H.R. 5490 (98th Congress, Second Session) has been offered as an answer to the Supreme Court's ruling in "Grove City College v. Bell" (1984) that Title IX's sex discrimination prohibitions are program-specific, not institution-specific. It would also amend three other statutes prohibiting discrimination in Federally funded programs on grounds of race, age, or handicap. H.R. 5490, however, goes well beyond its openly-stated purpose. The most troubling ambiguities and complexities in the proposed language are the following: (1) the definition of "recipient" of Federal financial assistance recognizes few limits; it is so broad that, for example, if a State received a Federal block grant for educational purposes, all political subdivisions of the State would likely be brought under the Federal Government's civil rights oversight responsibilities; (2) the existing enforcement options of the four statutes would be considerably expanded so that, for example, a worthwhile program operated in a nondiscriminatory manner could be terminated because the Federal funds going to it provide "support" for another, nonfunded, discriminatory program; and (3) administration would be a nightmare, as H.R. 5490 gives all funding agencies statutory responsibility to regulate all the programs, activities, and subunits of a recipient; the law would effectively remove existing boundaries of agency jurisdiction to conduct compliance reviews and complaint investigations and impose regulatory requirements. (CMG)