[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 146 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5463-H5477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ACCREDITATION FOR COLLEGE EXCELLENCE ACT OF 2023


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3724.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Ohio). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1455 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3724.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1214


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3724) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit 
recognized accrediting agencies and associations from requiring, 
encouraging, or coercing institutions of higher education to meet any 
political litmus test or violate any right protected by the 
Constitution as a condition of accreditation, with Mr. Guest in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
in the first section of House Resolution 1455 and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their 
respective designees.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3724, the End Woke 
Higher Education Act. No woke week could possibly be complete without a 
robust debate regarding the state of free speech on college campuses. 
However, first I can't help but acknowledge the juxtaposition of this 
floor debate and debates in the university setting.
  The Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause grants Members of 
Congress the absolute freedom of speech on the House floor. It is a 
privilege that has survived 248 years of nationhood.
  Sadly, the privilege of the First Amendment and campus free speech 
has not. Therefore, I will use this time at this pulpit to make three 
conservative statements to express three truths that would otherwise be 
punishable offenses on today's college campuses.
  Men and women are biologically different. This position held by 
swimmer Riley Gaines endangered her very life on a trip to San 
Francisco State University. Student activists assaulted Ms. Gaines 
during a speaking engagement, forcing police to lead her into a safe 
room.
  DEI policies overlook qualified candidates. This sentiment expressed 
in a tweet by conservative-libertarian

[[Page H5464]]

Georgetown lecturer Ilya Shapiro led to a 122-day investigation and his 
eventual coerced resignation.
  Finally, wear what you want on Halloween. This opinion, shared in an 
email by Professor Erika Christakis, sparked outrage at Yale. The 
unchecked student overreaction drove Professor Christakis to stop 
teaching classes.
  Men and women are biologically different, DEI policies overlook 
qualified candidates, and wear what you want on Halloween--these three 
statements, as unobjectionable and inoffensive as they may seem, are 
widely censored on college campuses. That is because, for every example 
of retaliatory censorship, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of 
examples of self-censorship and social pressure to conform.
  That is why I support H.R. 3724. Not only does H.R. 3724 aim to 
protect politically disfavored speech, but all speech. To achieve this 
goal, it would, among other things, mandate viewpoint neutrality in the 
college accreditation process, require robust free speech policies 
before public colleges access title IV funds, and prohibit universities 
from giving political litmus tests to students and faculty.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Owens of Utah, Representative 
Williams of New York, Representative Houchin of Indiana, Representative 
Walberg of Michigan, Representative Stefanik of New York, 
Representative Crenshaw of Texas, Representative Kiley of California, 
and Representative Murphy of North Carolina for their significant 
contributions to this bill.
  With enough like-minded Members committed to the First Amendment, we 
can once again renew free expression as a pillar of post-secondary 
education.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3724, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 3724, what my Republican 
colleagues call the End Woke Higher Education Act.
  H.R. 3724 seeks to circumvent the First Amendment to establish a 
whole new scheme to regulate speech and association rights on campus 
outside of established precedents and practices.
  The First Amendment protects some of our most deeply cherished rights 
as Americans. Any student currently who believes their First Amendment 
rights are being violated can bring a Federal case against their public 
college or university. In doing so, they have over 200 years of 
precedent and case law that carefully define and determine what those 
rights are under the First Amendment.
  This includes precedents that specifically address the unique nature 
of colleges and universities as public entities that both must uphold 
constitutional rights and must provide students with safe learning 
environments.

  With today's bill, the majority would have us throw out all of the 
centuries of case law and replace it with a hastily drafted substitute 
that claims to remove barriers that limit constitutional rights.
  What the bill actually does is make public colleges and universities, 
who could be acting in good faith attempting to protect the safety and 
security of everyone present on their campus, subject to monetary 
judgments and possible loss of title IV student aid, counter to Supreme 
Court precedent.
  In so doing, my colleagues, who purport to favor limited government, 
are micromanaging how colleges and universities must handle their 
internal governance processes.
  Another one of the harmful, misguided policies contained in the bill 
creates a license for religious student organizations at public 
institutions to discriminate against LGBTQ+ and other students by 
allowing these organizations to avoid nondiscrimination requirements 
that apply to all other student clubs funded by student activity fees.
  Student groups are an essential part of the college experience, but 
if this bill becomes law, minority students would be forced to 
subsidize student groups that discriminate against them.
  In addition to micromanaging how college campuses dispute the First 
Amendment cases, this bill would undermine the legitimacy of the 
college accreditation process. For decades, federally recognized 
accreditors have served as one-third of the oversight triad of the U.S. 
higher education system, along with States and the Federal Government.
  Accreditation is meant to be the gold standard for college quality 
and performance. After all, accreditation is the gateway to billions of 
dollars of Federal student aid each year. I recognize that the 
accreditation systems need improvement, but, unfortunately, H.R. 3724 
does not make constructive reforms. Rather, it is a baseless attempt to 
inject culture wars into an ever-important accreditation process.
  For example, the ``prohibition on litmus tests'' invites additional 
Federal oversight into the accreditation process. Under this bill, 
accreditors may not assess a school's ``commitment to any ideology, 
belief, or viewpoint.''
  The majority complains that this will prevent a school from losing 
accreditation if they do not have a diversity, equity, and inclusion 
office. The reality is that there is no evidence that that is 
happening.
  There are, conversely, several examples of State officials pressuring 
schools not to teach certain classes or hold subjects that they believe 
cross the line between academic pursuit and ideological beliefs. That 
is why the bill is so dangerous.
  For example, under this bill, the Department of Education could 
potentially revoke an accreditor's recognition if that accreditor 
required science programs to teach evolution. If the accreditor said, 
no, if it is science, you have got to teach evolution, the Department 
could potentially revoke the accreditation, suggesting that such 
standards were an attempt to force a university to commit to a specific 
partisan, political, or ideological viewpoint or belief.
  Well, I think if you are going to teach a science course, that the 
accreditors ought to have the option of requiring the fundamental basis 
be science.
  H.R. 3724 represents a solution in search of a problem, fundamentally 
seeks to undermine students' First Amendment rights and their right to 
be able to join a student organization free of discrimination, and it 
undermines our accreditation system.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Williams), the bill's sponsor.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank Congresswoman Foxx for 
her courageous leadership in these historic and important times.
  Mr. Chair, I am proud to speak in support of H.R. 3724, which 
includes my bill, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act.
  This package ensures transparency both in the accreditation process 
and at the institutional level, protecting the right to free speech, 
the liberty of religious conscience, and the safeguards against 
discrimination.
  Our Nation's colleges and universities are at the very best when they 
facilitate the free, open, and civil exchange of ideas among students 
and faculty alike, with robust disagreements serving to teach students 
how to think and how to engage with those who come to the table with 
different perspectives.

  In the interest of protecting students' ability to learn and grow 
from these interactions, this legislation ensures the universities do 
not stray from the guiding principles of the First Amendment. 
Throughout history, we have witnessed dangerous extremists weaponize 
educational institutions to promote their ideology and to suppress 
dissent. The open forum is worth protecting.
  In the not-too-distant future, everyone in this Chamber will pass the 
torch to a new generation of leaders, not just in government, but in 
business, journalism, and every other sector of life.
  We owe it to them to make sure that the educational halls in which 
they learn are more than a one-way conduit through which ideologues 
seek to cram their own views of the world on captive students. Their 
formative educational years should be spent thinking critically and 
discussing freely the issues that they will grapple with in their adult 
lives.
  The prosperity of our Nation depends on that next generation and the 
ability

[[Page H5465]]

to think independently and engage productively with those who have 
different perspectives. Those are valuable tools they will have to use 
throughout their lives.
  College students should feel secure in the knowledge that their 
rights are protected on campus, that campuses follow the law and 
certify their practices and policies on free speech to prospective 
students and families. Especially now, as students are increasingly 
unsure how their school will react to the turbulent political issues of 
today, it is necessary that institutions of higher education act with 
transparency and moral clarity, to protect the open forum and, by 
extension, the students they have been entrusted with.
  This legislation speaks to universities directly: If you do not 
protect the lawful and Supreme Court-tested First Amendment rights of 
your students, you will lose your funding.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the House to do right by our Nation's students and 
pass this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to discuss the next installment of Republican 
hypocrisy in the 118th Congress. This one relates to anti-Semitism.
  My Republican colleagues have spent months haranguing university 
presidents for failing to protect Jewish students on college campuses, 
and on this, I agree. Many university presidents have failed to show 
appropriate moral clarity and leadership, but let me ask my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle: Does the removal of a university 
president actually change the facts on the ground? Does it make Jewish 
students safer? The answer is unequivocally no, and certainly not in 
the near term.
  I have spoken to Jewish students all around the country, and they 
remain scared and afraid as anti-Semitic encampments and protests have 
grown more threatening and even violent.
  Despite all of their lipservice about combating anti-Semitism, this 
Republican bill makes it significantly more difficult for universities 
to keep Jewish students safe.
  Under the guise of ending wokeness on college campuses, this bill 
would strip universities of their ability to enforce reasonable 
restrictions on campus protests. It limits time, place, and manner 
restrictions and allows for no-notice spontaneous protests, including 
anywhere on campus, such as Hillels.
  That is right. The bill makes it easier for agitators and others to 
come onto college campuses and engage in anti-Semitic protests or 
encampments. Once again, all talk, no action from my Republican 
colleagues.
  The most effective way for the Federal Government to combat anti-
Semitism on campus is through the enforcement of the title VI 
antidiscrimination law by the Office for Civil Rights in the Department 
of Education, which requires universities to remedy any violations that 
make Jewish students or any other students unable to safely and 
securely get the education that they deserve.
  Since October 7, OCR has opened more than 150 investigations into 
campus anti-Semitism, but they don't have anywhere near the resources 
to fully pursue those investigations--never mind that Donald Trump's 
Project 2025 wants to eliminate the Department of Education altogether, 
including the Office for Civil Rights.
  If Republicans truly cared about Jewish students, as they say, they 
would support my Showing Up for Students Act, which would increase 
funding for OCR so that we can actually combat anti-Semitism on the 
ground at universities around the country. Yet, not a single Republican 
has cosponsored this bill--not one.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Perry). The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, instead, in the last budget, 
Republicans insisted on cutting funding for OCR, further hampering 
OCR's ability to fight anti-Semitism.
  I, once again, ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
stop using anti-Semitism as a political weapon and join us to actually 
solve the problem. If you care about anti-Semitism on college campuses, 
you must oppose H.R. 3724 and instead join my Showing Up for Students 
Act so Congress can be part of the solution, not the problem.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the End Woke 
Higher Education Act, which upholds Americans' constitutional liberties 
and supports academic freedom on college campuses.
  Sadly, over the years, we have seen our Nation's college campuses 
diverge from being places of thoughtful debate to a breeding ground for 
illiberal thought. Shoutdowns, disciplinary action, and political 
litmus tests have become pervasive on college campuses.
  This trend threatens both our constitutionally guaranteed rights and 
the value of a college education. If we are to remain a tolerant 
society accepting of a diversity of ideas, then colleges need to be an 
open arena for thoughtful debate, discussion, and, of course, faith.
  To protect individuals' faith on campus, H.R. 3724 also includes text 
from the Equal Campus Access Act, my bill to ensure commonsense 
protections for religious student organizations.
  Over the years, we have seen a concerning increase of incidents on 
college campuses where religious student organizations have lost 
rights, benefits, and privileges due to faith-based practices.
  Across the country, student groups are formed and meet to discuss 
political, social, or religious ideas and beliefs. These groups enrich 
the student experience and campus life. These groups must apply to the 
university for recognition, which allows them to use university space 
and receive student activity funding available to other recognized 
groups. However, religious groups have often been blocked from this 
recognition, putting their organization at risk.

  The Equal Campus Access Act would clarify that no funds shall be made 
available to a public institution that denies a religious student group 
any rights similarly afforded to other organizations because of the 
religious group's beliefs, practices, or leadership standards.
  Notably, in my State of Michigan, a religious student organization 
that had been a recognized student group at Wayne State University 
since 1956 was derecognized simply because it required its leaders to 
agree with its religious beliefs. The students had to sue their 
university in order to receive recognition, where a judge found the 
university had, in fact, violated the students' rights.
  Students should not have to give up their First Amendment rights of 
speech, religion, and association to attend a public college.
  I thank the chairwoman for including my bill in this package and 
Representatives Burgess Owens and Brandon Williams for their 
leadership.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, we have received a letter from the American Council on 
Education, which says, in part, rather than respecting the First 
Amendment and what has been done to apply its principles across a wide 
range of higher education institutions, the provisions of title II of 
H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free speech and 
ensure student safety.
  We are particularly concerned with the impact this legislation would 
have on campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful 
incidents at a time of widespread national attention.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the American Council 
on Education.

                                American Council on Education,

                                               September 17, 2024.
     Hon. Mike Johnson,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On 
     behalf of the undersigned higher education associations, we 
     write regarding H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, 
     which will be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives

[[Page H5466]]

     this week. Title II of H.R. 3724 incorporates the provisions 
     of H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus 
     Act. We opposed the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus 
     Act during its consideration by the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce. We now ask you to remove Title II from 
     H.R. 3724 as it would undermine efforts to protect free 
     speech on campus and provide safe learning environments free 
     from discrimination. If Title II is not removed from the 
     underlying bill, we would urge you and your members to oppose 
     the bill if it is considered on the floor.
       Colleges and universities are strongly committed to 
     fostering open, intellectually engaging debate enriched by a 
     diverse set of voices and perspectives. Freedom of speech, 
     free inquiry, and academic freedom are fundamental to the 
     quest for knowledge and to the educational mission of higher 
     education institutions. Institutions take seriously their 
     obligations to uphold the laws protecting these freedoms, 
     which, for public institutions, include the First Amendment. 
     Consistent with these obligations, institutions must also 
     provide safe learning environments that are free from 
     discrimination and harassment and in compliance with 
     applicable federal and state laws, including Title VI of the 
     Civil Rights Act. Any proposed federal legislation in this 
     area must reflect these twin institutional obligations.
       Despite Title II's purported aims of ensuring that public 
     institutions uphold First Amendment protections and provide 
     clarity regarding campus speech policies, Title II would 
     instead create new counterproductive federal mandates, 
     undermining the goals it seeks to advance. Title II would 
     impose a rigid, highly prescriptive, and costly regulatory 
     and enforcement framework on nearly 1,900 public colleges and 
     universities. Already subject to the protections afforded by 
     the First Amendment, public institutions would have to 
     implement a new campus-wide compliance scheme on top of 
     existing policies and practices. As an example of the 
     difficult and costly mandates that the legislation would 
     impose, it would require institutions to develop ``objective, 
     content- and view-point neutral and exhaustive standards'' in 
     allocating funds to student organizations, which are 
     extraordinarily varied. This could create a regulatory 
     quagmire.
       Under Title II's enforcement provisions, failure to comply 
     with even minor reporting or disclosure requirements could 
     result in loss of Title IV funding for an entire award year 
     and often significantly longer. Penalizing students with a 
     loss of financial aid does nothing to further the goals of 
     this legislation and is disproportional to the underlying 
     violation. While the bill exempts private institutions from 
     some of its most onerous requirements, the legislation would 
     nonetheless create a dangerous precedent that encourages 
     further governmental intrusions into matters of academic 
     freedom and institutional autonomy, which would undoubtedly 
     have a chilling effect on private institutions as well.
       In addition to the needlessly harsh penalty of loss of 
     Title IV aid, the legislation would also spawn costly and 
     time-consuming litigation by creating a new federal cause of 
     action allowing individuals to sue a public institution for 
     damages for any violation of Title II's requirements. Adding 
     this new cause of action on top of existing legal remedies is 
     unnecessary, duplicative, and would harmfully drain 
     institutional resources away from efforts to protect students 
     and campus free speech. Further, the bill would take the 
     unprecedented and troubling step of waiving a public 
     institution's sovereign immunity rights under the 11th 
     Amendment based on its receipt of Title IV funding.
       Given the recent focus of the Education and the Workforce 
     Committee and other House Committees on incidents of 
     antisemitism and the need for campuses to provide safe, 
     discrimination-free environments for all students, we are 
     mystified by Title II's inclusion of provisions that would 
     tie the hands of campus administrators to address these 
     issues, likely making campuses less safe. For example, the 
     bill would mandate that any publicly accessible area of the 
     campus be designated as a ``public forum,'' open to anyone--
     even if they are not a student, staff, or faculty member--
     making it more difficult for institutions to secure their 
     campuses against outside agitators like the kind seen in some 
     recent protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Further, Title II 
     would prohibit institutions from factoring in potential 
     student and public reactions when determining security fees 
     for events, limiting their ability to safely manage 
     controversial speakers and events which necessarily entail 
     far greater security costs.
       Rather than respecting the First Amendment and what has 
     been done to apply its principles across a wide range of 
     higher education institutions, the provisions in Title II of 
     H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free 
     speech and ensure student safety. We are particularly 
     concerned with the impact this legislation would have on 
     campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful 
     incidents at a time of widespread national tension. We urge 
     the House to remove Title II from H.R. 3724, the End Woke 
     Higher Education Act, or vote against the broader bill if it 
     reaches the floor with Title II included.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ted Mitchell,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of:
       American Association of Community Colleges,
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities,
       American Council on Education,
       Association of American Universities,
       Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,
       National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Owens), the bill's sponsor.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Foxx for her remarkable 
vision and leadership.
  Mr. Chair, I will speak to the ACE Act, which is a part of the End 
Woke Higher Education Act.
  Our Nation's education system is built on the fundamental values of 
free speech, freedom of religion, and the guaranteed rights of hearty 
and healthy debates. These core principles are so inherent to America 
that we often take them for granted. We, over time, assume that these 
freedoms will always be safe, without any effort on our part to protect 
them. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
  A glance at our university system reveals a troubling trend: 
Ideological conformity and intolerance when not compliant is 
undermining academic freedom.
  There is a systemic acceptance of a new litmus test in the 
accreditation world. Institutions of higher learning are facing immense 
pressure from accreditors to conform to the anti-American Marxist 
doctrine of DEI and critical race theory or risk losing access to 
Federal funding. This is not the education our Founders envisioned in 
their quest for America to continue to be a more perfect Union.
  My dad was a college professor for 40 years at Florida A&M. Being 
raised in Tallahassee, Florida, in the shadows of FAMU and Florida 
State, I remember distinctly the era when our Nation's colleges and 
universities prided themselves on merit and competition. It was in that 
era within the classrooms that value of free speech, free exchange of 
ideas, and high standards were proudly taught.
  Fast-forward to 2024, and throughout our Nation, religious 
institutions and conservative colleges that seek to teach their own 
values, the same values that students are signing up for and paying 
for, risk losing Federal funding by doing this process, by teaching 
this process.
  The ACE Act brings this attack on the foundation of our American 
culture to an end. It allows every educational institution in our 
country to return to its original mission, which is to educate students 
in the American tradition of free and open debate, to allow for the 
training of critical thinking skills, and to prepare them to enter and 
succeed in America's innovative and diverse workforce.
  The ACE Act reinforces the autonomy of every school to develop their 
own curriculums and policies without undue pressure to conform to the 
Marxist agenda pushed by politicized accrediting bodies. Most 
importantly, this upholds our constitutional right of free speech, 
which is fundamental to preserving the legacy of freedom for all future 
generations.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in defending the basic 
American rights afforded to us by the Constitution and support the ACE 
Act, H.R. 3724.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the so-called 
End Woke Higher Education Act.
  There is a lot we could be doing in Congress to improve higher 
education, and this is not it. This bill combines two extreme bills 
into one, attacking intellectual freedom and diversity on college 
campuses while fanning the flames of culture war rhetoric to score 
political points.
  This so-called End Woke Higher Education Act would allow institutions 
of higher education to eliminate policies and programs that protect 
students and staff from discrimination because of who they are, where 
they come from, what they believe, or who they love.
  By forbidding accreditors from considering diversity and inclusion 
efforts and allowing schools to require all applicants and employees to 
abide by a

[[Page H5467]]

statement of faith, colleges and universities would be free to remove 
curricula that highlight the historical experience of marginalized 
groups. They could reject students from attending federally funded 
institutions based on the student's religious beliefs.
  Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia on college campuses is a pervasive 
problem, yet this bill would open the door for more schools to 
discriminate against Jewish or Muslim students solely because of their 
faith.
  Is it woke to believe that Jewish and Muslim students should be able 
to attend the schools they choose and join the clubs that fit their 
interests? Is it woke to ask schools not to subsidize speakers that 
make certain groups of students feel unsafe on campus?
  Though it is not typical to have a term in a bill that is undefined, 
there is no definition of ``woke'' in this bill. What is it? Do they 
believe it when they see it, or do they define it when they want to?
  Instead of limiting access to inclusive, accurate curricula, we 
should be focused on vigorous enforcement of our civil rights laws that 
protect all students and provide equal opportunities.
  For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I 
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
  My amendment would increase funding for the Office for Civil Rights 
at the Department of Education. That is important because the 
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR, enforces a 
number of civil rights laws that apply to colleges and universities 
receiving Federal funding. The Office for Civil Rights has the crucial 
responsibility to uphold and enforce core nondiscrimination statutes 
that protect students on the basis of race, color, national origin, 
sex, disability, and age.
  Despite the massive increase in complaints received over the past 
several years, this office has only half the staff it had when it was 
established 45 years ago. In fact, House Republicans on the 
Appropriations Committee recently proposed a $10 million cut to the 
Office for Civil Rights. That is right. They proposed a $10 million cut 
to the Office for Civil Rights.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, if they are seriously concerned about 
religious discrimination on college campuses, why diminish the Federal 
enforcement agency's power to prevent cases of discrimination and, 
importantly, take enforcement action when these cases occur?

                              {time}  1245

  Federal anti-discrimination laws are critical tools, especially in 
today's political climate, to protect the civil rights of all students.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to 
recommit and opposing H.R. 3724 because we don't need the End Woke 
Higher Education Act.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.

       Ms. Bonamici of Oregon moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3724 
     to the Committee on Education and the Workforce with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE OFFICE FOR 
                   CIVIL RIGHTS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Office for 
     Civil Rights of the Department of Education $280,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the End Woke 
Higher Education Act, a bill that will refocus college accreditation on 
academic excellence--there is a concept--and correct the First 
Amendment rights of college students.
  The Federal Government pays billions in hardworking taxpayer dollars 
each year to colleges and universities assuming that accredited schools 
are preparing students to think academically and to earn a good job 
after graduation. It is increasingly clear that many students aren't 
prepared for life after college.
  Today, $1.6 trillion of taxpayer dollars are missing from the 
Treasury because graduates aren't paying back their student loans.
  Of course, Democrats think that is wonderful because they think it is 
the government's job to provide free college education for everyone.
  Sadly, many college students leave their university with little to 
show for it besides crushing debt, bleak job prospects in the Biden-
Harris economy, and too often, liberal brainwashing from what they were 
taught.
  Students are suffering under the misguided priorities of our 
institutions, and accreditors are contributing to the problem.
  Instead of working with colleges to ensure that academic progress 
will lead to student success, accreditors are determined to impose 
their diversity, equity, and inclusion standards on institutions.
  This bill simply prohibits accreditors from forcing colleges to adopt 
DEI standards in order to receive accreditation.
  In addition, this bill protects the fundamental rights of free speech 
and free association on college campuses.
  That means religious clubs on college campuses can have the same 
access to resources that are available to any other student group.
  Unfortunately, here in 2024, it is still common for faith-based 
organizations to be discriminated against on college campuses, which 
makes this legislation necessary and important.
  Restricting First Amendment rights and empowering divisive ideology 
on our college campuses is not serving our students well. This 
legislation will help stop those harmful practices.
  I thank my friend, Mr. Owens, for leading on this legislation. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we received a letter from the Association of Public & 
Land Grant Universities, which says, in part, the bill's ``purported 
solutions would radically undermine First Amendment jurisprudence, 
threatening the ability of public universities to ensure State property 
can be used for its intended educational purposes, and represents an 
astonishing level of Federal intrusion in matters traditionally 
respected as the purview of States and State entities.''
  We received another letter from the ACLU, which says, in part, ``H.R. 
3724 purportedly prohibits: partisan, political, ideological, social, 
cultural, or political viewpoints and beliefs; the disparate treatment 
of any individual or group of individuals on the basis of any protected 
class under Federal civil rights law; and violation of any right 
protected by the U.S. Constitution. In reality, H.R. 3724 would 
encourage these unlawful actions by permitting postsecondary 
institutions to eliminate curricula that covers historical 
contributions and lived experiences of some racial and ethnic groups 
while continuing such curriculum of other groups.''
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from the Association of 
Public & Land-Grant Universities and the American Civil Liberties 
Union.

                                           Association of Public &


                                      Land-Grant Universities,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2024.
     Hon. Mike Johnson,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: As 
     president of the Association of Public and Land-grant 
     Universities (APLU), a membership association of more than 
     230 public research universities and systems, I write to 
     express APLU's strong opposition to Title II of H.R. 3724, 
     the ``End Woke Higher Education Act,'' which is expected to 
     be considered on the House Floor this week. Title II contains 
     the text of the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act, 
     provisions of which are predominantly aimed at state entities 
     given the application of the First Amendment to public 
     institutions.
       While APLU appreciates goals of the legislation to ensure 
     public colleges and universities are upholding their 
     obligations under the First Amendment and fostering learning 
     environments in which students are exposed to a variety of 
     perspectives, its purported solutions would radically 
     undermine First Amendment jurisprudence, threatening the 
     ability of public universities to ensure state property can 
     be used for its intended educational purposes, and represents 
     an astonishing level of federal intrusion in matters

[[Page H5468]]

     traditionally respected as the purview of states and state 
     entities.
       Further, the timing of the legislation is particularly 
     perplexing given the enormous challenges public universities 
     faced in the spring and continue to face as targets from 
     outside organizations seeking to sow campus unrest to 
     generate global attention. The legislation would be a major 
     boon to such organizations by making it substantially more 
     difficult for public universities to preserve its property 
     for intended educational uses while protecting the rights of 
     the vast majority of campus communities simply seeking to 
     receive an education, further scientific advancement, and 
     fully enjoy the enriching experiences afforded on public 
     university campuses. The legislation would also raise the 
     need for institutions to direct substantial resources to 
     administration rather than in support of students, including 
     exposing state institutions to new threats from unscrupulous 
     lawyers seeking paydays from state coffers through the 
     legislation's waiver of state sovereign immunity and creation 
     of new private rights of action.
       The First Amendment combined with case law provides deep 
     protections for free speech and association on campuses of 
     public universities, while enabling institutions to put in 
     place reasonable, viewpoint neutral restrictions to protect 
     public safety and speakers while enabling their higher 
     education mission. While some aspects of the legislation 
     related to designated public forums reinforce precedent 
     within some circuits, not all circuit courts have adopted 
     such standards. As such, the bill would treat all public 
     university outdoor property as if it was traditional public 
     fora like a town square or the quintessential public 
     university ``quad.'' However, public institutions own and 
     maintain an incredible diversity of property including 
     hospitals, bus stations, agricultural field stations, 
     athletics fields, sewage plants, parking lots, residence 
     halls, forests, nature preserves, museums, etc. We find it 
     highly unusual that Congress would insert itself into the 
     designation of state property in ways it would likely never 
     consider for other non-federal public lands.
       APLU is also concerned with the manner in which the 
     legislation will drive up legal expenses of institutions, 
     diverting resources that could otherwise be devoted in 
     furtherance of public universities' education, research, and 
     community engagement missions. For example, creating new 
     private rights of action and conditioning participation in 
     Title IV federal student aid programs on waiving state 
     sovereign immunity are deeply concerning. Additionally, the 
     legislation contains incredibly harsh penalties of loss of 
     Title IV eligibility for what could be unintentional 
     infractions due to ambiguities with the bill's extremely 
     prescriptive standards. APLU questions the need for such 
     penalties, waivers of sovereign immunity, and creation of 
     private rights of action as the First Amendment provides 
     adequate protections for free speech on campus and judicial 
     remedies for institutional noncompliance.
       As public institutions, campuses have obligations to ensure 
     students and campus communities more broadly have exposure to 
     an array of speakers and events that further an educational 
     mission, including the arts and sciences. Public universities 
     receive countless requests for use of their facilities, 
     including from outside organizations, speakers, and 
     candidates for public office. As part of allowing public 
     university campus property to be used by outside 
     organizations, institutions must assess fees to recover 
     costs, including security fees. The legislation would 
     preclude an institution from taking into consideration ``an 
     anticipated reaction by students or the public'' as part of 
     determining a security fee. This provision is particularly 
     dangerous. Public universities can reasonably anticipate a 
     greater security need in hosting a controversial public 
     figure or provocative fringe organization than say a mundane 
     scientific conference of physicians. With this provision and 
     especially combined with provisions creating new legal 
     exposures, public universities would be faced with an 
     impossible choice of providing inadequate security creating 
     threats to public safety or having events bankrupt public 
     university budgets. As like other provisions of the 
     legislation, this would make public university campuses even 
     greater targets of outside provocateurs who under the bill 
     can pass along the financial costs of their events to state 
     taxpayers.
       Lastly, APLU is concerned by numerous provisions of the 
     legislation that micromanage state university policies at the 
     federal level, needlessly overriding the judgments of states 
     and institutional leaders. For example, prescriptive 
     standards in the legislation regarding governance of student 
     organization policies override the discretion of campus 
     administrators who are best positioned to know the needs of 
     their communities.
       APLU urges members of Congress to oppose the legislation 
     and instead work with the public university community on 
     legislation that better addresses policymaker concerns 
     without such deeply troublesome unintended consequences. 
     Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Mark Becker,

                                  President, Association of Public
     and Land-grant Universities.
                                  ____

     Re Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 3724, the Accreditation for College 
         Excellence Act of 2023; Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 7683, the 
         Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act; Vote ``NO'' 
         on H.R. 4790, the Guiding Uniform and Responsible 
         Disclosure Requirements and Information Limits Act of 
         2023; Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 5339, the Roll back ESG to 
         Increase Retirement Earnings Act
         ACLU, National Political Advocacy Department,
                                Washington, DC, September 18 2024.
       Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union 
     strongly urges you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 3724, the 
     Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 2023; H.R. 7683, 
     the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act; H.R. 4790, 
     the Guiding Uniform and Responsible Disclosure Requirements 
     and Information Limits Act of 2023; and H.R. 5339, the Roll 
     back ESG to Increase Retirement Earnings Act. These bills 
     collectively and individually aim to undermine and dismantle 
     policies and programs that both ensure compliance with non-
     discrimination laws and create welcoming and inclusive 
     environments for students or employees. The ACLU will score 
     these votes.


      H.R. 3724, Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 2023

       H.R. 3724 would prohibit accrediting agencies from 
     requiring or encouraging public higher education institutions 
     to consider inclusion and diversity efforts when assessing 
     curricula and campus climates for students, faculty, and 
     staff. Current accreditation standards concerning inclusion 
     and diversity further non-discrimination and equal 
     opportunity policies; foster diversity within curricula, the 
     student body, and faculty; create a welcoming climate of 
     respect and inclusiveness; encourage civic engagement; and 
     measure achievement gaps between students. These programs and 
     policies adopted by colleges and universities impact a vast 
     population of students and staff, including women of all 
     races and ethnicities, racial and religious minorities, 
     veterans, people with disabilities, persons from low 
     socioeconomic backgrounds, those who live in rural or urban 
     geographic locations, and immigrants.
       The bill would also permit educational institutions that 
     are controlled by religious organizations to require 
     applicants, students, employees, and independent contractors 
     to provide or adhere to a statement of faith; adhere to a 
     code of conduct consistent with one religious mission or 
     certain religious tenets; and swear to a loyalty oath to 
     vaguely ``uphold the U.S. Constitution.''
       H.R. 3724 purportedly prohibits: (1) partisan, political, 
     ideological, social, cultural, or political viewpoints and 
     beliefs; (2) the disparate treatment of any individual or 
     group of individuals on the basis of any protected class 
     under Federal civil rights law; and (3) violation of any 
     right protected by the U.S. Constitution. But, in reality, 
     H.R. 3724 would encourage these unlawful actions by 
     permitting post-secondary institutions to eliminate curricula 
     that covers the historical contributions and lived 
     experiences of some racial and ethnic groups, while 
     continuing such curricula for other groups. In addition, H.R. 
     3724 would permit institutions to dismantle programs and 
     policies that ensure compliance with non-discrimination 
     protections for students, faculty, and staff; exclude 
     students who practice certain religions from federally funded 
     institutions; and mandate unconstitutionally vague loyalty 
     oaths. The ACLU strongly urges you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 
     3724.


      H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act

       H.R. 7683 would wrongly prohibit consideration of lawful 
     statements used to assess prospective applicants and faculty 
     on their experiences, actions, and planned contributions. 
     These prohibitions would undermine universities' efforts to 
     consider the lived experiences of applicants and develop a 
     well-rounded study body and faculty. For example, H.R. 7683 
     would preclude a public higher education institution from 
     requiring, requesting, or considering a statement from a 
     student applicant explaining how a social construct, such as 
     race, ethnicity, gender roles or identity, socioeconomic 
     status, religion, or nationality, has impacted their life or 
     their ability to contribute to the institution.
       However, this very type of statement was explicitly upheld 
     by the Supreme Court. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. 
     v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme 
     Court noted that higher education institutions may consider 
     ``an applicant's discussion of how race affected the 
     applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely 
     tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the 
     particular applicant can contribute'' to the institution.
       In addition, this bill prohibits public higher education 
     institutions from requiring, requesting, or considering a 
     statement from a prospective or current faculty member 
     explaining how their teaching, research or service has or 
     would promote diversity, equity, and inclusion within the 
     institution. Yet, such statements are clearly relevant to a 
     faculty member's professional experiences and scholarship, 
     and therefore it is understandable and appropriate to ask 
     about them. Ultimately, the ``political litmus tests'' 
     defined in this legislation will serve only to reduce 
     diversity amongst students and faculty and would not protect 
     speech. The ACLU strongly urges you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 
     7683.

[[Page H5469]]

  



H.R. 4790, Guiding Uniform and Responsible Disclosure Requirements and 
Information Limits Act of 2023 and H.R. 5339, Roll back ESG to Increase 
                        Retirement Earnings Act

       H.R. 4790 and H.R. 5339 aim to prohibit investors, 
     including financial services companies investing pension and 
     other retirement funds, from making investment decisions 
     based on a company's commitment to environmental protections, 
     public health and labor safety standards for the community at 
     large, the social impact of diversity and inclusivity, and 
     the general governance of organizations including shareholder 
     rights. Not only do these bills disregard the desires and 
     concerns of workers and investors across the country for 
     nondiscriminatory and supportive workplaces, but they would 
     have the perverse effect of disallowing the consideration of 
     workplace diversity and environmental factors that contribute 
     to the financial success of a business. Furthermore, a series 
     of amendments offered by minority members of the Financial 
     Services Committee that would have protected the will and 
     economic interests of investors in investing in businesses 
     that succeed by valuing and protecting their employees were 
     all rejected. The ACLU strongly urges you to vote ``NO'' on 
     H.R. 4790 and H.R. 5339.
       The ACLU greatly appreciates your attention to this 
     request, as we ask you to protect nondiscriminatory, 
     inclusive and supportive workplaces and classrooms by voting 
     ``NO'' on final passage of H.R. 3724, H.R. 7683, H.R. 4790, 
     and H.R. 5339.
           Sincerely,
     Christopher Anders,
       Director, Democracy & Technology.
     Kimberly Conway,
       Senior Policy Counsel.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Kiley).
  Mr. KILEY. Mr. Chair, one of the most important things that has 
happened in this Congress is the exposure of the alarming state of 
affairs at American universities.
  Our institutions of higher learning have been gripped by retrograde 
prejudices and abhorrent ideologies that are in many ways abandoning 
the values of the enlightenment itself.
  Fortunately, we are finally seeing accountability and a new course. 
Following testimony before the Education and the Workforce Committee 
that highlighted the true state of affairs on their campus, the 
presidents of several leading universities have resigned, including the 
presidents of Harvard, Penn, Columbia, and Rutgers.
  What is more, several of these universities are reversing misguided 
policies like forced faculty diversity statements and are renewing 
their commitment to institutional neutrality.
  Even the entire California public university system, the UCs and the 
CSUs, recently came out and said they are going to ban these 
disgraceful tent encampments that have produced chaos on their 
campuses.
  This is a moment of reckoning for American higher education. A very 
important part of that is restoring the place of free speech on campus, 
which is why I am very happy that included in today's bill, H.R. 3724, 
is a measure that I introduced, the Free Speech on Campus Act.
  This measure seeks to assure that free speech is not only protected 
as a legal right but is restored as a foundational principle in 
American higher education.
  Now, my colleague on the other side of the aisle from New York 
stressed the importance of bipartisanship in these matters, and I could 
not agree more.
  As a matter of fact, I developed this measure alongside one of the 
leading liberal scholars in California, the dean of UC Berkeley, Erwin 
Chemerinsky, someone who I don't agree with on much, but we were able 
to come together on a principle that transcends political differences.
  The best way to resolve differences, to learn to find common ground, 
is the free and open exchange of ideas.
  Unfortunately, many universities have lost sight of this and have 
become the most repressive institutions in American life.
  They have stifled disfavored viewpoints and created an environment 
where students are afraid to speak their mind and participate in the 
marketplace of ideas.
  We have seen universities adopt unconstitutional speech codes or 
designate only certain areas on campus as open to speech or allow a 
heckler's veto to shut down speakers or force faculty members to 
espouse certain points of view in order to get hired or built up entire 
bureaucracies devoted to censorship.
  All the more pervasively, this last year, the very same universities 
allowed the banner of free speech to then falsely be used to justify 
not speech but illegal actions such as building tent encampments, 
occupying buildings, or setting up checkpoints to exclude students 
based on their identity.
  As one example, Harvard University, which became the poster child for 
abhorrent, horrifying anti-Semitism on campus, was also ranked as the 
university with the worst protections for free speech. In fact, they 
got the worst ranking in the history of the survey.
  These two things are not unrelated, by the way, because the biggest 
threat to hate, ignorance, and prejudice is reasoned argument.
  Institutions that systematically shut down reasoned argument and 
debate allow retrograde ideas to flourish because they don't have the 
needed opposition.
  This bill seeks to reverse this troubling trend and to restore First 
Amendment freedoms at the place where they are most vital, our 
institutions of higher learning.
  My legislation ensures that our universities inform students of their 
First Amendment rights as soon as they step on campus.
  As a condition of receiving Federal funds, universities will be 
required to provide new students with a written statement at 
orientation.
  It will outline their First Amendment rights, affirm the 
institution's commitment to free expression, and guarantee that neither 
students nor invited speakers will have those rights violated.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. KILEY. Too often, students arrive on campus without an 
understanding of why free speech is important or how it has been such 
an important force for progress throughout our Nation's history.
  This legislation will make sure the First Amendment itself is a key 
part of their college education so they grasp its vital role in 
safeguarding freedom and democracy.
  Mr. Chair, we may often disagree, sometimes fiercely, on a range of 
ideas, but we should all be able to agree on the importance of ideas 
themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we received another letter from the Association of 
American Universities which says, in part, ``On behalf of America's 
leading research universities, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3724, the End 
Woke Higher Education Act. Title II (`Respecting the First Amendment on 
Campus') of this misguided legislation would dangerously undermine 
public universities' ability to implement crucial time, place, and 
manner policies for campus expression, jeopardizing their ability to 
protect student safety--particularly for vulnerable groups such as 
Jewish students--and disrupting the educational environment.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Association 
of American Universities.

                         Association of American Universities,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2024.
     Hon. Mike Johnson
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On 
     behalf of America's leading research universities, I urge you 
     to oppose H.R. 3724, the ``End Woke Higher Education Act.'' 
     Title II (``Respecting the First Amendment on Campus'') of 
     this misguided legislation would dangerously undermine public 
     universities' ability to implement crucial time, place, and 
     manner policies for campus expression, jeopardizing their 
     ability to protect student safety--particularly for 
     vulnerable groups such as Jewish students--and disrupting the 
     educational environment.
       It is puzzling that, at a time when the House has been 
     focused on what colleges and universities are doing to 
     protect students from hateful, intimidating, or harassing 
     actions which impede an atmosphere conducive to effective 
     learning, this legislation would actually remove critical 
     tools that campuses use to protect students and reduce the 
     likelihood of such outcomes.

[[Page H5470]]

       Time, place, and manner policies are not abstract concepts; 
     they are vital tools that have been repeatedly upheld by the 
     U.S. Supreme Court for use by federal, state, and local 
     governments, as well as university campuses. These content-
     neutral regulations govern when, where, and how speech 
     activities occur on campus, balancing free expression with 
     safety and educational needs. For example:
       Time restrictions limit noisy demonstrations during class 
     hours
       Place restrictions designate appropriate areas for large 
     gatherings
       Manner restrictions regulate sound amplification use or 
     require advance notice for major events
       The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized the 
     constitutionality of these policies, holding that such 
     restrictions are valid if they are content-neutral, narrowly 
     tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and 
     leave open ample alternative channels for communication.
       This Act seeks to broaden the requirements of that legal 
     standard by simultaneously 1) reclassifying all generally 
     accessible areas of campus at public institutions as 
     traditional public forums and 2) weakening public 
     universities' ability to regulate the time, place, and manner 
     of campus protests by requiring them to allow a right of no-
     notice spontaneous assembly to any member of the public who 
     wants to protest. The Act would also allow demonstrators a 
     right to physically approach students on campus to distribute 
     literature.
       These added requirements will jeopardize this established 
     legal framework within which universities consider a variety 
     of factors, including free expression, campus safety, 
     disruption of educational mission, and protection of students 
     from the type of discrimination and harassment that creates 
     an environment that impedes their ability to participate in 
     their education.
       By changing the requirements these policies, the Act would:
       Endanger Jewish students and other vulnerable groups: 
     Without the ability to manage the location and timing of 
     demonstrations, colleges would struggle to prevent hostile 
     groups from gathering near religious or cultural centers, 
     potentially subjecting students to harassment or 
     intimidation.
       Disrupt the learning environment: Unrestricted protests 
     could interfere with classes, exams, or even important events 
     like Holocaust remembrance ceremonies, impeding the core 
     educational mission of universities.
       Create logistical nightmares: Colleges would be unable to 
     effectively allocate resources for security or manage 
     competing demands for limited campus spaces, potentially 
     leading to chaos and increased safety risks.
       Conflict with other legal obligations: The Act could make 
     it nearly impossible for colleges to meet their 
     responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to 
     protect students from discrimination while still allowing 
     free expression.
       Instead of this deeply flawed legislation, AAU strongly 
     urges Congress to:
       Protect colleges' ability to implement reasonable, content-
     neutral time, place, and manner restrictions as already 
     established by judicial precedent.
       Support initiatives that balance free expression with 
     campus safety.
       Encourage collaborative policy-making involving 
     administrators, students, and faculty to address each 
     campus's unique needs.
       While the provisions relating to campus speech are our 
     primary focus, AAU has additional concerns with other 
     provisions in the Act relating to security fees and single-
     sex associations, some of which affect both public and 
     private universities.
       Despite its ``Respecting the First Amendment'' name, Title 
     II of this legislation would not enhance free speech. 
     Instead, it would create a potentially dangerous environment 
     that could silence vulnerable voices and undermine the very 
     purpose of higher education. I implore you to stand against 
     this misguided legislation and protect the delicate balance 
     of rights and responsibilities that our universities 
     currently navigate.
           Sincerely,
                                                Barbara R. Snyder,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, it is astounding to me that associations of 
higher education in this country are opposing this bill, absolutely 
astounding. That should send a message to the American people about 
what the status of higher education is right now.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3724, the End 
Woke Higher Education Act.
  As a former member of a board of trustees in a college, I am deeply 
concerned about the erosion of free speech on college campuses and 
political activism by administrators and college presidents as well as 
professors.
  Institutions of higher education are chartered to foster academic 
excellence and prepare students for meaningful careers. Instead, they 
have become incubators of political activism and extreme progressive 
ideology.
  One only has to look at recent FIRE reports and recent FIRE ratings 
to see the meteoric rise in self-censorship, which is happening on 
college campuses.
  In one school, which I love dearly, 41 percent of students feel it is 
okay to shout down somebody who is coming to speak just because they 
disagree with them.
  In some cases, even the most prestigious universities in our Nation 
have descended into hotbeds of anti-American and anti-Semitic hatred. 
We saw an American flag burned at Columbia University.
  Thankfully, we have now seen several university presidents resign 
because of the ideological push that they are having on their campuses.
  I believe that this is a symptom of extreme ideological influence 
that universities have allowed, permitted, and promoted to permeate its 
classrooms. They teach what to think, not how to think.
  Sadly, this indoctrination is now going into the Nation's medical 
schools where we see this in the admissions process, fealty oaths, 
curriculum, promotion of faculty, and teaching what to think, not how 
to think.
  I am proud that my bills, H. Res. 282, as well as the Campus Free 
Speech Restoration Act, were included in this legislation.
  Academic freedom is central to vigorous debate and the exploration of 
ideas. Academic freedom means listening to more than one side. We must 
celebrate differences in thought, not censorship with those we disagree 
with.
  Let's restore sanity on our college campuses across the country by 
seizing this opportunity to protect academic freedom.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3724, the End Woke 
Higher Education Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I received another letter from the American Federation 
of Teachers which says, in part, ``Academic freedom and the right to 
peacefully protest on our college campuses are hallmarks of a 
functioning democracy and a thriving economy. Unfortunately, the bill 
before you today does not respect the vital and dynamic role that 
higher education plays in promoting knowledge, pluralism, and 
democracy. The bill would limit the ability of campuses to stand up 
against hate and bigotry, which runs counter to the very core of higher 
education's fundamental purpose.''
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, we have groups that are supporting this bill, strong 
support. Over the years, we have worked with experts in the field to 
craft these policies.
  Let me read just some of the praise. The James G. Martin Center for 
Academic Renewal states: This legislation is an essential step in 
restoring the fundamental purpose of higher education to foster free 
inquiry and equip students to think critically and independently.
  Too many institutions have prioritized ideological conformity over 
academic excellence. Accreditation bodies and universities have 
increasingly promoted DEI initiatives that risk undermining 
intellectual diversity and free expression.

                              {time}  1300

  I won't read all of these, but Young America's Foundation has given 
strong support, as has the Defense of Freedom Institute. The American 
Council of Trustees and Alumni stated: ``The respecting the First 
Amendment on Campus Act is a step in the right direction toward 
protecting freedom of speech, association, and religion on college and 
university campuses across the country.''
  ``. . . Congress is listening to major public concerns as the battle 
for the soul of American education continues to play out in the form of 
hegemonic diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, the heckler's veto, 
disinvitations, and deplatforming.''
  In addition, we have the National Panhellenic Conference, the North 
American Interfraternity Conference, the American Council of Trustees 
and Alumni, the Defense of Freedom Institute, Foundation for Individual 
Rights

[[Page H5471]]

and Expression, and Young America's Foundation supporting this bill.
  Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bost). The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 
6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, could you advise how much time 
remains on this side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  Mr. Chairman, we also received a letter from the Americans United for 
Separation of Church and State and Interfaith Alliance that says, in 
part, that ``we oppose the provision on `political litmus tests' in 
accreditation, because it is unnecessary and unwise.
  ``The provision seems aimed, in part, to allow religious colleges to 
ignore accreditation standards and still maintain accreditation. 
Current law and regulations, though, already require accreditors to 
give significant deference to religious schools.''
  ``This bill seeks to go further, though, by requiring accrediting 
agencies to permit religious schools to discriminate against all 
students and employees. The bill would allow religious schools to 
require adherence to a statement of faith or religious code of conduct, 
which could be written so broadly as to allow religious schools to 
discriminate against people because of sex, disability, national 
origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Every single student, 
employee, and contractor, including janitors, IT administrators, 
nurses, and more, could face discrimination--and for students, perhaps 
even on the basis of their parents' relationship or frequency of church 
attendance.
  ``Moreover, this goes beyond what title VII allows religious colleges 
to do in employment. Religious employers may favor religion--and only 
religion--in their employment practices. Title VII `does not confer 
upon religious organizations a license to make those [employment] 
decisions' on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. Decades of 
case law makes clear that religious employers do not get a license to 
discriminate on other grounds, even when such discrimination is 
motivated by religion or carried out under a `code of conduct.' ''
  Mr. Chairman, what we have heard today from the other side are 
attempts to micromanage and insert themselves into the colleges and 
universities under the thin guise of protecting students.
  In reality, this bill is one of many culture war bills that would 
strip America's educational institutions of their freedoms to explore 
the subjects that make up a comprehensive and rigorous academic 
experience.
  For a coalition that claims to support limited government, they are 
using valuable title IV funds as a weapon to beat colleges and 
universities into submission. This stops us from having the necessary 
discussions on difficult issues about race, gender, and inequity that 
would help us improve our higher education system.
  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, we must reject the bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. Chair, I indicate to my friends and colleagues that we have an 
opportunity in the bill before us today to make a strong stand for free 
speech.
  This bill does not mandate any political viewpoint or ideology. It 
simply demands, from the accreditation process down to the classroom, 
that all levels of postsecondary education respect the free speech 
rights of students.
  Postsecondary education should empower students to discover truth and 
think critically. American universities risk losing sight of this core 
mission by refusing to engage with certain viewpoints.
  The End Woke Higher Education Act will restore the essential freedoms 
that make our universities the global leaders of open debate and 
intellectual growth, ensuring that the next generation of Americans can 
think for themselves and engage in the pursuit of truth.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce printed in the bill, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, consisting of the text of 
Rules Committee Print 118-49, shall be considered as adopted.
  The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for 
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3724

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``End Woke 
     Higher Education Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

             TITLE I--ACCREDITATION FOR COLLEGE EXCELLENCE

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Prohibition on political litmus tests in accreditation of 
              institutions of higher education.
Sec. 103. Rule of construction.

           TITLE II--RESPECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON CAMPUS

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 203. Disclosure of free speech policies.
Sec. 204. Freedom of association and religion.
Sec. 205. Free speech on campus.
Sec. 206. Enforcement.

             TITLE I--ACCREDITATION FOR COLLEGE EXCELLENCE

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Accreditation for College 
     Excellence Act of 2024''.

     SEC. 102. PROHIBITION ON POLITICAL LITMUS TESTS IN 
                   ACCREDITATION OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Operating Procedures Required.--Section 496(c) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) confirms that the standards for accreditation of the 
     agency or association do not--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) require, encourage, or coerce any institution to--

       ``(I) support, oppose, or commit to supporting or 
     opposing--

       ``(aa) a specific partisan, political, or ideological 
     viewpoint or belief or set of such viewpoints or beliefs; or
       ``(bb) a a specific viewpoint or belief or set of 
     viewpoints or beliefs on social, cultural, or political 
     issues; or

       ``(II) support or commit to supporting the disparate 
     treatment of any individual or group of individuals on the 
     basis of any protected class under Federal civil rights law, 
     except as required by Federal law or a court order; or

       ``(ii) assess an institution's or program of study's 
     commitment to any ideology, belief, or viewpoint;
       ``(B) prohibit an institution--
       ``(i) from having a religious mission, operating as a 
     religious institution, or being controlled by a religious 
     organization (in a manner described in paragraph (1), (2), 
     (3), (4), (5), or (6) of section 106.12(c) of title 34, Code 
     of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph)), or from requiring an 
     applicant, student, employee, or independent contractor (such 
     as an adjunct professor) of such an institution to--

       ``(I) provide or adhere to a statement of faith; or
       ``(II) adhere to a code of conduct consistent with the 
     stated religious mission of such institution or the religious 
     tenets of such organization; or

       ``(ii) from requiring an applicant, student, employee, or 
     contractor to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the 
     United States; or
       ``(C) require, encourage, or coerce an institution of 
     higher education to violate any right protected by the 
     Constitution.''.
       (b) Limitation on Scope of Criteria.--Section 496(g) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(g)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(g) Limitation on Scope of Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not establish 
     criteria for accrediting agencies or associations that are 
     not required by this section.
       ``(2) Institutional eligibility.--An institution of higher 
     education shall be eligible for participation in programs 
     under this title if the institution is in compliance with the 
     standards of its accrediting agency or association that 
     assess the institution in accordance with subsection (a)(5), 
     regardless of any additional standards adopted by the agency 
     or association for purposes unrelated to participation in 
     programs under this title.''.

     SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title prevents religious accreditors from 
     holding and enforcing religious standards on institutions 
     they choose to accredit.

[[Page H5472]]

  


           TITLE II--RESPECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON CAMPUS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Respecting the First 
     Amendment on Campus Act''.

     SEC. 202. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting after section 112 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 112A. SENSE OF CONGRESS; CONSTRUCTION; DEFINITION.

       ``(a) Sense of Congress.--
       ``(1) Adoption of chicago principles.--The Congress--
       ``(A) recognizes that free expression, open inquiry, and 
     the honest exchange of ideas are fundamental to higher 
     education;
       ``(B) acknowledges the profound contribution of the Chicago 
     Principles to the freedom of speech and expression; and
       ``(C) calls on nonsectarian institutions of higher 
     education to adopt the Chicago Principles or substantially 
     similar principles with respect to institutional mission that 
     emphasizes a commitment to freedom of speech and expression 
     on university campuses and to develop and consistently 
     implement policies accordingly.
       ``(2) Political litmus tests.--The Congress--
       ``(A) condemns public institutions of higher education for 
     conditioning admission to any student applicant, or the 
     hiring, reappointment, or promotion of any faculty member, on 
     the applicant or faculty member pledging allegiance to or 
     making a statement of personal support for or opposition to 
     any political ideology or movement, including a pledge or 
     statement regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, or 
     related topics; and
       ``(B) discourages any institution from requesting or 
     requiring any such pledge or statement from an applicant or 
     faculty member, as such actions are antithetical to the 
     freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution.
       ``(b) Construction.--Nothing in sections 112B through 112E 
     shall be construed to infringe upon, or otherwise impact, the 
     protections provided to individuals under titles VI and VII 
     of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).
       ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of sections 112C, 112D, and 
     112E, the term `covered public institution' means an 
     institution of higher education that is--
       ``(1) a public institution; and
       ``(2) participating in a program authorized under title 
     IV.''.

     SEC. 203. DISCLOSURE OF FREE SPEECH POLICIES.

       The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), 
     as amended by section 202 of this title, is further amended 
     by inserting after section 112A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 112B. DISCLOSURE OF POLICIES RELATED TO FREEDOM OF 
                   SPEECH, ASSOCIATION, AND RELIGION.

       ``(a) In General.--No institution of higher education shall 
     be eligible to participate in any program under title IV 
     unless the institution certifies to the Secretary that the 
     institution has annually disclosed to current and prospective 
     students and faculty--
       ``(1) any policies held by the institutions related to--
       ``(A) speech on campus, including policies limiting--
       ``(i) the time when such speech may occur;
       ``(ii) the place where such speech may occur; or
       ``(iii) the manner in which such speech may occur;
       ``(B) freedom of association, if applicable; and
       ``(C) freedom of religion, if applicable; and
       ``(2) the right to a cause of action under section 112E, if 
     the institution is a public institution.
       ``(b) Intended Beneficiaries.--The certification specified 
     in subsection (a) shall include an acknowledgment from the 
     institution that the students and faculty are the intended 
     beneficiaries of the policies disclosed in the 
     certification.''.

     SEC. 204. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND RELIGION.

       The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), 
     as amended by section 203 of this title, is further amended 
     by inserting after section 112B the following new section:

     ``SEC. 112C. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND RELIGION.

       ``(a) Students' Bill of Rights to Further Protect Speech 
     and Association.--
       ``(1) Protected rights.--A covered public institution shall 
     comply with the following requirements:
       ``(A) Recognized student organizations.--A covered public 
     institution that has recognized student organizations shall 
     comply with the following requirements:
       ``(i) Faculty advisors.--

       ``(I) In general.--A covered public institution may not 
     deny recognition to a student organization because the 
     organization is unable to obtain a faculty advisor or 
     sponsor, if the organization meets each of the other content- 
     and viewpoint-neutral institutional requirements for such 
     recognition.
       ``(II) Alternative.--An institution described in subclause 
     (I) shall ensure that any policy or practice related to the 
     recognition of a student organization--

       ``(aa) in the case of an organization that meets each of 
     the other content- and viewpoint-neutral institutional 
     requirements for such recognition but is unable to obtain a 
     faculty advisor or sponsor, provides for an alternative to 
     any requirement that a faculty or staff member serve as the 
     faculty advisor or sponsor as a condition for recognition of 
     the student organization, which alternative may include--
       ``(AA) waiver of such requirement; or
       ``(BB) the institution assigning a faculty or staff member 
     to such organization; and
       ``(bb) does not require a faculty or staff member of the 
     institution assigned to serve as faculty advisor pursuant to 
     item (aa)(BB) to participate in, or support, the organization 
     other than by performing the purely administrative functions 
     required of a faculty advisor.
       ``(ii) Appeal options for recognition.--

       ``(I) In general.--A covered public institution shall 
     provide an appeals process by which a student organization 
     that has been denied recognition by the institution may 
     appeal to an institutional appellate entity for 
     reconsideration.
       ``(II) Requirements.--The appeal process shall--

       ``(aa) require the covered public institution to provide a 
     written explanation for the basis for the denial of 
     recognition in a timely manner, which shall include a copy of 
     all policies relied upon by the institution as a basis for 
     the denial;
       ``(bb) require the covered public institution to provide 
     written notice to the students seeking recognition of the 
     appeal process and the timeline for hearing and resolving the 
     appeal;
       ``(cc) allow the students seeking recognition to obtain 
     outside counsel to represent them during the appeal; and
       ``(dd) ensure that such appellate entity did not 
     participate in any prior proceeding related to the denial of 
     recognition to the student organization.
       ``(B) Distribution of funds to student organizations.--A 
     covered public institution that collects a mandatory fee from 
     students for the costs of student activities or events (or 
     both), and provides funds generated from such student fees to 
     one or more recognized student organizations of the 
     institution, shall--
       ``(i) establish and make publicly available clear, 
     objective, content- and viewpoint-neutral, and exhaustive 
     standards to be used by the institution to determine--

       ``(I) the total amount of funds made available for 
     allocations to the recognized student organizations; and
       ``(II) the allocations of such total amount to individual 
     recognized student organizations;

       ``(ii) ensure that allocations are made to the recognized 
     student organizations in accordance with the standards 
     established pursuant to clause (i);
       ``(iii) upon the request of a recognized student 
     organization that has been denied all or a portion of an 
     allocation described in clause (ii), provide to the 
     organization, in writing (which may include electronic 
     communication) and in a timely manner, the specific reasons 
     for such denial, copies of all policies relied upon by the 
     institution as basis for the denial, and information of the 
     appeals process described in clause (iv); and
       ``(iv) provide an appeals process by which a recognized 
     student organization that has been denied all or a portion of 
     an allocation described in clause (ii) may appeal to an 
     institutional appellate entity for reconsideration, which 
     appeals process--

       ``(I) shall require the covered public institution to 
     provide written notice to the students seeking an allocation 
     through the appeal process and the timeline for hearing and 
     resolving the appeal;
       ``(II) allow the students seeking an allocation to obtain 
     outside counsel to represent them during the appeal; and
       ``(III) require the institution to ensure that such 
     appellate entity did not participate in any prior proceeding 
     related to such allocation.

       ``(C) Assessment of security fees for events.--A covered 
     public institution shall establish and make publicly 
     available clear, objective, content- and viewpoint-neutral, 
     and exhaustive standards to be used by the institution to--
       ``(i) determine the amount of any security fee for an event 
     or activity organized by a student or student organization; 
     and
       ``(ii) ensure that a determination of such an amount may 
     not be based, in whole or in part, on--

       ``(I) the content of expression or viewpoint of the student 
     or student organization;
       ``(II) the content of expression of the event or activity 
     organized by the student or student organization;
       ``(III) the content of expression or viewpoint of an 
     invited guest of the student or student organization; or
       ``(IV) an anticipated reaction by students or the public to 
     the event.

       ``(D) Protections for invited guests and speakers.--A 
     covered public institution shall establish and make publicly 
     available clear, objective, content- and viewpoint-neutral, 
     and exhaustive standards to be used by the institution 
     related to the safety and protection of speakers and guests 
     who are invited to the institution by a student or student 
     organization.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Recognized student organization.--The term 
     `recognized student organization' means a student 
     organization that has been determined by a covered public 
     institution to meet institutional requirements to qualify for 
     certain privileges granted by the institution, such as use of 
     institutional venues, resources, and funding.
       ``(B) Security fee.--The term `security fee' means a fee 
     charged to a student or student organization for an event or 
     activity organized by the student or student organization on 
     the campus of the institution that is intended to cover some 
     or all of the costs incurred by the institution for 
     additional security measures needed to ensure the security of 
     the institution, students, faculty, staff, or surrounding 
     community as a result of such event or activity.
       ``(b) Equal Campus Access.--A covered public institution 
     shall not deny to a religious student organization any right, 
     benefit, or privilege

[[Page H5473]]

     that is otherwise afforded to other student organizations at 
     the institution (including full access to the facilities of 
     the institution and official recognition of the organization 
     by the institution) because of the religious beliefs, 
     practices, speech, leadership standards, or standards of 
     conduct of the religious student organization.
       ``(c) Freedom of Association.--
       ``(1) Upholding freedom of association protections.--Any 
     student (or group of students) enrolled in an institution of 
     higher education that receives funds under this Act, 
     including through an institution's participation in any 
     program under title IV, shall--
       ``(A) subject to paragraph (3)(A), be able to form a 
     single-sex social organization, whether recognized by the 
     institution or not; and
       ``(B) be able to apply to join any single-sex social 
     organization; and
       ``(C) if selected for membership by any single-sex social 
     organization, be able to join, and participate in, such 
     single-sex organization, subject to its standards for 
     regulating its own membership, as provided under paragraph 
     (3)(C).
       ``(2) Nonretaliation against students of single-sex social 
     organizations.--An institution of higher education that 
     receives funds under this Act, including through an 
     institution's participation in any program under title IV, 
     shall not--
       ``(A) take any action to require or coerce a student or 
     prospective student who is a member or prospective member of 
     a single-sex social organization to waive the protections 
     provided under paragraph (1), including as a condition of 
     enrolling in the institution;
       ``(B) take any adverse action against a single-sex social 
     organization, or a student who is a member or a prospective 
     member of a single-sex social organization, based on the 
     membership practice of such organization limiting membership 
     only to individuals of one sex; or
       ``(C) impose a recruitment restriction (including a 
     recruitment restriction relating to the schedule for 
     membership recruitment) on a single-sex social organization 
     recognized by the institution, which is not imposed upon 
     other student organizations by the institution, unless the 
     organization (or a council of similar organizations) and the 
     institution have entered into a mutually agreed upon written 
     agreement that allows the institution to impose such 
     restriction.
       ``(3) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall--
       ``(A) require an institution of higher education to 
     officially recognize a single-sex social organization;
       ``(B) prohibit an institution of higher education from 
     taking an adverse action against a student who organizes, 
     leads, or joins a single-sex social organization--
       ``(i) due to academic or nonacademic misconduct; or
       ``(ii)(I) for public institutions, because the 
     organization's purpose is directed to inciting or producing 
     imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such 
     action; or
       ``(II) for private institutions, because the organization's 
     purpose is incompatible with the religious mission of the 
     institution, so long as that adverse action is not based on 
     the membership practice of the organization of limiting 
     membership only to individuals of one sex;
       ``(C) prevent a single-sex social organization from 
     regulating its own membership;
       ``(D) inhibit the ability of the faculty of an institution 
     of higher education to express an opinion (either 
     individually or collectively) about membership in a single-
     sex social organization, or otherwise inhibit the academic 
     freedom of such faculty to research, write, or publish 
     material about membership in such an organization; or
       ``(E) create enforceable rights against a single-sex social 
     organization or against an institution of higher education 
     due to the decision of the organization to deny membership to 
     an individual student.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Adverse action.--The term `adverse action' includes 
     the following actions taken by an institution of higher 
     education with respect to a single-sex social organization or 
     a member or prospective member of a single-sex social 
     organization:
       ``(i) Expulsion, suspension, probation, censure, 
     condemnation, formal reprimand, or any other disciplinary 
     action, coercive action, or sanction taken by an institution 
     of higher education or administrative unit of such 
     institution.
       ``(ii) An oral or written warning with respect to an action 
     described in clause (i) made by an official of an institution 
     of higher education acting in their official capacity.
       ``(iii) An action to deny participation in any education 
     program or activity, including the withholding of any rights, 
     privileges, or opportunities afforded other students on 
     campus.
       ``(iv) An action to withhold, in whole or in part, any 
     financial assistance (including scholarships and on-campus 
     employment), or denying the opportunity to apply for 
     financial assistance, a scholarship, a graduate fellowship, 
     or on-campus employment.
       ``(v) An action to deny or restrict access to on-campus 
     housing.
       ``(vi) An act to deny any certification, endorsement, or 
     letter of recommendation that may be required by a student's 
     current or future employer, a government agency, a licensing 
     board, an institution of higher education, a scholarship 
     program, or a graduate fellowship to which the student 
     applies or seeks to apply.
       ``(vii) An action to deny participation in any sports team, 
     club, or other student organization, including a denial of 
     any leadership position in any sports team, club, or other 
     student organization.
       ``(viii) An action to withdraw the institution's official 
     recognition of such organization.
       ``(ix) An action to require any student to certify that 
     such student is not a member of a single-sex social 
     organization or to disclose the student's membership in a 
     single-sex social organization.
       ``(x) An action to interject an institution's own criteria 
     into the membership practices of the organization in any 
     manner that conflicts with the rights of such organization 
     under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 
     1681 et seq.) or this subsection.
       ``(xi) An action to impose additional requirements on 
     advisors serving a single-sex social organization that are 
     not imposed on all other student organizations.
       ``(B) Single-sex social organization.--The term `single-sex 
     social organization' means--
       ``(i) a social fraternity or sorority described in section 
     501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which is exempt 
     from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code, or an 
     organization that has been historically single-sex, the 
     active membership of which consists primarily of students or 
     alumni of an institution of higher education; or
       ``(ii) a single-sex private social club (including an 
     independent organization located off-campus) that consists 
     primarily of students or alumni of an institution of higher 
     education.
       ``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit an institution of higher education from 
     taking any adverse action (such as denying or revoking 
     recognition, funding, use of institutional venues or 
     resources, or other privileges granted by the institution) 
     against a student organization based on the student 
     organization having knowingly provided material support or 
     resources to an organization designated as a foreign 
     terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).''.

     SEC. 205. FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS.

       The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), 
     as amended by section 204 of this title, is further amended 
     by inserting after section 112C the following new section:

     ``SEC. 112D. FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS.

       ``(a) In General.--A covered public institution shall--
       ``(1) at each orientation for new and transfer students, 
     provide students attending the orientation--
       ``(A) a written statement that--
       ``(i) explains the rights of students under the First 
     Amendment to the Constitution;
       ``(ii) affirms the importance of, and the commitment of the 
     institution to, freedom of expression;
       ``(iii) explains students' protections under title VI of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) and 
     the procedures for filing a discrimination claim with the 
     Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education; and
       ``(iv) includes assurances that students, and individuals 
     invited by students to speak at the institution, will not be 
     treated in a manner that violates the freedom of expression 
     of such students or individuals; and
       ``(B) educational programming (including online resources) 
     that describes their free speech rights and responsibilities 
     under the First Amendment to the Constitution; and
       ``(2) post on the publicly accessible website of the 
     institution the statement described in paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(b) Campus Free Speech and Restoration.--
       ``(1) Definition of expressive activities.--In this 
     subsection, the term `expressive activity'--
       ``(A) includes--
       ``(i) peacefully assembling, protesting, speaking, or 
     listening;
       ``(ii) distributing literature;
       ``(iii) carrying a sign;
       ``(iv) circulating a petition; or
       ``(v) other expressive activities guaranteed under the 
     First Amendment to the Constitution;
       ``(B) applies equally to religious expression as it does to 
     nonreligious expression; and
       ``(C) does not include unprotected speech (as defined by 
     the precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States).
       ``(2) Expressive activities at an institution.--
       ``(A) In general.--A covered public institution may not 
     prohibit, subject to subparagraph (B), a person from freely 
     engaging in noncommercial expressive activity in a generally 
     accessible area on the institution's campus if the person's 
     conduct is lawful. The publicly accessible outdoor areas of 
     campuses of public institutions of higher education shall be 
     regulated pursuant to rules applicable to traditional public 
     forums.
       ``(B) Restrictions.--A covered public institution may not 
     maintain or enforce time, place, or manner restrictions on an 
     expressive activity in a generally accessible area of the 
     institution's campus unless the restriction--
       ``(i) is narrowly tailored in furtherance of a significant 
     governmental interest;
       ``(ii) is based on published, content-neutral, and 
     viewpoint-neutral criteria;
       ``(iii) leaves open ample alternative channels for 
     communication; and
       ``(iv) provides for spontaneous assembly and distribution 
     of literature.
       ``(C) Application.--The protections provided under 
     subparagraph (A) do not apply to expressive activity in an 
     area on an institution's campus that is not a generally 
     accessible area.
       ``(D) Nonapplication to service academies.--This subsection 
     shall not apply to an institution of higher education whose 
     primary purpose is the education of individuals for the 
     military services of the United States, or the merchant 
     marine.
       ``(c) Prohibition on Use of Political Tests.--
       ``(1) In general.--A covered public institution may not 
     consider, require, or discriminate on the basis of a 
     political test in the admission, appointment, hiring, 
     employment, or promotion of

[[Page H5474]]

     any covered individual, or in the granting of tenure to any 
     covered individual.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed--
       ``(A) to prohibit an institution of higher education whose 
     primary purpose is the education of individuals for the 
     military services of the United States, or the merchant 
     marine, from requiring an applicant, student, or employee to 
     take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States;
       ``(B) to prohibit an institution of higher education from 
     requiring a student, faculty member, or employee to comply 
     with Federal or State antidiscrimination laws or from taking 
     action against a student, faculty member, or employee for 
     violations of Federal or State anti-discrimination laws, as 
     applicable;
       ``(C) to prohibit an institution of higher education from 
     evaluating a prospective student, an employee, or a 
     prospective employee based on their knowingly providing 
     material support or resources to an organization designated 
     as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189);
       ``(D) to prohibit an institution of higher education from 
     considering the subject-matter competency including the 
     research and creative works, of any candidate for a faculty 
     position or faculty member considered for promotion when the 
     subject matter is germane to their given field of 
     scholarship; or
       ``(E) to apply to activities of registered student 
     organizations.
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Covered individual.--The term `covered individual' 
     means, with respect to an institution of higher education 
     that is a public institution--
       ``(i) a prospective student who has submitted an 
     application to attend such institution;
       ``(ii) a student who attends such institution;
       ``(iii) a prospective employee who has submitted an 
     application to work at such institution;
       ``(iv) an employee who works at such institution;
       ``(v) a prospective faculty member who has submitted an 
     application to work at such institution; and
       ``(vi) a faculty member who works at such institution.
       ``(B) Material support or resources.--The term `material 
     support or resources' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 2339A of title 18, United States Code (including the 
     definitions of `training' and `expert advice or assistance' 
     in that section).
       ``(C) Political test.--The term `political test' means a 
     method of compelling or soliciting an applicant for 
     enrollment or employment, student, or employee of an 
     institution of higher education to identify commitment to or 
     make a statement of personal belief in support of any 
     ideology or movement that--
       ``(i) supports or opposes a specific partisan or political 
     set of beliefs;
       ``(ii) supports or opposes a particular viewpoint on a 
     social or political issue; or
       ``(iii) promotes the disparate treatment of any individual 
     or group of individuals on the basis of race, color, or 
     national origin, including--

       ``(I) any initiative or formulation of diversity, equity, 
     and inclusion beyond upholding existing Federal law; or
       ``(II) any theory or practice that holds that systems or 
     institutions upholding existing Federal law are racist, 
     oppressive, or otherwise unjust.''.

     SEC. 206. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Program Participation Agreement.--Section 487(a) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(30)(A) The institution will comply with all the 
     requirements of sections 112B.
       ``(B) An institution that fails to comply with section 112B 
     shall--
       ``(i) be ineligible to participate in the programs 
     authorized by this title for a period of not less than 1 
     award year; and
       ``(ii) in order to regain eligibility to participate in 
     such programs, demonstrate compliance with all requirements 
     of such section for not less than one award year after the 
     award year in which such institution became ineligible.''.
       (b) Cause of Action.--The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended by section 205 of this 
     title, is further amended by inserting after section 112D the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 112E. ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) Cause of Action.--
       ``(1) Civil action.--After exhaustion of any available 
     appeals under section 112C(a), an aggrieved individual who, 
     or an aggrieved organization that, is harmed by the 
     maintenance of a policy or practice by a covered public 
     institution that is in violation of a requirement described 
     in section 112B, 112C, or 112D may bring a civil action in a 
     Federal court for appropriate relief.
       ``(2) Appropriate relief.--For the purposes of this 
     subsection, appropriate relief includes--
       ``(A) a temporary or permanent injunction; and
       ``(B) awarding a prevailing plaintiff--
       ``(i) compensatory damages;
       ``(ii) reasonable court costs; and
       ``(iii) reasonable attorney's fees.
       ``(3) Statute of limitations.--A civil action under this 
     subsection may not be commenced later than 2 years after the 
     cause of action accrues. For purposes of calculating the two-
     year limitation period, each day that the violation of a 
     requirement described in section 112B, 112C, or 112D 
     persists, and each day that a policy in violation of a 
     requirement described in section 112B, 112C, or 112D remains 
     in effect, shall constitute a new day that the cause of 
     action has accrued.
       ``(b) Nondefault, Final Judgment.--In the case of a court's 
     nondefault, final judgment in a civil action brought under 
     subsection (a) that a covered public institution is in 
     violation of a requirement described in section 112B, 112C, 
     or 112D, such covered public institution shall--
       ``(1) not later than 7 days after the date on which the 
     court makes such a nondefault, final judgment, notify the 
     Secretary of such judgment and submit to the Secretary a copy 
     of the nondefault, final judgment; and
       ``(2) not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     court makes such a nondefault, final judgment, submit to the 
     Secretary a report that--
       ``(A) certifies that the standard, policy, practice, or 
     procedure that is in violation of the requirement described 
     in section 112B, 112C, or 112D is no longer in use; and
       ``(B) provides evidence to support such certification.
       ``(c) Revocation of Eligibility.--In the case of a covered 
     public institution that does not notify the Secretary as 
     required under subsection (b)(1) or submit the report 
     required under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall revoke 
     the eligibility of such institution to participate in a 
     program authorized under title IV for each award year 
     following the conclusion of the award year in which a court 
     made a nondefault, final judgment in a civil action brought 
     under subsection (a) that the institution is in violation of 
     a requirement described in section 112B, 112C, or 112D.
       ``(d) Restoration of Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--A covered public institution that loses 
     eligibility under subsection (c) to participate in a program 
     authorized under title IV may seek to restore such 
     eligibility by submitting to the Secretary the report 
     described in subsection (b)(2).
       ``(2) Determination by the secretary.--Not later than 90 
     days after a covered public institution submits a report 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall review such report 
     and make a determination with respect to whether such report 
     contained sufficient evidence to demonstrate that such 
     institution is no longer in violation of a requirement 
     described in section 112B, 112C, or 112D.
       ``(3) Restoration.--If the Secretary makes a determination 
     under paragraph (2) that the covered public institution is no 
     longer in violation of a requirement described in section 
     112B, 112C, or 112D, the Secretary shall restore the 
     eligibility of such institution to participate in a program 
     authorized under title IV for each award year following the 
     conclusion of the award year in which such determination is 
     made.
       ``(e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this section, and on an annual basis 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions a report that includes--
       ``(1) a compilation of--
       ``(A) the notifications of violation received by the 
     Secretary under subsection (b)(1) in the year for which such 
     report is being submitted; and
       ``(B) the reports submitted to the Secretary under 
     subsection (b)(2) for such year; and
       ``(2) any action taken by the Secretary to revoke or 
     restore eligibility under subsections (c) and (d) for such 
     year.
       ``(f) Voluntary Waiver of State and Local Sovereign 
     Immunity as Condition of Receiving Federal Funding.--The 
     receipt, on or after the date of enactment of this section, 
     of any Federal funding under title IV of this Act by a State 
     or political subdivision of a State (including any municipal 
     or county government) is deemed to constitute a clear and 
     unequivocal expression of, and agreement to, waiving 
     sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment to the 
     Constitution or otherwise, to a civil action for injunctive 
     relief, compensatory damages, court costs, and attorney's 
     fees under this section.
       ``(g) Definition.--In this section, the term `nondefault, 
     final judgment' means a final judgment by a court for a civil 
     action brought under subsection (a) that a covered public 
     institution is in violation of a requirement described in 
     section 112B, 112C, or 112D that the covered public 
     institution chooses not to appeal or that is not subject to 
     further appeal.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 118-685. 
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, and shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Molinaro

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 118-685.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 31, line 5, insert ``religion,'' after ``color,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1455, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Molinaro) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H5475]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, for our entire history as a nation, our 
colleges and universities have been the example for other countries. 
Why? Because historically this Nation has ensured that colleges and 
institutions of higher learning have been places where we have embraced 
and encouraged critical thought.
  We have embraced and accepted differences in thought, and we have 
tried to ensure that the individual rights enshrined in the 
Constitution inherent to each of us are protected in these places of 
higher learning.
  Yet, over the course of the last year and a half, we have seen a 
consistent effort to attempt to silence one set of views. In fact, 
having traveled all across the State of New York for most of my adult 
life, I can tell you the SUNY college system has been a model of great 
institutions meant to bring people from different backgrounds and 
different experiences together not to be indoctrinated in a school of 
thought but, rather, to engage in critical thought.
  Yet, over the last year and a half, we have seen consistently one set 
of thoughts, one set of beliefs being silenced in order to embrace 
another ideology or agenda. It isn't what our colleges and universities 
were about.
  The End Woke Higher Education Act, importantly, seeks to uphold 
Americans' constitutional rights and restore diversity of thought and 
viewpoints at colleges without forcing a single perspective.
  Part of the bill prohibits public colleges from asking or encouraging 
faculty and students to make a statement of personal belief in support 
of an ideology or movement that promotes the wrongful treatment of 
individuals. Imagine in 2024 having to even state that, yet here we 
are.
  My amendment adds to this prohibition by taking it one step further. 
This says that public colleges cannot promote the wrongful treatment of 
individuals on the basis of religion.
  Of course, this should be common sense; and, by the way, every 
institution should seek to protect individual students and faculty's 
freedom to express their faith as they see fit. Yet, unfortunately, 
over the past year we have seen far too many ugly events on college 
campuses incited and emboldened both by faculty and students allowed to 
impose their will and their beliefs in an intolerant and hostile way on 
others.
  Just this week at Cornell University in my own district, a member of 
the faculty who spoke favorably about the October 7 terrorist attacks 
by Hamas on Israel was recently taken off leave. This individual 
recently taken off leave was brought back to full employment in the 
classroom.
  I have met with college students, Jewish students, who simply want a 
safe place to learn, yet they feel marginalized because of the 
imposition of someone else's will in an intolerant and inexcusable way.
  How are Jewish students supposed to feel when a professor who openly 
supports a terrorist attack against, in fact, some of their own family? 
How are they supposed to feel?
  Colleges are to be the place where students are safe to learn and 
grow, to flourish in their own beliefs and even, I would offer, 
challenge their beliefs. When colleges don't provide this protection, 
yes, it is important that we remind folks that they all must uphold and 
protect the constitutional right to freedom of thought, freedom of 
speech, and freedom of expression.
  My amendment simply seeks to strengthen the bill in chief by ensuring 
one's religious beliefs are not held against them nor is one's 
religious beliefs imposed on someone else as a doctrine or a statement 
that is necessary for employment or joining as a student.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues' support of the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York seeks to add religion to the definition of 
political tests, which already includes COVID categories of race, 
color, or national origin.
  I fear this may cause confusion. As drafted, the language in the 
underlying bill's definition conforms with classes protected under 
title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination on the 
basis of race, color, national origin in educational programs receiving 
Federal financial assistance.
  There were a lot of debates when the law was written as to whether or 
not to include religion, and just like as it is now, it was not covered 
in the underlying bill. I think we are going to confuse the matter by 
trying to stick it in now.

  Further, while religion is included in title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act, which covers employment discrimination, title VII protects 
discrimination also on the basis of sex. Notably, ``sex'' is not 
included in either definition of the political tests in the bill or by 
the amendment, which suggests supporters of the bill do not feel that 
the political tests that discriminate on the basis of sex need to be 
outlawed.
  Mr. Chair, I just think that the inclusion of religion here would 
just confuse the matter of title VI or title VII. You would have 
another provision here with a cause of action where religion is in 
some, not in others, and for no apparent good reason other than a last-
minute thought.
  Mr. Chair, I would hope we would not accept the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, my colleague knows I respect him greatly. 
I know that he and I appreciate the expression of our faith in the way 
that we choose to do so. I don't think there is any confusion here at 
all. The beauty of this body is that when confronted with new 
challenges that face Americans, we are to debate them, consider them, 
and then apply reason as to establishing new policy.
  I will address one comment. This is not some unnecessary last-minute 
thought. We have seen over the last 2 years hatred in the most vile 
form: intimidation, intolerance, violence committed against Jewish 
students, Jewish faculty. In my own district, threats of death against 
Jewish students, Jewish students locked in buildings, not being able to 
exercise not only their faith or participate in their education process 
overall.
  This isn't last minute, and it certainly isn't unnecessary. It is 
timely, it is necessary, and it is appropriate. It also, by the way--
perhaps to weaken my argument only slightly--goes both ways. This is an 
effort to ensure that nobody can impose a standard on one or the other. 
I ask for support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1315


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 118-685.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end of title II the following new section:

     SEC. 207. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO ACTS OF VIOLENCE ON 
                   CAMPUS.

       It is the sense of Congress that acts of violence committed 
     on the campus of an institution of higher education are not 
     protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1455, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment adds a sense of Congress that acts 
of violence committed on the campus of an institution of higher 
education are not protected under the First Amendment to the 
Constitution.
  We cherish free speech in America. It is the foundation of our 
democracy, a beacon of liberty, and an essential right for every 
citizen.
  We must remember that the First Amendment draws a clear line. It 
protects peaceful expression, not violent acts.

[[Page H5476]]

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his 
amendment, which restates what most of us think is present law, that 
violence is not protected by the First Amendment. I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his comments.
  What we have seen is an alarming rise in incidents where protests on 
college campuses turn violent against Jewish students.
  This is not free speech. It is an assault on free speech, and it has 
no place in America, let alone in the institutions tasked with shaping 
the minds of the next generation.
  Since the horrific October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, we have seen 
an explosion of anti-Semitism on college campuses. Across the country, 
Jewish students have been harassed, assaulted, intimidated, and 
subjected to the hostile and sometimes violent environments of their 
campuses.
  Every Jewish student deserves the right to learn, to speak, and to 
participate in campus life without fear of being targeted.
  In the wake of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses across our 
country, violence against Jews has even gotten worse. Since October 7, 
fewer than half of Jewish students feel physically safe on campus.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I think any implication that the right to protest is an 
act of violence in and of itself would fly in the face of hundreds of 
years of First Amendment precedent. Those protests which, in fact, are 
violent are not protected. I am not sure that the amendment is 
necessary, but I am obviously not opposed to it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, again, I thank my colleague for his comments.
  I think in light of the October 7 attack, in light of the violence we 
have seen on college campuses, and the very fact that Jewish students 
say they don't feel safe, it is important to restate what is law. It is 
important to restate that they have a right to be free, to be safe, and 
to learn.
  Sometimes it is important that we state the obvious. Sometimes it is 
important that we stand and say what needs to be said, that anti-
Semitism can't be tolerated. It can't be tolerated. It can't be 
tolerated.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 118-685.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 17, beginning on line 1, after ``leadership 
     standards'', insert ``, including standards regarding 
     religious identity, belief, or practice,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1455, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, this amendment simply inserts or adds a 
clarifying clause.
  While religious student groups are free to select people who aren't 
members of their religion to lead them, most people agree that it is 
reasonable for a Muslim student group to want its leaders to be, well, 
Muslim or a Catholic student group to want its leaders to be practicing 
Catholics.
  Unfortunately, administrators of some of our universities keep 
showing that they disagree. Many believe that if a religious group 
requires that its leaders are of their religion that it is somehow 
unfair discrimination.
  It is only common sense that a religious group should be able to 
require its leaders to agree with its religious message and mission. 
Because student leaders may lead the group's Scripture, prayer, or 
worship, they should have a familiarity and agree with the group's 
religious beliefs.
  In 2018, the University of Iowa threatened to derecognize almost 
every religious group on campus: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. It was 
a deliberate effort to force religious student groups to abandon their 
religious leadership requirements.
  In 2021, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the university 
administrators were personally liable for violating the religious 
groups' First Amendment rights, but that required 3 years of 
litigation.
  In 2022, at the State University of New York at Cortland, a student 
organization was told that its selection process in which it asked 
potential leaders about their religious beliefs, as well as its 
requirements that its leaders demonstrate knowledge of and uphold the 
organization's religious teachings, was unacceptable.
  Whether you understand the beliefs of an organization could obviously 
be relevant to your ability to lead it. The university changed course 
only after legal counsel sent a letter explaining the law.
  In 2006, the University of Wisconsin-Madison derecognized a Catholic 
student organization because of its religious leadership and member 
requirements. The university eventually lost its case before the 
Seventh Circuit Court but not until 2011, long enough for an entire 
class of students to enroll and graduate without access to a recognized 
Catholic campus ministry.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, we received a letter, that I read from previously, from 
the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Interfaith 
Alliance, which says, in part, relevant to this provision: ``We oppose 
the `Equal Campus Access' provision of the bill because it would 
sanction discrimination by religious student groups at public colleges 
and universities.''
  I would say that the amendment doesn't really cure the problem of the 
provision in the underlying bill, as I am speaking both against the 
underlying bill as well as the amendment.
  ``To ensure that all students can participate, colleges and 
universities often have nondiscrimination policies, frequently called 
`accept-all-comers' policies, that require officially recognized 
student groups to allow any student to join, participate in, and seek 
leadership in those groups. These policies are important because they 
prevent student groups from discriminating. And because funding for 
student groups often comes from mandatory student-activity fees, 
accept-all-comers' policies also ensure that universities don't 
subsidize discrimination and guarantee that all students aren't forced 
to fund a group that would reject them as members.
  ``The Equal Campus Access provision, however, would prohibit public 
colleges and universities from enforcing accept-all-comers' policies.''
  ``Critically, this provision is not required by the First Amendment. 
Any student club can become a recognized group and access funds if it 
adheres to its school's nondiscrimination policy. And if a club decides 
it wants to impose requirements for membership and leadership that 
conflict with the school policy, it will not be silenced or driven off 
campus; instead, it, like any other club, simply will not be eligible 
for official recognition.''
  I would hope that, Mr. Chair, that we would reject the amendment and 
the underlying bill on this provision because it would allow 
discrimination in violation of the policies, the accept-all-comers' 
policies, that many colleges elect to have.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I will go back to the Eighth Circuit where it 
determined at the University of Iowa, that

[[Page H5477]]

the student groups, the religious groups, had the right to choose their 
leadership. You can go back to the University of Wisconsin-Madison 
where the same type of ruling came down.
  That being said, in 2022, the law school at Madison decided to reject 
the initial application of a Christian Legal Society chapter because 
the group requires that its leader is Christian, which administrators 
claim was different than requiring believing Christian beliefs. They 
only relented after being challenged on the legality of their actions.
  The underlying bill already establishes that public universities 
cannot discriminate against religious groups for their leadership 
standards, but we all know that sometimes, like my previous amendment, 
you need to state the obvious.
  When we find an issue that public universities will persist in 
fighting, even after losing in court, it is important to spell things 
out clearly. My amendment does just that. It inserts the statement: `` 
. . . regarding religious identity, belief, or practice.'' It clarifies 
their right to choose their leadership based off of their beliefs.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Nunn of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bost, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3724) to 
amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit recognized 
accrediting agencies and associations from requiring, encouraging, or 
coercing institutions of higher education to meet any political litmus 
test or violate any right protected by the Constitution as a condition 
of accreditation, and, pursuant to House Resolution 1455, he reported 
the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry 
further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The Clerk will report the motion 
to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Bonamici of Oregon moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3724 
     to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________