H.R. 10665House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of higher education to have an independent advocate for campus sexual assault prevention and response.

Sponsored byDebbie DingellD-MI-6Introduced Oct 1, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 1, 2026) — on Education and Workforce.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Discussion

11 comments

Sort

tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Nay5d ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

greta.vasquezDemoFL-3voted Yea4d ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

PragmaticPeteDemoAL-34d ago

"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?

greta.okaforDemoTX-36voted Yea4d ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The committee report would settle it either way.

arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Yea5d ago

My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

river_surveyorDemoTX-16voted Nay5d ago

The states already trying this haven't seen the effects opponents predicted. That's evidence, for what it's worth.

grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Yea6d ago

I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Nay6d ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay6d ago

This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

pine_machinistDemoAZ-5voted Yea4d ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The committee report would settle it either way.

river_surveyorDemoTX-16voted Nay5d ago

Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. The committee report would settle it either way.

Your position on H.R. 10665No positions yet