.
The bill ensures that investigations of title VI complaints
will continue at OCR. The bill places restrictions on OCR for
when it can dismiss a complaint because of the existence of a
class action in a court. This is already current policy at OCR
under its case processing manual, but this provision will
codify that practice in law to ensure it is followed. The bill
also ensures that OCR will not dismiss or delay an
investigation because a complaint involving the same
allegations and the same institution has been made with another
entity.
CONCLUSION
H.R. 8648 will strengthen title VI compliance processes at
colleges and universities and OCR. These are important steps
forward as Congress seeks to stamp out the resurgence of
antisemitism on college campuses and ensure that all students
have equal access to educational opportunities.
Summary
H.R. 8648 amends the program participation agreement under
the Higher Education Act to require institutions of higher
education to be transparent about their procedures for
investigating complaints of alleged violations of Title VI,
establishes minimum requirements for those procedures to ensure
that institutions are communicating regularly and clearly with
complainants and being transparent about decisions made over
the course of an investigation, requires transparency from OCR
with Congress about progress being made on title VI
investigations, and ensures that investigations of title VI
complaints at ED will continue.
H.R. 8648 SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY
Section 1--Short title
Names the bill the Civil Rights Protection Act of
2024
Section 2--Compliance and transparency related to Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964
The bill amends the program participation
agreement under the Higher Education Act to require
institutions of higher education receiving Title IV aid to:
Have in place and widely distribute
investigative processes to investigate claims filed
with the institution under title VI.
Include within those processes at least
the following minimum elements:
D A description of the investigative
processes, including how the institution
determines whether a complaint will be
investigated, and if so, how the outcome of the
investigation is determined.
D Designation of at least one employee to
coordinate the institution's title VI
compliance, including any investigations of
complaints alleging noncompliance.
D The contact information and necessary steps
for reporting a complaint to the institution.
D Timely delivery to each complainant a
confirmation the complaint was received;
notification of whether or not an investigation
has been opened; in the case that an
investigation was not opened, an explanation of
why the investigation was not opened; in the
case that an investigation is opened,
notification that an investigation will be
carried out, notification of the outcome of the
investigation, and notification of the remedial
actions taken.
Have in place a system for keeping and
maintaining records of complaints and investigations
that result from such complaints.
The contact information and necessary
steps for reporting a complaint under title VI to OCR.
Require the Department of Education to
withhold title IV aid from the institution for two
years if the institution violates these requirements
for two consecutive years and requires institutions to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements before
regaining eligibility.
The bill establishes an effective date for these
amendments of the first day of the first award year beginning
after the date of enactment of the bill.
Section 3--Office for Civil Rights requirements
Beginning 30 days after enactment of the bill and
lasting for two years, the bill requires OCR to brief the
Congressional education committees monthly on its title VI
investigations.
The bill lays out information the
briefing must cover.
The bill requires OCR to submit a report
on the information to be covered in the briefing to the
Committees 48 hours prior to each briefing.
The bill prohibits OCR from dismissing title VI
complaints filed with OCR under certain conditions.
The bill prohibits OCR from dismissing a
complaint using its ``class action'' authority based on
a complaint filed by a second complainant unless OCR
determines that the second complaint is part of a class
action that the first complainant is part of.
The bill prohibits OCR from dismissing a
complaint if a complaint involving the same allegation
against the same recipient is filed with another
federal, state, or local agency, a court, or the
recipient.
The bill prohibits OCR from delaying the
investigation of a complaint due to the filing of a complaint
involving the same allegations against the same recipient with
another federal, state, or local agency or the recipient.
The bill defines ``recipient'' to mean an
institution of higher education that receives funds from the
Department of Education.
Explanation of Amendments
The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.
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.R. 8648 amends the program participation agreement
under the Higher Education Act to require institutions of
higher education to have procedures in place to investigate
claims filed with the institution under Title VI. H.R. 8648 is
applicable to institutions of higher education and therefore
does not apply to the Legislative Branch.
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 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.R. 8648 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of House rule XXI.
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.R. 8648, is to increase the transparency of colleges
and universities in carrying out their civil rights
responsibilities by requiring institutions of higher education
receiving Title IV aid to establish and implement processes to
investigate claims filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 8648 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.R. 8648: On November 14, 2023, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on
``Confronting the Scourge of Antisemitism on Campus.''
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. 8648 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.R. 8648.
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
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--STUDENT ASSISTANCE
* * * * * * *
Part G--General Provisions Relating to Student Assistance Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 487. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS.
(a) Required for Programs of Assistance; Contents.--In order
to be an eligible institution for the purposes of any program
authorized under this title, an institution must be an
institution of higher education or an eligible institution (as
that term is defined for the purpose of that program) and
shall, except with respect to a program under subpart 4 of part
A, enter into a program participation agreement with the
Secretary. The agreement shall condition the initial and
continuing eligibility of an institution to participate in a
program upon compliance with the following requirements:
(1) The institution will use funds received by it for
any program under this title and any interest or other
earnings thereon solely for the purpose specified in
and in accordance with the provision of that program.
(2) The institution shall not charge any student a
fee for processing or handling any application, form,
or data required to determine the student's eligibility
for assistance under this title or the amount of such
assistance.
(3) The institution will establish and maintain such
administrative and fiscal procedures and records as may
be necessary to ensure proper and efficient
administration of funds received from the Secretary or
from students under this title, together with
assurances that the institution will provide, upon
request and in a timely fashion, information relating
to the administrative capability and financial
responsibility of the institution to--
(A) the Secretary;
(B) the appropriate guaranty agency; and
(C) the appropriate accrediting agency or
association.
(4) The institution will comply with the provisions
of subsection (c) of this section and the regulations
prescribed under that subsection, relating to fiscal
eligibility.
(5) The institution will submit reports to the
Secretary and, in the case of an institution
participating in a program under part B or part E, to
holders of loans made to the institution's students
under such parts at such times and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require to
carry out the purpose of this title.
(6) The institution will not provide any student with
any statement or certification to any lender under part
B that qualifies the student for a loan or loans in
excess of the amount that student is eligible to borrow
in accordance with sections 425(a), 428(a)(2), and
428(b)(1) (A) and (B).
(7) The institution will comply with the requirements
of section 485.
(8) In the case of an institution that advertises job
placement rates as a means of attracting students to
enroll in the institution, the institution will make
available to prospective students, at or before the
time of application (A) the most recent available data
concerning employment statistics, graduation
statistics, and any other information necessary to
substantiate the truthfulness of the advertisements,
and (B) relevant State licensing requirements of the
State in which such institution is located for any job
for which the course of instruction is designed to
prepare such prospective students.
(9) In the case of an institution participating in a
program under part B or D, the institution will inform
all eligible borrowers enrolled in the institution
about the availability and eligibility of such
borrowers for State grant assistance from the State in
which the institution is located, and will inform such
borrowers from another State of the source for further
information concerning such assistance from that State.
(10) The institution certifies that it has in
operation a drug abuse prevention program that is
determined by the institution to be accessible to any
officer, employee, or student at the institution.
(11) In the case of any institution whose students
receive financial assistance pursuant to section
484(d), the institution will make available to such
students a program proven successful in assisting
students in obtaining a certificate of high school
equivalency.
(12) The institution certifies that--
(A) the institution has established a campus
security policy; and
(B) the institution has complied with the
disclosure requirements of section 485(f).
(13) The institution will not deny any form of
Federal financial aid to any student who meets the
eligibility requirements of this title on the grounds
that the student is participating in a program of study
abroad approved for credit by the institution.
(14)(A) The institution, in order to participate as
an eligible institution under part B or D, will develop
a Default Management Plan for approval by the Secretary
as part of its initial application for certification as
an eligible institution and will implement such Plan
for two years thereafter.
(B) Any institution of higher education which changes
ownership and any eligible institution which changes
its status as a parent or subordinate institution
shall, in order to participate as an eligible
institution under part B or D, develop a Default
Management Plan for approval by the Secretary and
implement such Plan for two years after its change of
ownership or status.
(C) This paragraph shall not apply in the case of an
institution in which (i) neither the parent nor the
subordinate institution has a cohort default rate in
excess of 10 percent, and (ii) the new owner of such
parent or subordinate institution does not, and has
not, owned any other institution with a cohort default
rate in excess of 10 percent.
(15) The institution acknowledges the authority of
the Secretary, guaranty agencies, lenders, accrediting
agencies, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the
State agencies under subpart 1 of part H to share with
each other any information pertaining to the
institution's eligibility to participate in programs
under this title or any information on fraud and abuse.
(16)(A) The institution will not knowingly employ an
individual in a capacity that involves the
administration of programs under this title, or the
receipt of program funds under this title, who has been
convicted of, or has pled nolo contendere or guilty to,
a crime involving the acquisition, use, or expenditure
of funds under this title, or has been judicially
determined to have committed fraud involving funds
under this title or contract with an institution or
third party servicer that has been terminated under
section 432 involving the acquisition, use, or
expenditure of funds under this title, or who has been
judicially determined to have committed fraud involving
funds under this title.
(B) The institution will not knowingly contract with
or employ any individual, agency, or organization that
has been, or whose officers or employees have been--
(i) convicted of, or pled nolo contendere or
guilty to, a crime involving the acquisition,
use, or expenditure of funds under this title;
or
(ii) judicially determined to have committed
fraud involving funds under this title.
(17) The institution will complete surveys conducted
as a part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS) or any other Federal postsecondary
institution data collection effort, as designated by
the Secretary, in a timely manner and to the
satisfaction of the Secretary.
(18) The institution will meet the requirements
established pursuant to section 485(g).
(19) The institution will not impose any penalty,
including the assessment of late fees, the denial of
access to classes, libraries, or other institutional
facilities, or the requirement that the student borrow
additional funds, on any student because of the
student's inability to meet his or her financial
obligations to the institution as a result of the
delayed disbursement of the proceeds of a loan made
under this title due to compliance with the provisions
of this title, or delays attributable to the
institution.
(20) The institution will not provide any commission,
bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or
indirectly on success in securing enrollments or
financial aid to any persons or entities engaged in any
student recruiting or admission activities or in making
decisions regarding the award of student financial
assistance, except that this paragraph shall not apply
to the recruitment of foreign students residing in
foreign countries who are not eligible to receive
Federal student assistance.
(21) The institution will meet the requirements
established by the Secretary and accrediting agencies
or associations, and will provide evidence to the
Secretary that the institution has the authority to
operate within a State.
(22) The institution will comply with the refund
policy established pursuant to section 484B.
(23)(A) The institution, if located in a State to
which section 4(b) of the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-2(b)) does not apply,
will make a good faith effort to distribute a mail
voter registration form, requested and received from
the State, to each student enrolled in a degree or
certificate program and physically in attendance at the
institution, and to make such forms widely available to
students at the institution.
(B) The institution shall request the forms from the
State 120 days prior to the deadline for registering to
vote within the State. If an institution has not
received a sufficient quantity of forms to fulfill this
section from the State within 60 days prior to the
deadline for registering to vote in the State, the
institution shall not be held liable for not meeting
the requirements of this section during that election
year.
(C) This paragraph shall apply to general and special
elections for Federal office, as defined in section
301(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431(3)), and to the elections for Governor or
other chief executive within such State).
(D) The institution shall be considered in
compliance with the requirements of
subparagraph (A) for each student to whom the
institution electronically transmits a message
containing a voter registration form acceptable
for use in the State in which the institution
is located, or an Internet address where such a
form can be downloaded, if such information is
in an electronic message devoted exclusively to
voter registration.
(24) In the case of a proprietary institution of
higher education (as defined in section 102(b)), such
institution will derive not less than ten percent of
such institution's revenues from sources other than
Federal funds that are disbursed or delivered to or on
behalf of a student to be used to attend such
institution (referred to in this paragraph and
subsection (d) as ``Federal education assistance
funds''), as calculated in accordance with subsection
(d)(1), or will be subject to the sanctions described
in subsection (d)(2).
(25) In the case of an institution that participates
in a loan program under this title, the institution
will--
(A) develop a code of conduct with respect to
such loans with which the institution's
officers, employees, and agents shall comply,
that--
(i) prohibits a conflict of interest
with the responsibilities of an
officer, employee, or agent of an
institution with respect to such loans;
and
(ii) at a minimum, includes the
provisions described in subsection (e);
(B) publish such code of conduct prominently
on the institution's website; and
(C) administer and enforce such code by, at a
minimum, requiring that all of the
institution's officers, employees, and agents
with responsibilities with respect to such
loans be annually informed of the provisions of
the code of conduct.
(26) The institution will, upon written request,
disclose to the alleged victim of any crime of violence
(as that term is defined in section 16 of title 18,
United States Code), or a nonforcible sex offense, the
report on the results of any disciplinary proceeding
conducted by such institution against a student who is
the alleged perpetrator of such crime or offense with
respect to such crime or offense. If the alleged victim
of such crime or offense is deceased as a result of
such crime or offense, the next of kin of such victim
shall be treated as the alleged victim for purposes of
this paragraph.
(27) In the case of an institution that has entered
into a preferred lender arrangement, the institution
will at least annually compile, maintain, and make
available for students attending the institution, and
the families of such students, a list, in print or
other medium, of the specific lenders for loans made,
insured, or guaranteed under this title or private
education loans that the institution recommends,
promotes, or endorses in accordance with such preferred
lender arrangement. In making such list, the
institution shall comply with the requirements of
subsection (h).
(28)(A) The institution will, upon the request of an
applicant for a private education loan, provide to the
applicant the form required under section 128(e)(3) of
the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1638(e)(3)), and
the information required to complete such form, to the
extent the institution possesses such information.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``private education loan'' has the meaning given such
term in section 140 of the Truth in Lending Act.
(29) The institution certifies that the institution--
(A) has developed plans to effectively combat
the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
material, including through the use of a
variety of technology-based deterrents; and
(B) will, to the extent practicable, offer
alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-
peer distribution of intellectual property, as
determined by the institution in consultation
with the chief technology officer or other
designated officer of the institution.
(30) The institution will comply with the provisions
of subsection (i) and provide to the Secretary an
annual attestation of such compliance.
(b) Hearings.--(1) An institution that has received written
notice of a final audit or program review determination and
that desires to have such determination reviewed by the
Secretary shall submit to the Secretary a written request for
review not later than 45 days after receipt of notification of
the final audit or program review determination.
(2) The Secretary shall, upon receipt of written notice under
paragraph (1), arrange for a hearing and notify the institution
within 30 days of receipt of such notice the date, time, and
place of such hearing. Such hearing shall take place not later
than 120 days from the date upon which the Secretary notifies
the institution.
(c) Audits; Financial Responsibility; Enforcement of
Standards.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
title, the Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary to provide for--
(A)(i) except as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii),
a financial audit of an eligible institution with
regard to the financial condition of the institution in
its entirety, and a compliance audit of such
institution with regard to any funds obtained by it
under this title or obtained from a student or a parent
who has a loan insured or guaranteed by the Secretary
under this title, on at least an annual basis and
covering the period since the most recent audit,
conducted by a qualified, independent organization or
person in accordance with standards established by the
Comptroller General for the audit of governmental
organizations, programs, and functions, and as
prescribed in regulations of the Secretary, the results
of which shall be submitted to the Secretary and shall
be available to cognizant guaranty agencies, eligible
lenders, State agencies, and the appropriate State
agency notifying the Secretary under subpart 1 of part
H, except that the Secretary may modify the
requirements of this clause with respect to
institutions of higher education that are foreign
institutions, and may waive such requirements with
respect to a foreign institution whose students receive
less than $500,000 in loans under this title during the
award year preceding the audit period;
(ii) with regard to an eligible institution which is
audited under chapter 75 of title 31, United States
Code, deeming such audit to satisfy the requirements of
clause (i) for the period covered by such audit; or
(iii) at the discretion of the Secretary, with regard
to an eligible institution (other than an eligible
institution described in section 102(a)(1)(C)) that has
obtained less than $200,000 in funds under this title
during each of the 2 award years that precede the audit
period and submits a letter of credit payable to the
Secretary equal to not less than \1/2\ of the annual
potential liabilities of such institution as determined
by the Secretary, deeming an audit conducted every 3
years to satisfy the requirements of clause (i), except
for the award year immediately preceding renewal of the
institution's eligibility under section 498(g);
(B) in matters not governed by specific program
provisions, the establishment of reasonable standards
of financial responsibility and appropriate
institutional capability for the administration by an
eligible institution of a program of student financial
aid under this title, including any matter the
Secretary deems necessary to the sound administration
of the financial aid programs, such as the pertinent
actions of any owner, shareholder, or person exercising
control over an eligible institution;
(C)(i) except as provided in clause (ii), a
compliance audit of a third party servicer (other than
with respect to the servicer's functions as a lender if
such functions are otherwise audited under this part
and such audits meet the requirements of this clause),
with regard to any contract with an eligible
institution, guaranty agency, or lender for
administering or servicing any aspect of the student
assistance programs under this title, at least once
every year and covering the period since the most
recent audit, conducted by a qualified, independent
organization or person in accordance with standards
established by the Comptroller General for the audit of
governmental organizations, programs, and functions,
and as prescribed in regulations of the Secretary, the
results of which shall be submitted to the Secretary;
or
(ii) with regard to a third party servicer that is
audited under chapter 75 of title 31, United States
Code, such audit shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of clause (i) for the period covered by
such audit;
(D)(i) a compliance audit of a secondary market with
regard to its transactions involving, and its servicing
and collection of, loans made under this title, at
least once a year and covering the period since the
most recent audit, conducted by a qualified,
independent organization or person in accordance with
standards established by the Comptroller General for
the audit of governmental organizations, programs, and
functions, and as prescribed in regulations of the
Secretary, the results of which shall be submitted to
the Secretary; or
(ii) with regard to a secondary market that is
audited under chapter 75 of title 31, United States
Code, such audit shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of clause (i) for the period covered by
the audit;
(E) the establishment, by each eligible institution
under part B responsible for furnishing to the lender
the statement required by section 428(a)(2)(A)(i), of
policies and procedures by which the latest known
address and enrollment status of any student who has
had a loan insured under this part and who has either
formally terminated his enrollment, or failed to re-
enroll on at least a half-time basis, at such
institution, shall be furnished either to the holder
(or if unknown, the insurer) of the note, not later
than 60 days after such termination or failure to re-
enroll;
(F) the limitation, suspension, or termination of the
participation in any program under this title of an
eligible institution, or the imposition of a civil
penalty under paragraph (3)(B) whenever the Secretary
has determined, after reasonable notice and opportunity
for hearing, that such institution has violated or
failed to carry out any provision of this title, any
regulation prescribed under this title, or any
applicable special arrangement, agreement, or
limitation, except that no period of suspension under
this section shall exceed 60 days unless the
institution and the Secretary agree to an extension or
unless limitation or termination proceedings are
initiated by the Secretary within that period of time;
(G) an emergency action against an institution, under
which the Secretary shall, effective on the date on
which a notice and statement of the basis of the action
is mailed to the institution (by registered mail,
return receipt requested), withhold funds from the
institution or its students and withdraw the
institution's authority to obligate funds under any
program under this title, if the Secretary--
(i) receives information, determined by the
Secretary to be reliable, that the institution
is violating any provision of this title, any
regulation prescribed under this title, or any
applicable special arrangement, agreement, or
limitation,
(ii) determines that immediate action is
necessary to prevent misuse of Federal funds,
and
(iii) determines that the likelihood of loss
outweighs the importance of the procedures
prescribed under subparagraph (D) for
limitation, suspension, or termination,
except that an emergency action shall not exceed 30
days unless limitation, suspension, or termination
proceedings are initiated by the Secretary against the
institution within that period of time, and except that
the Secretary shall provide the institution an
opportunity to show cause, if it so requests, that the
emergency action is unwarranted;
(H) the limitation, suspension, or termination of the
eligibility of a third party servicer to contract with
any institution to administer any aspect of an
institution's student assistance program under this
title, or the imposition of a civil penalty under
paragraph (3)(B), whenever the Secretary has
determined, after reasonable notice and opportunity for
a hearing, that such organization, acting on behalf of
an institution, has violated or failed to carry out any
provision of this title, any regulation prescribed
under this title, or any applicable special
arrangement, agreement, or limitation, except that no
period of suspension under this subparagraph shall
exceed 60 days unless the organization and the
Secretary agree to an extension, or unless limitation
or termination proceedings are initiated by the
Secretary against the individual or organization within
that period of time; and
(I) an emergency action against a third party
servicer that has contracted with an institution to
administer any aspect of the institution's student
assistance program under this title, under which the
Secretary shall, effective on the date on which a
notice and statement of the basis of the action is
mailed to such individual or organization (by
registered mail, return receipt requested), withhold
funds from the individual or organization and withdraw
the individual or organization's authority to act on
behalf of an institution under any program under this
title, if the Secretary--
(i) receives information, determined by the
Secretary to be reliable, that the individual
or organization, acting on behalf of an
institution, is violating any provision of this
title, any regulation prescribed under this
title, or any applicable special arrangement,
agreement, or limitation,
(ii) determines that immediate action is
necessary to prevent misuse of Federal funds,
and
(iii) determines that the likelihood of loss
outweighs the importance of the procedures
prescribed under subparagraph (F), for
limitation, suspension, or termination,
except that an emergency action shall not exceed 30
days unless the limitation, suspension, or termination
proceedings are initiated by the Secretary against the
individual or organization within that period of time,
and except that the Secretary shall provide the
individual or organization an opportunity to show
cause, if it so requests, that the emergency action is
unwarranted.
(2) If an individual who, or entity that, exercises
substantial control, as determined by the Secretary in
accordance with the definition of substantial control in
subpart 3 of part H, over one or more institutions
participating in any program under this title, or, for purposes
of paragraphs (1) (H) and (I), over one or more organizations
that contract with an institution to administer any aspect of
the institution's student assistance program under this title,
is determined to have committed one or more violations of the
requirements of any program under this title, or has been
suspended or debarred in accordance with the regulations of the
Secretary, the Secretary may use such determination,
suspension, or debarment as the basis for imposing an emergency
action on, or limiting, suspending, or terminating, in a single
proceeding, the participation of any or all institutions under
the substantial control of that individual or entity.
(3)(A) Upon determination, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for a hearing, that an eligible institution has
engaged in substantial misrepresentation of the nature of its
educational program, its financial charges, or the
employability of its graduates, the Secretary may suspend or
terminate the eligibility status for any or all programs under
this title of any otherwise eligible institution, in accordance
with procedures specified in paragraph (1)(D) of this
subsection, until the Secretary finds that such practices have
been corrected.
(B)(i) Upon determination, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for a hearing, that an eligible institution--
(I) has violated or failed to carry out any provision
of this title or any regulation prescribed under this
title; or
(II) has engaged in substantial misrepresentation of
the nature of its educational program, its financial
charges, and the employability of its graduates,
the Secretary may impose a civil penalty upon such institution
of not to exceed $25,000 for each violation or
misrepresentation.
(ii) Any civil penalty may be compromised by the Secretary.
In determining the amount of such penalty, or the amount agreed
upon in compromise, the appropriateness of the penalty to the
size of the institution of higher education subject to the
determination, and the gravity of the violation, failure, or
misrepresentation shall be considered. The amount of such
penalty, when finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in
compromise, may be deducted from any sums owing by the United
States to the institution charged.
(4) The Secretary shall publish a list of State agencies
which the Secretary determines to be reliable authority as to
the quality of public postsecondary vocational education in
their respective States for the purpose of determining
eligibility for all Federal student assistance programs.
(5) The Secretary shall make readily available to appropriate
guaranty agencies, eligible lenders, State agencies notifying
the Secretary under subpart 1 of part H, and accrediting
agencies or associations the results of the audits of eligible
institutions conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)(A).
(6) The Secretary is authorized to provide any information
collected as a result of audits conducted under this section,
together with audit information collected by guaranty agencies,
to any Federal or State agency having responsibilities with
respect to student financial assistance, including those
referred to in subsection (a)(15) of this section.
(7) Effective with respect to any audit conducted under this
subsection after December 31, 1988, if, in the course of
conducting any such audit, the personnel of the Department of
Education discover, or are informed of, grants or other
assistance provided by an institution in accordance with this
title for which the institution has not received funds
appropriated under this title (in the amount necessary to
provide such assistance), including funds for which
reimbursement was not requested prior to such discovery or
information, such institution shall be permitted to offset that
amount against any sums determined to be owed by the
institution pursuant to such audit, or to receive reimbursement
for that amount (if the institution does not owe any such
sums).
(d) Implementation of Non-Federal Revenue Requirement.--
(1) Calculation.--In making calculations under
subsection (a)(24), a proprietary institution of higher
education shall--
(A) use the cash basis of accounting, except
in the case of loans described in subparagraph
(D)(i) that are made by the proprietary
institution of higher education;
(B) consider as revenue only those funds
generated by the institution from--
(i) tuition, fees, and other
institutional charges for students
enrolled in programs eligible for
assistance under this title;
(ii) activities conducted by the
institution that are necessary for the
education and training of the
institution's students, if such
activities are--
(I) conducted on campus or at
a facility under the control of
the institution;
(II) performed under the
supervision of a member of the
institution's faculty; and
(III) required to be
performed by all students in a
specific educational program at
the institution; and
(iii) funds paid by a student, or on
behalf of a student by a party other
than the institution, for an education
or training program that is not
eligible for funds under this title, if
the program--
(I) is approved or licensed
by the appropriate State
agency;
(II) is accredited by an
accrediting agency recognized
by the Secretary; or
(III) provides an industry-
recognized credential or
certification;
(C) presume that any Federal education
assistance funds that are disbursed or
delivered to or on behalf of a student will be
used to pay the student's tuition, fees, or
other institutional charges, regardless of
whether the institution credits those funds to
the student's account or pays those funds
directly to the student, except to the extent
that the student's tuition, fees, or other
institutional charges are satisfied by--
(i) grant funds provided by non-
Federal public agencies or private
sources independent of the institution;
(ii) funds provided under a
contractual arrangement with a Federal,
State, or local government agency for
the purpose of providing job training
to low-income individuals who are in
need of that training;
(iii) funds used by a student from
savings plans for educational expenses
established by or on behalf of the
student and which qualify for special
tax treatment under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986; or
(iv) institutional scholarships
described in subparagraph (D)(iii);
(D) include institutional aid as revenue to
the school only as follows:
(i) in the case of loans made by a
proprietary institution of higher
education on or after July 1, 2008 and
prior to July 1, 2012, the net present
value of such loans made by the
institution during the applicable
institutional fiscal year accounted for
on an accrual basis and estimated in
accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and related
standards and guidance, if the loans--
(I) are bona fide as
evidenced by enforceable
promissory notes;
(II) are issued at intervals
related to the institution's
enrollment periods; and
(III) are subject to regular
loan repayments and
collections;
(ii) in the case of loans made by a
proprietary institution of higher
education on or after July 1, 2012,
only the amount of loan repayments
received during the applicable
institutional fiscal year, excluding
repayments on loans made and accounted
for as specified in clause (i); and
(iii) in the case of scholarships
provided by a proprietary institution
of higher education, only those
scholarships provided by the
institution in the form of monetary aid
or tuition discounts based upon the
academic achievements or financial need
of students, disbursed during each
fiscal year from an established
restricted account, and only to the
extent that funds in that account
represent designated funds from an
outside source or from income earned on
those funds;
(E) in the case of each student who receives
a loan on or after July 1, 2008, and prior to
July 1, 2011, that is authorized under section
428H or that is a Federal Direct Unsubsidized
Stafford Loan, treat as revenue received by the
institution from sources other than funds
received under this title, the amount by which
the disbursement of such loan received by the
institution exceeds the limit on such loan in
effect on the day before the date of enactment
of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student
Loans Act of 2008; and
(F) exclude from revenues--
(i) the amount of funds the
institution received under part C,
unless the institution used those funds
to pay a student's institutional
charges;
(ii) the amount of funds the
institution received under subpart 4 of
part A;
(iii) the amount of funds provided by
the institution as matching funds for a
program under this title;
(iv) the amount of funds provided by
the institution for a program under
this title that are required to be
refunded or returned; and
(v) the amount charged for books,
supplies, and equipment, unless the
institution includes that amount as
tuition, fees, or other institutional
charges.
(2) Sanctions.--
(A) Ineligibility.--A proprietary institution
of higher education that fails to meet a
requirement of subsection (a)(24) for two
consecutive institutional fiscal years shall be
ineligible to participate in the programs
authorized by this title for a period of not
less than two institutional fiscal years. To
regain eligibility to participate in the
programs authorized by this title, a
proprietary institution of higher education
shall demonstrate compliance with all
eligibility and certification requirements
under section 498 for a minimum of two
institutional fiscal years after the
institutional fiscal year in which the
institution became ineligible.
(B) Additional enforcement.--In addition to
such other means of enforcing the requirements
of this title as may be available to the
Secretary, if a proprietary institution of
higher education fails to meet a requirement of
subsection (a)(24) for any institutional fiscal
year, then the institution's eligibility to
participate in the programs authorized by this
title becomes provisional for the two
institutional fiscal years after the
institutional fiscal year in which the
institution failed to meet the requirement of
subsection (a)(24), except that such
provisional eligibility shall terminate--
(i) on the expiration date of the
institution's program participation
agreement under this subsection that is
in effect on the date the Secretary
determines that the institution failed
to meet the requirement of subsection
(a)(24); or
(ii) in the case that the Secretary
determines that the institution failed
to meet a requirement of subsection
(a)(24) for two consecutive
institutional fiscal years, on the date
the institution is determined
ineligible in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
(3) Publication on college navigator website.--The
Secretary shall publicly disclose on the College
Navigator website--
(A) the identity of any proprietary
institution of higher education that fails to
meet a requirement of subsection (a)(24); and
(B) the extent to which the institution
failed to meet such requirement.
(4) Report to congress.--Not later than July 1, 2009,
and July 1 of each succeeding year, the Secretary shall
submit to the authorizing committees a report that
contains, for each proprietary institution of higher
education that receives assistance under this title, as
provided in the audited financial statements submitted
to the Secretary by each institution pursuant to the
requirements of subsection (a)(24)--
(A) the amount and percentage of such
institution's revenues received from sources
under this title; and
(B) the amount and percentage of such
institution's revenues received from other
sources.
(e) Code of Conduct Requirements.--An institution of higher
education's code of conduct, as required under subsection
(a)(25), shall include the following requirements:
(1) Ban on revenue-sharing arrangements.--
(A) Prohibition.--The institution shall not
enter into any revenue-sharing arrangement with
any lender.
(B) Definition.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``revenue-sharing
arrangement'' means an arrangement between an
institution and a lender under which--
(i) a lender provides or issues a
loan that is made, insured, or
guaranteed under this title to students
attending the institution or to the
families of such students; and
(ii) the institution recommends the
lender or the loan products of the
lender and in exchange, the lender pays
a fee or provides other material
benefits, including revenue or profit
sharing, to the institution, an officer
or employee of the institution, or an
agent.
(2) Gift ban.--
(A) Prohibition.--No officer or employee of
the institution who is employed in the
financial aid office of the institution or who
otherwise has responsibilities with respect to
education loans, or agent who has
responsibilities with respect to education
loans, shall solicit or accept any gift from a
lender, guarantor, or servicer of education
loans.
(B) Definition of gift.--
(i) In general.--In this paragraph,
the term ``gift'' means any gratuity,
favor, discount, entertainment,
hospitality, loan, or other item having
a monetary value of more than a de
minimus amount. The term includes a
gift of services, transportation,
lodging, or meals, whether provided in
kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment
in advance, or reimbursement after the
expense has been incurred.
(ii) Exceptions.--The term ``gift''
shall not include any of the following:
(I) Standard material,
activities, or programs on
issues related to a loan,
default aversion, default
prevention, or financial
literacy, such as a brochure, a
workshop, or training.
(II) Food, refreshments,
training, or informational
material furnished to an
officer or employee of an
institution, or to an agent, as
an integral part of a training
session that is designed to
improve the service of a
lender, guarantor, or servicer
of education loans to the
institution, if such training
contributes to the professional
development of the officer,
employee, or agent.
(III) Favorable terms,
conditions, and borrower
benefits on an education loan
provided to a student employed
by the institution if such
terms, conditions, or benefits
are comparable to those
provided to all students of the
institution.
(IV) Entrance and exit
counseling services provided to
borrowers to meet the
institution's responsibilities
for entrance and exit
counseling as required by
subsections (b) and (l) of
section 485, as long as--
(aa) the
institution's staff are
in control of the
counseling, (whether in
person or via
electronic
capabilities); and
(bb) such counseling
does not promote the
products or services of
any specific lender.
(V) Philanthropic
contributions to an institution
from a lender, servicer, or
guarantor of education loans
that are unrelated to education
loans or any contribution from
any lender, guarantor, or
servicer that is not made in
exchange for any advantage
related to education loans.
(VI) State education grants,
scholarships, or financial aid
funds administered by or on
behalf of a State.
(iii) Rule for gifts to family
members.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a gift to a family member of
an officer or employee of an
institution, to a family member of an
agent, or to any other individual based
on that individual's relationship with
the officer, employee, or agent, shall
be considered a gift to the officer,
employee, or agent if--
(I) the gift is given with
the knowledge and acquiescence
of the officer, employee, or
agent; and
(II) the officer, employee,
or agent has reason to believe
the gift was given because of
the official position of the
officer, employee, or agent.
(3) Contracting arrangements prohibited.--
(A) Prohibition.--An officer or employee who
is employed in the financial aid office of the
institution or who otherwise has
responsibilities with respect to education
loans, or an agent who has responsibilities
with respect to education loans, shall not
accept from any lender or affiliate of any
lender any fee, payment, or other financial
benefit (including the opportunity to purchase
stock) as compensation for any type of
consulting arrangement or other contract to
provide services to a lender or on behalf of a
lender relating to education loans.
(B) Exceptions.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed as prohibiting--
(i) an officer or employee of an
institution who is not employed in the
institution's financial aid office and
who does not otherwise have
responsibilities with respect to
education loans, or an agent who does
not have responsibilities with respect
to education loans, from performing
paid or unpaid service on a board of
directors of a lender, guarantor, or
servicer of education loans;
(ii) an officer or employee of the
institution who is not employed in the
institution's financial aid office but
who has responsibility with respect to
education loans as a result of a
position held at the institution, or an
agent who has responsibility with
respect to education loans, from
performing paid or unpaid service on a
board of directors of a lender,
guarantor, or servicer of education
loans, if the institution has a written
conflict of interest policy that
clearly sets forth that officers,
employees, or agents must recuse
themselves from participating in any
decision of the board regarding
education loans at the institution; or
(iii) an officer, employee, or
contractor of a lender, guarantor, or
servicer of education loans from
serving on a board of directors, or
serving as a trustee, of an
institution, if the institution has a
written conflict of interest policy
that the board member or trustee must
recuse themselves from any decision
regarding education loans at the
institution.
(4) Interaction with borrowers.--The institution
shall not--
(A) for any first-time borrower, assign,
through award packaging or other methods, the
borrower's loan to a particular lender; or
(B) refuse to certify, or delay certification
of, any loan based on the borrower's selection
of a particular lender or guaranty agency.
(5) Prohibition on offers of funds for private
loans.--
(A) Prohibition.--The institution shall not
request or accept from any lender any offer of
funds to be used for private education loans
(as defined in section 140 of the Truth in
Lending Act), including funds for an
opportunity pool loan, to students in exchange
for the institution providing concessions or
promises regarding providing the lender with--
(i) a specified number of loans made,
insured, or guaranteed under this
title;
(ii) a specified loan volume of such
loans; or
(iii) a preferred lender arrangement
for such loans.
(B) Definition of opportunity pool loan.--In
this paragraph, the term ``opportunity pool
loan'' means a private education loan made by a
lender to a student attending the institution
or the family member of such a student that
involves a payment, directly or indirectly, by
such institution of points, premiums,
additional interest, or financial support to
such lender for the purpose of such lender
extending credit to the student or the family.
(6) Ban on staffing assistance.--
(A) Prohibition.--The institution shall not
request or accept from any lender any
assistance with call center staffing or
financial aid office staffing.
(B) Certain assistance permitted.--Nothing in
paragraph (1) shall be construed to prohibit
the institution from requesting or accepting
assistance from a lender related to--
(i) professional development training
for financial aid administrators;
(ii) providing educational counseling
materials, financial literacy
materials, or debt management materials
to borrowers, provided that such
materials disclose to borrowers the
identification of any lender that
assisted in preparing or providing such
materials; or
(iii) staffing services on a short-
term, nonrecurring basis to assist the
institution with financial aid-related
functions during emergencies, including
State-declared or federally declared
natural disasters, federally declared
national disasters, and other localized
disasters and emergencies identified by
the Secretary.
(7) Advisory board compensation.--Any employee who is
employed in the financial aid office of the
institution, or who otherwise has responsibilities with
respect to education loans or other student financial
aid of the institution, and who serves on an advisory
board, commission, or group established by a lender,
guarantor, or group of lenders or guarantors, shall be
prohibited from receiving anything of value from the
lender, guarantor, or group of lenders or guarantors,
except that the employee may be reimbursed for
reasonable expenses incurred in serving on such
advisory board, commission, or group.
(f) Institutional Requirements for Teach-Outs.--
(1) In general.--In the event the Secretary initiates
the limitation, suspension, or termination of the
participation of an institution of higher education in
any program under this title under the authority of
subsection (c)(1)(F) or initiates an emergency action
under the authority of subsection (c)(1)(G) and its
prescribed regulations, the Secretary shall require
that institution to prepare a teach-out plan for
submission to the institution's accrediting agency or
association in compliance with section 496(c)(3), the
Secretary's regulations on teach-out plans, and the
standards of the institution's accrediting agency or
association.
(2) Teach-out plan defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``teach-out plan'' means a written plan that
provides for the equitable treatment of students if an
institution of higher education ceases to operate
before all students have completed their program of
study, and may include, if required by the
institution's accrediting agency or association, an
agreement between institutions for such a teach-out
plan.
(g) Inspector General Report on Gift Ban Violations.--The
Inspector General of the Department shall--
(1) submit an annual report to the authorizing
committees identifying all violations of an
institution's code of conduct that the Inspector
General has substantiated during the preceding year
relating to the gift ban provisions described in
subsection (e)(2); and
(2) make the report available to the public through
the Department's website.
(h) Preferred Lender List Requirements.--
(1) In general.--In compiling, maintaining, and
making available a preferred lender list as required
under subsection (a)(27), the institution will--
(A) clearly and fully disclose on such
preferred lender list--
(i) not less than the information
required to be disclosed under section
153(a)(2)(A);
(ii) why the institution has entered
into a preferred lender arrangement
with each lender on the preferred
lender list, particularly with respect
to terms and conditions or provisions
favorable to the borrower; and
(iii) that the students attending the
institution, or the families of such
students, do not have to borrow from a
lender on the preferred lender list;
(B) ensure, through the use of the list of
lender affiliates provided by the Secretary
under paragraph (2), that--
(i) there are not less than three
lenders of loans made under part B that
are not affiliates of each other
included on the preferred lender list
and, if the institution recommends,
promotes, or endorses private education
loans, there are not less than two
lenders of private education loans that
are not affiliates of each other
included on the preferred lender list;
and
(ii) the preferred lender list under
this paragraph--
(I) specifically indicates,
for each listed lender, whether
the lender is or is not an
affiliate of each other lender
on the preferred lender list;
and
(II) if a lender is an
affiliate of another lender on
the preferred lender list,
describes the details of such
affiliation;
(C) prominently disclose the method and
criteria used by the institution in selecting
lenders with which to enter into preferred
lender arrangements to ensure that such lenders
are selected on the basis of the best interests
of the borrowers, including--
(i) payment of origination or other
fees on behalf of the borrower;
(ii) highly competitive interest
rates, or other terms and conditions or
provisions of loans under this title or
private education loans;
(iii) high-quality servicing for such
loans; or
(iv) additional benefits beyond the
standard terms and conditions or
provisions for such loans;
(D) exercise a duty of care and a duty of
loyalty to compile the preferred lender list
under this paragraph without prejudice and for
the sole benefit of the students attending the
institution, or the families of such students;
(E) not deny or otherwise impede the
borrower's choice of a lender or cause
unnecessary delay in loan certification under
this title for those borrowers who choose a
lender that is not included on the preferred
lender list; and
(F) comply with such other requirements as
the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
(2) Lender affiliates list.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain
and regularly update a list of lender
affiliates of all eligible lenders, and shall
provide such list to institutions for use in
carrying out paragraph (1)(B).
(B) Use of most recent list.--An institution
shall use the most recent list of lender
affiliates provided by the Secretary under
subparagraph (A) in carrying out paragraph
(1)(B).
(i) Compliance and Transparency Related to Complaints Under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.--
(1) Compliance and transparency.--With respect to
complaints received by an institution related to
alleged violations of title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), the institution
will--
(A) have in effect, make publicly available
(including on the website of the institution),
and widely distribute to students and their
families (including in student orientation
materials) a description of the investigative
processes of the institution related to such
complaints;
(B) include in the description of
investigative processes described in
subparagraph (A) at least the following:
(i) The processes and factors used to
determine whether such a complaint will
be investigated and how the outcome of
an investigation will be determined.
(ii) A designation of at least one
employee to coordinate its efforts to
comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et
seq.), including any investigation of
any complaint alleging the
noncompliance of the institution with
requirements under the Act.
(iii) The contact information and
necessary steps for reporting such a
complaint to the institution.
(iv) A procedure to ensure that, for
each such complaint received by the
institution, the complainant will
receive from the institution timely
notification of each of the following:
(I) Confirmation of receipt
of the complaint.
(II) Notification of whether
or not an investigation has
been opened in response to the
complaint.
(III) In the case that an
investigation was not opened in
response to the complaint, an
explanation of why an
investigation was not opened
including a summary of the
information that was used to
determine that an investigation
should not be opened.
(IV) In the case that an
investigation was opened--
(aa) notification
that an investigation
of the complaint will
be carried out, and
that the complainant
will be notified of the
outcome of the
investigation; and
(bb) notification of
the outcome of the
investigation,
including an
explanation of how the
outcome was reached,
and any remedial
actions taken in
response to the
complaint.
(v) A system for keeping and
maintaining records of such complaints,
including the determination and
reasoning for whether or not an
investigation into a complaint was
opened, notifications to and
communications with the complainant
and, if applicable, the respondent, a
record of the investigation (including
the outcome thereof), and a record of
any remedial actions taken in response
to the complaint.
(vi) The contact information and
necessary steps for reporting a
complaint related to an alleged
violation of title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et
seq.) to the Office for Civil Rights of
the Department of Education, including
the hyperlink to the electronic
complaint form of the Office for Civil
Rights for an alleged violation of such
title VI; and
(C) with respect to public awareness campaign
materials created and distributed by the Office
for Civil Rights of the Department relating to
protections for individuals under title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d
et seq.), display and publish such materials,
as applicable--
(i) not later than 30 days after such
materials are distributed;
(ii) for not less than 1 year or
until new such materials are
distributed, whichever is later;
(iii) in high traffic, public places
on the campus of the institution; and
(iv) on publicly available websites
of the institution.
(2) Enforcement.--An institution of higher education
that fails to comply with any provision of subsection
(a)(30) for two consecutive award years shall be
ineligible to participate in the programs authorized by
this title for a period of not less than two years. To
regain eligibility to participate in the programs
authorized by this title, an institution of higher
education shall demonstrate compliance with paragraph
(1) prior to the completion of the period during which
the institution is ineligible due to failure to comply
with such paragraph.
[(i)] (j) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section:
(1) Agent.--The term ``agent'' has the meaning given
the term in section 151.
(2) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' means a person
that controls, is controlled by, or is under common
control with another person. A person controls, is
controlled by, or is under common control with another
person if--
(A) the person directly or indirectly, or
acting through one or more others, owns,
controls, or has the power to vote five percent
or more of any class of voting securities of
such other person;
(B) the person controls, in any manner, the
election of a majority of the directors or
trustees of such other person; or
(C) the Secretary determines (after notice
and opportunity for a hearing) that the person
directly or indirectly exercises a controlling
interest over the management or policies of
such other person's education loans.
(3) Education loan.--The term ``education loan'' has
the meaning given the term in section 151.
(4) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible
institution'' means any such institution described in
section 102 of this Act.
(5) Officer.--The term ``officer'' has the meaning
given the term in section 151.
(6) Preferred lender arrangement.--The term
``preferred lender arrangement'' has the meaning given
the term in section 151.
[(j)] (k) Construction.--Nothing in the amendments made by
the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 shall be construed to
prohibit an institution from recording, at the cost of the
institution, a hearing referred to in subsection (b)(2),
subsection (c)(1)(D), or subparagraph (A) or (B)(i) of
subsection (c)(2), of this section to create a record of the
hearing, except the unavailability of a recording shall not
serve to delay the completion of the proceeding. The Secretary
shall allow the institution to use any reasonable means,
including stenographers, of recording the hearing.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
H.R. 8648, the Civil Rights Protection Act of 2024, amends
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to place requirements
related to compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VI) in the Provisional Participation Agreement
(PPA) institutions of higher education (IHEs) enter into in
order to receive access to Federal Student Aid. The bill also
makes changes to the process by which the U.S. Department of
Education's (Department) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) handles
Title VI claims. While we appreciate the spirit in which the
bill is offered, we have concerns about specific provisions in
the bill that may increase the backlog of cases at OCR and
could result in inequitable outcomes between complaints based
in Title VI and other education civil rights cases. Sadly,
these concerns must be considered along with the Committee's
recent Title VI ``oversight''.
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS
The Committee's Title VI ``Oversight'', or Lack Thereof
By the Chair's own words, H.R. 8648 has its genesis in the
Committee's ``ongoing effort to stamp out antisemitism.''\1\ We
have serious concerns about how the Committee has undertaken
this effort. These concerns are difficult to set aside when
considering the merits of and motivations behind H.R. 8648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Press Release, H. Comm. on Educ. & the Workforce, Chairwoman
Foxx Delivers Opening Remarks at Markup to Enhance Safety, Security,
and Rights of Students, Parents, and Workers (June 13, 2024), https://
edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=410701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the beginning, the Committee has undertaken a partisan
investigation into antisemitic events that have occurred on
college campuses in the wake of the heinous Oct. 7 terrorist
attack by Hamas on innocent civilians in the state of Israel.
This is of course the Majority's prerogative.\2\ But this
partisan approach has been reflected in both the tone of the
hearings the Committee has held and the ``targets'' of the
Committee's investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Ben Wilhelm, et al., Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL30240,
Congressional Oversight Manual 39, https://crs.gov/reports/pdf/RL30240/
RL30240.pdf (``There, a committee rule required that all `major
investigations' be initiated only with the majority approval of the
committee.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From all outward appearances, the Committee's efforts to
``stamp out antisemitism'' have had less to do with identifying
and addressing the root causes of antisemitism in educational
settings than with pillorying college administrators generally,
elite colleges specifically.\3\ The proceedings have taken on
the air of show trials, where college Presidents are forced to
distill complex questions or decisions they have made to one
word answers, designed to portray them in the most unfavorable
light. This is obvious when press statements and tweets after
the hearings celebrate instances when Presidents misspoke, were
rebuked by their faculty, or forced to resign as a result of
something that transpired during the hearing.\4\ While these
efforts may garner acclaim for Members, they do little to
nothing to address the underlying problem, addressing the
responsibilities schools have to provide learning environments
free from hostility based on race, national origin, or shared
ancestry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\E.g., Franciska Coleman, Opinion, In battles over offensive
speech, the `cure' is usually worse than the disease, The Hill, Jan.
16, 2024; Bianca Quilantan, Lawmakers, Jewish groups brace for
Columbia's Capitol Hill antisemitism showdown, Politico, Apr. 17, 2024
(``Some higher education groups and faculty who hoped to get help in
dealing with thorny issues of free speech are resigning themselves to a
show trial.'').
\4\E.g., @RepStefanik, X.com (formerly Twitter.com) (Dec. 9, 2023,
5:03 PM), https://x.com/RepStefanik/status/1733608373990343015?lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of the October 7th attack there have been many
documented incidents of racist, antisemitic, and Islamophobic
activity on U.S. college campuses. However, in every official
oversight action this Committee has taken on the issue of
hostile learning environments on college campuses in the wake
of October 7th, the Committee has ignored issues of hate and
animus on college campuses that did not involve antisemitism.
For example, on Tuesday November 14, the Higher Education
and Workforce Development Subcommittee held a hearing titled
``Confronting the Scourge of Antisemitism on Campus''. This was
timely as incidents of antisemitism on college campuses
proliferated horribly in the aftermath of the October 7th
attack.\5\ However, two weeks before the hearing, the Council
on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported that they had
received 774 anti-Islamic ``complaints, including reported bias
incidents'' since October 7, including incidents that took
place at schools.\6\ At the time the hearing was held, the U.S.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was already investigating
a death threat made against a Palestinian American employee of
American University.\7\ At Harvard University, there was
reporting that efforts to ``dox'' leaders of student groups
supporting the Palestine Solidarity Coalition (PSC), included
students who were not even on campus that semester and had no
part in the PSC's response to the October 7th attack.\8\ Muslim
students who had been doxed had reported receiving death
threats in the wake of the doxing.\9\ To our knowledge there
has been no Committee oversight of these events or either
campus' response to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Press Release, Anti-Defamation League, ADL Records Dramatic
Increase in U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Following Oct. 7 Hamas Massacre,
Oct. 24, 2023, https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-records-
dramatic-increase-us-antisemitic-incidents-following-oct-7.
\6\Press Release, Council on Am.-Islamic Relations, CAIR Reports
Sharp Increase in Complaints, Reported Bias Incidents Since 10/7, Oct.
25, 2023, https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-reports-sharp-
increase-in-complaints-reported-bias-incidents-since-107/.
\7\Susan H. Greenberg, FBI Investigates Anti-Palestinian Message at
American University, Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 31, 2023, https://
www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/10/31/fbi-investigates-
anti-palestinian-message-american-u.
\8\Eren Orbey, The Anguished Fallout from A Pro-Palestinian Letter
at Harvard, The New Yorker, Oct. 20, 2023, https://www.newyorker.com/
news/dispatch/the-anguished-fallout-from-a-pro-palestinian-letter-at-
harvard.
\9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, December 5, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting
Antisemitism''. On that same day, FBI director Christopher Wray
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, reiterating
concerns CAIR and ADL had raised earlier. His prepared
testimony stated clearly that both Jewish and Muslim
communities are threatened by violence as a result of the
October 7th Hamas attack and its aftermath.\10\ It is such
violent extremism that likely drove a gunman to shoot three
Palestinian-American college students walking down the street
in Burlington, Vermont ten days prior to our Dec. 5
hearing.\11\ In the aftermath of that shooting, which left one
student paralyzed, one of the victims wondered if such violence
would deter Muslim families from sending their children to
college in America, if they could not guarantee their safety
just walking down the street.\12\ Even with the direct
implication of Muslim-American student safety on college
campuses, there has been no Committee oversight of this
shooting, and based on the Chair's public interpretation of our
Committee's jurisdiction, we do not anticipate such oversight
from this Committee while she leads it.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hearing
Before the S. Comm. on the Judic., 118th Cong. (2023) (statement of The
Hon. Christopher Wray, Director) (``Anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic
sentiment permeate many violent extremist ideologies and serves as a
primary driver for attacks by a diverse set of violent extremists who
pose a persistent threat to Jewish and Muslim communities and
institutions in the United States and abroad . . . . Some violent
extremists have used times of heightened tensions to incite violence
against religious minorities, targeting both Jewish and Muslim
Americans.'').
\11\Anna Betts & Jenna Russell, For Palestinian Student Shot in
Vermont, A Collision of Two Worlds, N.Y. Times, Nov. 29, 2023, https://
nytimes.com/2023/11/29/us/vermont-shooting-burlington-palestinian-
american.html.
\12\See id.
\13\Valerie Strauss, What Republicans Really Want from Colleges,
Wash. Post, Dec. 14, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/
2023/12/14/what-republicans-really-want-colleges/ (``Asked about
Scott's accusation, a committee spokesman said in an email: `What
happened on UVA's campus in 2017 wasn't led by UVA students, didn't
represent the campus environment, and had nothing to do with the
institution we have jurisdiction over.''').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 9th, Chair Foxx sent a letter to the Senior
Fellow of the Harvard Corporation and the Interim President of
Harvard University, ``kicking off'' the Committee's
investigation of incidents of antisemitism at the
university.\14\ This was over a month after the U.S. Department
of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the executive
branch agency actually empowered under law to determine if a
school has violated student rights under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, announced it was opening an investigation
into antisemitism at Harvard.\15\ The letter included a litany
of antisemitic events that demands investigation. But that
letter does not cite any of the widely reported accusations of
harassment and intimidation against Palestinian, Arab, or
Muslim students at Harvard, accusations so serious that OCR
opened an investigation based on a complaint alleging such
discrimination at Harvard less than a month after the Committee
sent its letter.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Press Release, @EdWorkfrceCmte Kicks Off antisemitism
Investigation with Letter to Harvard, Jan. 9, 2024, https://
edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=409936;
Letter from Rep. Virginia Foxx to Mrs. Penny Prtizker & Mr. Alan
Garber, (Jan. 9, 2024), https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
1.9.24_foxx_letter_to_pritzker_and_garber.pdf.
\15\E.g., Miles J. Herszenhorn & Claire Yuan, U.S. Education
Department Opens Investigation into Harvard Following Antisemitism
Complaint, Harvard Crimson, Nov. 20, 2023, https://www.thecrimson.com/
article/2023/11/30/ed-department-investigation-antisemitism/.
\16\E.g., Vimal Patel, Education Dept. Investigates Claims of
Discrimination Against Palestinian Students at Harvard, N.Y. Times, Feb
7, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/us/harvard-palestinian-
discrimination-complaint.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 24th, the Chair sent a letter to Chairman of the
Board of Trustees and Interim President of the University of
Pennsylvania highlighting multiple antisemitic incidents on the
campus.\17\ A portion of that letter accused the school of
demonstrating a ``clear double standard by tolerating
antisemitic vandalism, harassment, and intimidation, but
suppressing and penalizing other expression it deemed
problematic.''\18\ The letter failed to mention concerns of
double standards in the policing of speech have also been
raised by students espousing pro-Palestinian beliefs on campus,
with reported claims that peaceful protesting students are
being punished ``extralegally'' and that students and alumni
have been able to dox and harass pro-Palestinian demonstrators
online ``to zero consequences.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Letter from Rep. Virginia Foxx to Mr. Ramanan Raghavendran and
Dr. Larry Jameson, (Jan. 24, 2024), https://edworkforce.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/penn_letter_final_v2.pdf.
\18\Id. at 7.
\19\Jin Kwon, Penn Students Voice Concerns About Free Speech,
Admin. Disciplinary Responses at U. Council Open Forum, Daily
Pennsylvanian, Feb 22, 2024, https://www.thedp.com/article/2024/02/
penn-university-council-open-forum-antisemitism-islamophobia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 12th, the Chair sent a letter to the Presidents and
Chairs of the Board of Trustees of Columbia University and
Barnard College (Columbia).\20\ Included in a shameful list of
antisemitic events on campus was a poster that appeared on
campus Jan. 31 that included ``an image of a blue and white
skunk with a Star of David on its back and the captions
`Beware! Skunk on Campus' and `brought to you in collaboration
by Columbia University and the IOF [Israeli Occupation
Forces].'''\21\ A reader of the letter might believe that
Jewish students at Columbia were being targeted with some new
horrid antisemitic term. That would be unless the reader was
unaware of the Jan. 19 protest on Columbia's campus where it
was alleged that two students sprayed over 20 pro-Palestinian
protesting students with a chemical agent with the brand name
Skunk, developed by a company in Israel and used by the Israeli
Defense Forces as a less-lethal crowd control weapon.\22\ While
the chemical in question was later determined to be a novelty
stink bomb, at the time the Committee began its hearing
featuring Columbia's President and Board of Trustees co-Chairs,
the allegation was still under investigation by the New York
Police Department as a hate crime.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Letter from Rep. Virginia Foxx to Dr. Minouche Shafik et al.,
(Feb. 12, 2024), https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2-12-
24_foxx_letter_to_columbia_university.pdf.
\21\Id. at 5.
\22\E.g., Chris Mendell, Protesters Allegedly Sprayed with
Hazardous Chemical at Pro-Palestinian rally, nearly two dozen report,
Columbia Spectator, Jan. 22, 2024, https://www.columbiaspectator.com/
news/2024/01/22/protesters-allegedly-sprayed-with-hazardous-chemical-
at-pro-palestinian-rally-nearly-two-dozen-report/.
\23\E.g., Gaya Gupta, At Columbia, Student Protesters Say They Were
Attacked with Chemicals, N.Y. Times, Jan. 22, 2024, https://
www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/nyregion/palestinian-protest-columbia-
university.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time the Majority convened the May 23, 2024, hearing
with the Presidents of Rutgers University, Northwestern
University, and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA),
there were already prominent reports of hostile environments
against Muslim or Palestinian students on all three of those
campuses, reports ignored by the Majority. At Rutgers, there
was an attack on the Rutgers Islamic Center on April 10,
2024.\24\ During the attack, windows were broken and
televisions and Islamic art with Quranic scripture were
destroyed.\25\ At Northwestern, four Palestinian Northwestern
students brought a Title VI complaint to OCR against the
Pritzker School of Law on April 17, claiming that the school
was ignoring a ``hostile anti-Palestinian environment.''\26\
Their allegations include discriminatory practices from fellow
students and administrators, and anti-Palestinian comments from
professors.\27\ Late into the night of April 30, the day UCLA
declared a student encampment was unlawful, Pro-Israel counter
protesting mobs began tearing down encampment barriers and
screaming ``Second Nakba!'' referring to the mass displacement
and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli
war.\28\ Video footage from the incident shows protesters being
attacked, objects being thrown into the camp, and at least one
firework being set off.\29\ Security guards were present at the
scene but did not intervene, with reports suggesting that
academic faculty participating in the encampment called 911 and
their calls were not responded to. It is important to note that
many of the Pro-Israel counter-protesters were not UCLA
students.\30\ Several injured in the protest went to the
hospital and experienced several medical injuries following
attacks with sticks, metal rods, mace, hammers, and more.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Celina Tebor, Rutgers University Center for Islamic Life
vandalized during Eid al-Fitr, officials say, CNN, Apr. 10, 2024,
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/us/rutgers-university-center-for-
islamic-life-vandalized-eid-reaj/index.html.
\25\Id.
\26\Beatrice Villaflor, Palestine Legal files Title VI complaint
against Pritzker for `hostile anti-Palestinian environment', The Daily
Northwestern, Apr. 19, 2024, https://dailynorthwestern.com/2024/04/19/
campus/palestine-legal-files-title-vi-complaint-against-pritzker-for-
hostile-anti-palestinian-environment/.
\27\Id.
\28\Jacob Gurvis, As police clear encampments at UCLA, Jewish
students say pro-Israel violence undercuts them, The Jerusalem Post,
May 3, 2024, https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-
799691.
\29\Id.
\30\Blake Ellis, et al., Unmasking counterprotesters who attacked
UCLA's pro-Palestine encampment, CNN, May 16, 2024, https://
www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla-student-protests-counterprotesters-invs/
index.html.
\31\Will Carless, How pro-Palestinian camp, and an extremist attack
roiled the protest at UCLA, USA Today, May 3, 2024, https://
www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/05/03/inside-ucla-
protest/73560767007/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We fervently hope that the Committee is able to get answers
from schools to the allegations of antisemitism on their
campuses that it has requested. There is no justification for
threats, violence, harassment, or intimidation against any
student on campus, especially if such threats are the result of
their shared ancestry, national origin, or ethnic
characteristics. The Committee's failure to address any such
accusation of threats, violence, harassment, or intimidation
against any Muslim student on any campus in America in the wake
of October 7th does not change this hope, but it does raise
significant concern.
We fear this oversight failure on the Committee's part will
solidify the impression that this Committee is not interested
in ensuring that all students have safe, nurturing learning
environments. As we have said many times, issues of racial
hostility on college campuses are broader and older than any
event cited in any of the Committee's letters to colleges since
Oct. 7th. For example, this Committee held multiple hearings
decrying the lack of free speech on campus since 2017 and
released a report in 2023 echoing the same sentiment.\32\ It
has consistently fallen to Committee Democrats to remind the
public that racial animus (often expressed in protected speech)
is linked with threats, intimidation, and violence
characteristic of a hostile learning environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Examining First Amendment Rights on Campus, Hearing Before the
H. Comm. on Educ. & the Workforce, 115th Cong. (2018); Diversity of
Thought: Protecting Free Speech on College Campuses, Hearing Before the
H. Subcomm. on Higher Educ. and Workforce Development, 118th Cong.
(2023); See Staff of H. Comm. on Educ. and the Workforce, 118th Cong.,
Rep. on Freedom of Speech and Its Protection on College Campuses 4,
(2023), https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
free_speech_committee_report_final.pdf (describing how political speech
against DEI, ``triggering'' language inviting students to a party at a
``trap house'' where ``Popeye's Chicken'' would be served, and efforts
to shout down a speaker regarded by the audience as ``racists, sexist''
and ``anti-gay'' were all assaults on free speech rights at
universities.). OCR, in a recent settlement agreement with Lafayette
College, reiterated that constitutionally protected hate speech, even
when made on a social media platform outside of college control, may
give rise to a hostile learning environment a school must address per
its responsibilities under Title VI. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/03242029-a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 was not solely the year of the Unite the Right rally
in Charlottesville, it was the year Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of
the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted saying white supremacy
and antisemitic hate were flourishing to a point heretofore
unprecedented on campus.\33\ It was the year when nooses with
bananas in them were hung on the campus of American University
the day after the election of the school's first Black student
body president, Ms. Taylor Dumpson.\34\ It was the year of the
racially charged murder of Richard Collins, III, a black ROTC
student at Bowie State University, during a visit to the
University of Maryland, College Park.\35\ If, after seven years
of ignoring these issues the Committee fails to take a holistic
look at the links between hate speech and violence on campus,
the sincerity of our oversight will undoubtedly be called into
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Press Release, Anti-Defamation League, ADL: White Supremacists
Making Unprecedented Effort on U.S. College Campuses to Spread Their
Message, Recruit, Mar. 6, 2017, https://www.adl.org/resources/press-
release/adl-white-supremacists-making-unprecedented-effort-us-college-
campuses (``[w]hile there have been recruitment efforts in the past,
never have we seen antisemites and white supremacists so focused on
outreach to students on campus.'')
\34\Lawyers Comm. for Civ. Rts. Under Law, Landmark Settlement in
Dumpson v. Ade, https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/landmark-settlement-
in-dumpson-v-ade/ (last visited Feb. 26, 2024).
\35\Brakkton Booker, White Man Gets Life in Prison for Killing
Black Army 1st Lt. Richard Collins, III, Nat'l Pub. Radio, Jan, 15,
2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/01/15/957233388/white-man-gets-life-in-
prison-for-killing-of-black-army-1st-lt-richard-collins-i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is with that open question lingering that Committee
Democrats were presented with H.R. 8648.
H.R. 8648 only covers a subset of institutions subject to Title VI
While it is not a fatal flaw, we are perplexed that H.R.
8648 places new requirements on compliance with Title VI,
without amending Title VI itself. The decision to place
requirements and penalties related to Title VI compliance in
HEA was likely made to avoid amendment of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. Such amendment would likely implicate the jurisdiction
of the Committee on the Judiciary. But this is something the
Committee has considered in the past and successfully overcome.
In 2019, then-Chairman Bobby Scott (D-VA) introduced the
Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act (EIEA) in the 116th
Congress.\36\ The bill required all recipients of federal funds
under Title VI (K-12 schools and IHEs) to have Title VI
Monitors, nearly identical to those required under Title IX,
and similar to what is required under H.R. 8648. Unlike H.R.
8648, EIEA included provisions that amended the Civil Rights
Act of 1964--squarely in the jurisdiction of the Committee on
the Judiciary--and provisions related to requirements of
staffing at the Department of Education, squarely in the
Committee on Education and Labor's jurisdiction. As the bill
had been referred to both Committees, after our Committee
marked the bill up, we were able to reach an agreement with the
Judiciary Committee regarding a discharge of their
consideration and the bill went to the floor and was
passed.\37\ The Majority in this instance could have done the
same thing but chose not to. By choosing to limit the operative
clauses to the HEA, the compliance provisions of H.R. 8648 do
not apply to all educational settings receiving federal
assistance, but just colleges and universities that participate
in the Federal Student Aid program. K-12 schools, and IHEs that
do not participate in federal student aid, are not bound by
H.R. 8648's requirements. It is our hope that the Majority will
work with its counterparts on the Committee on the Judiciary to
settle any lingering issues so that the scope of H.R. 8648
eventually mirrors that of Title VI itself, that is, all
educational programs receiving federal assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act, H.R. 2574, 116th Cong.
(2019).
\37\166 Cong. Rec. H4473-74 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 8648 OCR Reforms are Unworkable and Inequitable
In addition to the compliance requirements of H.R. 8648,
the bill mandates several reforms to the process by which OCR
handles complaints it receives. Under H.R. 8648, OCR would be
prohibited from dismissing Title VI complaints due to the
filing of a complaint involving the same allegations with
another Federal, State, or local agency or a court. OCR would
be prohibited from delaying or pausing an investigation due to
the filing of a similar complaint with another Federal, State,
or local agency. H.R. 8648 would only allow OCR to pause an
investigation because of a court filing.
OCR handles complaints based on violations of all
educational civil rights laws in accordance with their Case
Processing Manual. That manual spells out numerous situations
under which OCR can dismiss cases. These dismissals are
justified based on considerations OCR makes, as documented in
one instance in the manual:
Where the allegation(s) filed with OCR is currently
pending before another federal, state, or local civil
rights enforcement agency or through a recipient's
internal grievance procedures, including due process
proceedings, and OCR anticipates that the allegation(s)
will be investigated, the remedy obtained will be the
same as the remedy that would be obtained if OCR were
to find a violation regarding the allegation(s), and
that there will be a comparable resolution process
under comparable legal standards. OCR will advise the
complainant that they may re-file within 60 days of the
completion of the other entity's action. Generally, OCR
will not conduct its own investigation; instead, OCR
reviews the results of the other entity's determination
and decides whether the other entity provided a
comparable resolution process in which it applied
comparable legal standards.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\Off. for Civ. Rts., U.S. Dep't of Educ., Case Processing
Manual, (2022), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/
ocrcpm.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the limited resources OCR has to investigate
claims, and concerns about multiple investigations of the same
situation by multiple agencies or courts potentially reaching
different conclusions, OCR's current practice regarding cases
that are pending with other agencies or courts makes sense. The
Department has expressed concerns that this will make the case
management at OCR harder, and it seems logical that such a rule
could increase the overall number of complaints OCR has to
investigate. Further, as drafted H.R. 8648 would create equity
concerns. These new prohibitions would apply to Title VI cases
only, situating them differently than all other cases at OCR.
Further, as these prohibitions would not apply retroactively,
H.R. 8648 would situate Title VI cases opened after the bill's
passage differently than any Title VI cases opened prior to its
passage. There are currently 878 records of complaints of Title
VI harassment open at OCR\39\, some stretching back to as far
as 2012. We cannot support any bill that would somehow situate
new cases more favorably than ones that have been waiting over
a decade for resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\Off. for Civ. Rts., U.S. Dep't of Educ., Pending Cases
Currently Under Investigation and Elementary-Secondary and Post-
Secondary Schools, https://ocrcas.ed.gov/open-investigations? (last
updated July 9, 2024). This does not include current open Title VI
cases at OCR alleging violations relating to admissions policies,
assignment of students, general compliance, denial of benefits,
discipline, resource comparability, or retaliation. It also does not
include the approximately 75 shared ancestry and national origin cases
opened since October 7. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS OFFERED DURING CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8648
There is a simple solution to allay concerns the Minority
expressed around the OCR process reforms proposed in H.R.
8648--authorize and appropriate more funding to OCR to do its
job. The Department has noted that from fiscal year (FY)2013 to
FY 2023, the number of complaints OCR has received rose by 93
percent, yet the number of investigative staff at OCR has
decreased slightly during that same period of time.\40\
Additionally, the rise in antisemitic and anti-Muslim
discrimination cases in K-12 and postsecondary settings,
coupled with the issuance of a final rule on Title IX will
likely result in increased complaints filed with OCR in FY 2025
and subsequent fiscal years. Leading civil rights groups have
suggested that OCR needs double the funding it received in FY
2024 to be effective.\41\ As such, Rep. Scott offered an
amendment that would authorize twice as much funding to: ensure
that OCR has the program support to address the additional
complaints it might receive as a result of H.R. 8648; address
the backlog of current investigations; and ensure that
institutions receiving federal financial assistance follow
civil rights laws that are enforced by the agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\U.S. Dep't of Educ., Fiscal Year 2025 Congressional
Justification Office for Civil Rights, 13-14 (2024) https://
www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget25/justifications/dd-ocr.pdf
(``As shown in the chart above, OCR continues to receive an
unprecedented number of total complaints, which has increased 883%
since 1983, more than tripled compared to 2003, and nearly doubled in
the past decade.'').
\41\Letter from 92 Civil Rights Groups to President Joe Biden,
(Feb. 14, 2024), https://civilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/
Double-the-Funding-for-ED OCR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This amendment was merely an authorization of funds, and
not an appropriation--such an appropriation would not have been
in order. But as we enter appropriations season on the floor,
the amendment could have sent a bipartisan message to our
colleagues on the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee that
our Committee supports OCR and its work, and wants to provide
it with the resources necessary to ensure it can do the work it
is being tasked with. Similarly, Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC)
offered an amendment appropriating ``such sums as necessary''
for implementation of H.R. 8648. Both amendments were defeated
on party-line votes.
Rep. Manning also offered an amendment clarifying
requirements on the posting of Title VI guidance, which was
accepted by the Majority, and an amendment creating a new
position at the Department specific to antisemitism, which was
withdrawn. We hope that a new position that specializes in all
aspects of Title VI compliance, including those related to
shared ancestry and national origin would be considered as a
potential addition to H.R. 8648 as it moves through the
legislative process.
CONCLUSION
We are grateful that the Committee recognizes the
importance of Title VI compliance. We only ask that this
Committee would realize its responsibility to afford the
protections of civil rights law to all students. We cannot
support reforms to OCR's case management process that could
result in inequitable or unworkable situations within the
office. This is tempered by the fact that the Committee has
still not lived up to its duty to ensure that hatred based on
shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics, whether it be
antisemitic, anti-Muslim, Islamophobic, anti-Palestinian, or
against any other class protected in our civil rights law, is
identified and rooted out of our higher education system.
Congress must work to ensure that Jewish students and all their
peers--regardless of their race, nationality, sexual
orientation, or any other characteristic--feel safe and welcome
in their learning environments. It is our hope that the
Committee will take this into account for all planned and
future proceedings on this issue. Until it does, we cannot
support H.R. 8648, and would urge the House not to support it
as well.
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Frederica S. Wilson,
Suzanne Bonamici,
Mark Takano,
Mark DeSaulnier,
Members of Congress.
[all]