[House Report 118-468]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress }                                          { Report 
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session    }                                          { 118-468

======================================================================
 
           RESPECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON CAMPUS ACT

                                _______
                                

 April 26, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 7683]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 7683) to amend the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 to require institutions of higher education to adopt 
and adhere to principles of free speech, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do 
pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. 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. 3. DISCLOSURE OF FREE SPEECH POLICIES.

  The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended 
by section 2 of this Act, 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. 4. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND RELIGION.

  The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended 
by section 3 of this Act, 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 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. 5. FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS.

  The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended 
by section 4 of this Act, 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 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. 6. 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) In the case of an institution that is a public 
        institution, the institution will comply with all the 
        requirements of sections 112B through 112D.
          ``(B) In the case of an institution that is not a public 
        institution, the institution will comply with sections 112B and 
        112C(c).
          ``(C) An institution that fails to comply with section 112B 
        or 112C(c) 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 5 of this Act, 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.''.

                                Purpose

    H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus 
Act, would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to 
require institutions of higher education to adopt and adhere to 
First Amendment principles as a stipulation for funding under 
Title IV of the HEA.

                            Committee Action


                             115TH CONGRESS

Second Session--Hearings

    On September 24, 2018, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing on ``Examining First Amendment Rights 
on Campus.'' The purpose of this hearing was to discuss how 
institutions of higher education (IHEs) are and are not 
protecting individual rights under the First Amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution. Testifying before the Committee were Mr. 
Zachary Wood, Author, Uncensored, New York, NY; Mr. Joseph 
Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director, Foundation for 
Individual Rights in Education, Philadelphia, PA; Ms. Suzanne 
Nossel, Chief Executive Officer, PEN America, New York, NY; and 
Mr. Ken Paulson, President, First Amendment Center, Nashville, 
TN.

                             118TH CONGRESS

First Session--Hearings

    On March 29, 2023, the Committee's Higher Education and 
Workforce Development Subcommittee held a hearing on 
``Diversity of Thought: Protecting Free Speech on College 
Campuses.'' The purpose of this hearing was to highlight the 
ways in which free speech rights are being violated on college 
campuses and to discuss potential legislative solutions to 
preserve this aspect of the First Amendment. Testifying before 
the Subcommittee were Mrs. Cherise Trump, Executive Director, 
Speech First, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Josiah Joner, Executive 
Editor, The Stanford Review, Stanford, CA; Ms. Suzanne Nossel, 
Chief Executive Officer, PEN America, New York, NY; and Mr. 
Ilya Shapiro, Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan 
Institute, Washington, D.C.
    On March 7, 2024, the Committee's Higher Education and 
Workforce Development Subcommittee held a hearing on 
``Divisive, Excessive, Ineffective: The Real Impact of DEI on 
College Campuses.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine 
ways in which institutions and accreditors are engaging in 
harmful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices, 
including how those practices impact First Amendment rights. 
Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. Erec Smith, 
Associate Professor of Rhetoric, York College of Pennsylvania, 
Cato Research Fellow, York, PA; Dr. James Murphy, Director of 
Career Pathways and Post-Secondary Policy, Education Reform 
Now, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chair, Do No Harm, 
Bryn Mawr, PA; and Dr. Jay Greene, Senior Research Fellow, The 
Heritage Foundation's Center for Education Policy, 
Fayetteville, AR.

Legislative Action

    On March 15, 2024, Representative Brandon Williams (R-NY) 
introduced the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act 
(H.R. 7683) with Representatives Glenn Thompson (R-PA) and 
Virginia Foxx (R-NC).
    The bill was referred solely to the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce. On March 21, 2024, the Committee considered 
H.R. 7683 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as 
amended, to the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 
24-14. The Committee considered the following amendments to 
H.R. 7683:
    1. Representative Williams offered an Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute that made one minor grammatical change 
to the bill. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    2. Representative Kathy Manning (D-NC) offered an amendment 
that requires public colleges to explain during student 
orientation the student protections under Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act and the procedures for filing a claim for 
discrimination. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    3. Representative Kathy Manning (D-NC) offered an amendment 
that states that nothing in the bill is meant to prohibit IHEs 
from taking action against a student organization that 
knowingly provides material support or resources to an 
organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization. 
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

                            Committee Views


                              INTRODUCTION

    A university's key purpose is to create a marketplace of 
ideas ordered to the pursuit of knowledge. Whether enrolled in 
a liberal arts program, cybersecurity certificate, or in 
medical school, students learn fundamental theories and must 
know how to apply their knowledge to real world challenges, 
often preparing arguments and confronting differing opinions 
from their own as they seek, discover, and explore the best 
ideas their peers and the world have to offer. Freedom of 
speech and the other First Amendment rights have been a 
cornerstone in advancing American postsecondary education. The 
Supreme Court has long established that ``state colleges and 
universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the 
First Amendment.''\1\ Unfortunately, we regularly see the First 
Amendment under attack at colleges and universities.\2\ H.R. 
7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act, ensures 
that the First Amendment is upheld at public colleges and 
universities as well as at private colleges and universities 
that promise specific rights to their students and receive 
federal funding through Title IV of the HEA. Learning the art 
of disagreement, persuasion, and resolution produces better 
students and citizens, not angry mobs who silence their 
opposition or coerce conformity to specific ideologies and 
beliefs. H.R. 7683 will uphold Americans' constitutional rights 
and restore decency on college campuses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 
263 (1981) which states ``our cases leave no doubt that the First 
Amendment rights of speech and association extend to the campuses of 
state universities.''
    \2\https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/04/01/rep-
raskin-shouted-down-university-
maryland?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=685a187579-
DNU_2021_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-685a187579-
236720318&mc_cid=685a187579&mc_eid=c9e98a4375.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modern Challenges to Free Speech on Campuses

    Attacks on free speech can come from other students, 
faculty, or the university leadership itself. They can be 
either deliberate or inadvertent. Threats to free speech take 
various forms: shout downs,\3\ disinvitations of speakers,\4\ 
free speech zones,\5\ security fees,\6\ political litmus 
tests,\7\ and even physical violence in reaction to speech\8\ 
are pervasive on college campuses. Students and faculty should 
never fear for their safety and livelihoods for expressing 
differing, and often conservative, opinions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2023/
04/13/shouting-down-speakers-who-offend.
    \4\https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/29/universities-
politically-controversial-commencement-speakers-student-protest-column/
734068002/.
    \5\https://www.campusreform.org/article/georgia-schools-free-
speech-zone-policy-might-breaking-law-legal-group- finds-exclusive-/
24999.
    \6\https://www.thefire.org/news/dartmouth-continues-violate-
college-republicans-rights-imposing-3600-security-fees-following.
    \7\https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/asus-dei-regime-mandates-
discriminatory-inclusivity-training-so-were-suing/.
    \8\https://pen.org/press-release/pen-america-condemns-uc-berkeley-
protests-that-turned-violent-with-reported-antisemitic-bigotry/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shout Downs (the Heckler's Veto) and Disinvitations

    Deliberate shout downs occur when protesters, generally 
student led, attempt to disrupt or cancel a speech by yelling 
over the speaker, issuing threats, or even rioting. When the 
university either fails to stand up for the rights of the 
speaker or suppresses the speaker's speech because of the 
anticipated or actual reactions of the speaker's opponents, a 
heckler's veto has occurred.
    A stark example of a heckler's veto was seen when Stanford 
law students shouted down U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Stuart 
Kyle Duncan during an event hosted by the Federalist Society 
Chapter at Stanford Law School. Judge Duncan had been invited 
to lecture on recent decisions handed down by the Fifth 
Circuit, but students heckling and shouting obscenities 
directly at him prevented him from finishing his remarks. 
Multiple Stanford administrators were in the room, but when 
Judge Duncan asked them to intervene, a DEI administrator read 
prepared remarks shaming the judge for his opinions and 
claiming that he made students uncomfortable.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-video-shows-stanford-
protesters-heckling-trump-judge-as-dei-dean-appears-to-smirk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While in some instances protestors are protected by the 
First Amendment, free speech does not mean hecklers get to shut 
down a campus event.\10\ Free speech is allowed in public 
forums, but the Federalist Society event constituted a limited 
public forum where viewpoint-neutral and reasonable 
restrictions have been held as appropriate in the educational 
setting.\11\ After calls for the university to take stronger 
action to uphold the university's policies against this type of 
free speech violation, on March 22, 2023, the Stanford Law Dean 
released a letter more thoroughly reprimanding the actions that 
took place as not in line with university free speech policy. 
The letter also announced that students would be required to 
take mandatory educational programming to better understand 
freedom of speech and announced the DEI Dean would be 
suspended.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/24/free-speech-
doesnt-mean-hecklers-get-shut-down-campus-debate/.
    \11\Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College 
of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010).
    \12\https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Next-Steps-
on-Protests-and-Free-
Speech.pdf?mkt_tok=ODg0LUZTQi0zMDcAAAGKqNfmUfz2S_PCzkgUjCQGrC2DR1ji-
TGeKtn3NnnIoJpAduaZaZdKteNsL5dGzCkk5cwWC_6vm8autYIUyUQO4uIJy6lLbBGo4 
7NHk8_3iTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sadly, student acceptance of speaker shout downs remains 
high. A recent survey found that 45 percent of students believe 
blocking other students from attending a speech is 
acceptable.\13\ Even more worrisome, 25 percent of students 
believe using violence to stop speech is acceptable.\14\ This 
threat of violence and campus disruption has led multiple 
universities to preemptively cancel appearances by potentially 
``offensive'' speakers who simply have views that are contrary 
to the majority opinion on campus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-
speech-rankings.
    \14\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free speech zones and security fees

    Institutions must allow for ample opportunities for speech 
on campus. An institution may constitutionally craft a content 
and viewpoint neutral process for placing reasonable time, 
place, and manner restrictions on speech activities, but the 
so-called ``free speech zones'' that exist at many universities 
go much further. These oxymoronically named locations are 
plainly at odds with the First Amendment: while ``free speech 
zones'' have been propped up by some universities as areas 
where students can speak their minds, they effectively prohibit 
free speech anywhere outside the zone. Further, ``free speech 
zones'' are often small and in out-of-the-way areas, and thus 
add further restrictions to free speech. Still worse, sometimes 
students can only conditionally use a ``free speech zone,'' 
often needing to comply with requirements like pre-registering 
an event with an administrator, often days or weeks in advance, 
or adhere to strict time limits on expressive activities. H.R. 
7683 builds on Representative Greg Murphy's (R-NC) Campus Free 
Speech Restoration Act to prohibit public institutions from 
restricting an individual from freely engaging in noncommercial 
expressive activity on campus, including in ``free speech 
zones,'' except in limited and viewpoint-neutral circumstances 
consistent with the First Amendment. At its core, the freedom 
of speech allows for ample expression and should not be 
repressed by public institutions that censor speech through 
shout downs and other means. However, H.R. 7683 does state that 
expressive activity does not include unprotected speech as 
defined by Supreme Court precedents.
    Even when an institution moves forward with appropriate 
time, place, and manner restrictions, institutions sometimes 
assess high security fees to cover the costs of maintaining 
campus security during the visit of a controversial 
speaker.\15\ While government actors may charge security fees 
for those wishing to use public facilities for expressive 
purposes, the Supreme Court has held that varying the amount of 
security fees because of the anticipated hostility to speech is 
unconstitutional.\16\ A student or student group hosting a 
speaker cannot receive a drastically different security fee 
assessment than another student or student group on the basis 
that the event might draw protest. Institutions should remain 
committed to only implementing content-neutral policies, 
including security fee provisions. Representative Erin 
Houchin's (R-IN) Student Bill of Rights would require public 
institutions to make publicly available clear, objective, and 
content-and-viewpoint neutral standards to determine the 
security fees assessed for events. This policy is included 
within H.R. 7683 to ensure colleges are abiding by content- 
and-viewpoint neutral fee assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\https://www.yaf.org/news/berkeley-charges-conservative-
students-15k-exercise-first-amendment-rights/.
    \16\Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 
(1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7683 includes several other policies that would 
protect speech from censorship. The bill includes a Sense of 
Congress that non-sectarian institutions should adopt the well-
known Chicago Principles, or similar principles, that are a 
model statement expressing an institution's commitment to 
allowing free expression on campus.\17\ Additionally, H.R. 7683 
would decrease the likelihood of incidents of speech censorship 
by including Representative Kevin Kiley's (R-CA) Free Speech On 
Campus Act, which would require institutions to provide written 
educational materials during college orientation to explain 
students' First Amendment rights. Lastly, H.R. 7683 maintains 
robust accountability through transparency and requires all 
institutions that choose to receive federal aid through Title 
IV of the HEA to annually disclose any university policies 
regarding rights to speech, association, and religious 
expression as a condition of receiving aid. Increasing student 
and faculty awareness of university policies will decrease 
incidents of shout downs, cancellations, and disinvitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/
reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political Litmus Tests

    Universities also preemptively discourage unwanted speech 
and viewpoints through the use of political litmus tests. Many 
prospective and current students and faculty are being 
compelled to sign statements, provide specific statements, or 
otherwise express support for a particular position or ideology 
the institution wishes to propagate. Failure to adopt the 
prescribed opinion can result in academic or professional 
consequences for students and faculty. By pressuring students 
and faculty to adopt a political position or ideology, these 
university actions choke dissent and free inquiry. One such 
document is the ``Diversity Statement'' that many universities 
and colleges now require of applicants in their faculty hiring 
processes. A 2021 American Enterprise Institute report found 
that one out of every five American professors is hired based 
on his or her commitment to the principles of DEI instead of 
his or her merit.\18\ Representative Elise Stefanik's (R-NY) 
Restoring Academic Freedom on Campus Act would require 
institutions to end the use of political tests, such as 
required DEI statements, in admission, hiring, and promotion 
processes. A variation of this bill is included within H.R. 
7683. Students and faculty must be free to question, research, 
and argue in pursuit of knowledge. Institutions that use such 
political tests and programming to shut out varying views 
ensure ideological monopoly and conformity--both of which are 
antithetical to a college education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/other-than-merit-
the-prevalence-of-diversity-equity-and-inclusion- statements-in-
university-hiring/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom of Association and Religion

    In addition to protecting free speech, H.R. 7683 protects 
the right to assemble, which also guarantees individuals the 
freedom to associate with others. The First Amendment extends 
to government actors, including public institutions, which must 
not deny students from joining or forming a student 
organization, including a religious student organization. Court 
decisions have also affirmed that religious student 
organizations, as well as other student organizations, should 
be allowed to require their leaders to subscribe to certain 
leadership requirements.\19\ Public institutions must also 
provide benefits to religious student organizations in the same 
manner as all other student organizations.\20\ Representative 
Tim Walberg's (R-MI) Equal Campus Access Act would prohibit a 
public institution from denying a religious student group any 
right similarly afforded to other student organizations because 
of the religious group's beliefs, practices, or leadership 
standards. This bill is included in H.R. 7683. Private 
institutions are not obligated to provide the same association 
opportunities or freedom of religion policies, but many private 
colleges nevertheless support student organizations and 
religious student organizations. If a private institution's 
policies provide these promises, then they must uphold the 
benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\https://www.becketlaw.org/case/intervarsity-christian-
fellowship-v-university-iowa/.
    \20\Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of 
Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Courts have also defined the rights of student 
organizations specifically, as examples of institutions 
abridging freedoms have come to light in a variety of ways. 
H.R. 7683 includes Representative Houchin's Students Bill of 
Rights Act to tackle the issues student organizations may face.
    First, student groups seek ``recognition'' from 
universities to receive a portion of student activity fees, 
have the option to reserve meeting space on campus at no 
expense, and to advertise the organization to other students. 
Having a faculty sponsor is sometimes the only path for student 
groups to apply for recognition, but the lack of ideological 
diversity in faculty can make it difficult for groups to find a 
sponsor. In 1989, the liberal to conservative ratio among 
college faculty was 2.3:1. As of the 2016-2017 school year, 
that ratio had doubled to 5:1.\21\ Conservative faculty may 
also feel institutional pressure to not have their name 
associated with a student group. H.R. 7683 provides a pathway 
for student groups to have alternative means of gaining 
recognition, such as through an appeals process, that are not 
reliant on faculty sponsorship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\https://www.aei.org/articles/are-colleges-and-universities-too-
liberal-what-the-research-says-about-the-political- composition-of-
campuses-and-campus-climate/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, universities charge mandatory fees for activities 
and clubs. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Wisconsin v. 
Southworth (1999) that such fees were constitutional as long as 
the use of those funds for extracurricular student speech is 
viewpoint neutral.\22\ Instead, student groups have been forced 
to navigate a confusing and biased system in order to receive a 
fair share of student fees.\23\ Many universities will show 
ideological preference in funding and will not be transparent 
about how funding decisions are approved or denied. A 2020 
lawsuit against Cal State University (CSU)-San Marcos found 
that the Gender Equity Center and the LGBQTA Pride Center on 
campus received a combined $296,498 to fund their activities 
while a recognized Students for Life group was denied a $500 
grant request. The court ruled that CSU San Marcos 
unconstitutionally discriminated against certain viewpoints in 
their allocation of student activities funds.\24\ H.R. 7683 
would instead require public institutions to provide mandatory 
fees to recognized student organizations in a content and 
viewpoint-neutral manner and to make public the methods for fee 
disbursement so all students have an understanding of how 
mandatory fees are allocated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98 1189.
    \23\https://adfmedia.org/case/young-americans-freedom-v-university-
florida.
    \24\https://adfmedia.org/press-release/pro-life-student-groups-
lawsuit-prompts-systemwide-policy-change-nations-largest-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, institutions should treat all recognized student 
groups the same when it comes to funding eligibility and should 
be clear about the funding process. In Forsyth County, Georgia 
v. Nationalist Movement (1992), the Supreme Court held that 
varying the amount of security fees because of the anticipated 
hostility to speech is unconstitutional.\25\ Despite this, 
institutions still assess abnormally high security fees on 
certain ideological viewpoints. For example, in 2017, the 
University of California Berkeley charged over $15,000 for a 
student group to host speaker Ben Shapiro.\26\ A student 
group's ability to exercise free speech should not be 
contingent on arbitrarily imposed fees. H.R. 7683 affirms that 
public institutions should only implement security fee 
provisions that are content-neutral, with clear transparency 
about security fee structure and policies surrounding security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-538.
    \26\https://www.yaf.org/news/berkeley-charges-conservative-
students-15k-exercise-first-amendment-rights/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fourth, institutions also have a responsibility to protect 
invited speakers when security is needed. Former swimmer Riley 
Gaines was surrounded by an angry mob and physically hit 
multiple times after giving a speech for a student group event 
at San Francisco State University.\27\ In her response to the 
incident, the university's vice president for student affairs 
called the protest ``peaceful.''\28\ Institutions should foster 
a culture where students can protest in a constitutional 
manner, not with violence and intimidation. H.R. 7683 would 
require public institutions to ensure speakers of all 
viewpoints are safe by making public the institution's content-
and viewpoint-neutral standards to govern the protection of 
speakers and guests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\https://www.foxnews.com/politics/riley-gaines-ambushed-
physically-hit-after-saving-womens-sports-speech-san-francisco-state.
    \28\https://www.foxnews.com/sports/sf-state-president-calls-riley-
gaines-sex-protected-sports-speech-deeply-traumatic-trans-community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Single-sex social organizations have also been the subject 
of institutional admonishment, and students have even been 
subject to adverse action. In 2019, a federal court held that 
university policies that punish students that are part of 
unrecognized single-sex organizations are discriminating based 
on sex and limiting association.\29\ H.R. 7683 includes 
Representative Stefanik's Freedom of Association in Higher 
Education Act to protect a student's choice to associate with 
an organization, ensures universities cannot unfairly impose 
operational policies or restrictions on single-sex 
organizations, and allows these organizations to define their 
own membership criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/08/14/federal-
judge-rules-that-harvard-may-be-discriminating-against-single-sex-
organizations/?sh=2c7a66be6ccc;
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/06/30/harvard-
rescinds-policy-against-fraternities-sororities-other-single-gender-
organizations/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enforcement

    More than 20 years ago, the federal government declared the 
importance of free speech on college campuses. The 1998 
reauthorization of HEA included a Sense of Congress in support 
of ``the free and open exchange of ideas.'' This language 
received broad bipartisan support as well as support from 
outside groups across the political spectrum. An amendment 
offered by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in the 2008 HEA 
reauthorization adopted even stronger pro-free speech language 
by condemning efforts to discriminate against students because 
of their speech.\30\ Despite these efforts, the HEA still fails 
to provide a strong enforcement provision that would hold 
universities accountable or provide a method by which aggrieved 
students and faculty can fight oppression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1011a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Acknowledging the rising assault on free speech, 23 states 
have enacted legislation to strengthen the First Amendment on 
college campuses\31\ and 11 states have passed legislation 
prohibiting DEI in some form on college campuses.\32\ 
Unfortunately, most states have not prioritized these issues 
comprehensively, leaving students and faculty vulnerable to 
attacks on their freedom. When legislatures have attempted to 
provide protections for free speech specifically, the proposals 
have failed to include strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure 
universities are effectively protecting the constitutional 
rights of their students and faculty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\https://www.thefire.org/legislation/enacted-campus-free-speech-
statutes/.
    \32\Utah, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, 
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas https://www.axios.com/
local/salt-lake-city/2024/02/01/anti-dei-bills-have-surged-since-2021; 
Alabama https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/03/22/
alabama-governor-oks-bill-targeting-dei-divisive-concepts; and Indiana 
https://www.nas.org/blogs/statement/indiana-senate-bill-202-reforms-
dei-policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In recent years, the Executive Branch has also engaged in 
upholding fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment 
with a strong enforcement mechanism. On September 23, 2020, the 
Trump administration's Department of Education (ED) issued the 
Religious Liberty and Free Inquiry final rule regarding 
compliance with the First Amendment for both public and private 
institutions that receive grants from ED.\33\ However, in 
February of 2023, the Biden administration announced its review 
of certain aspects of the Free Inquiry Rule related to 
institutions' compliance.\34\ Under the rule, ED would rely on 
a state or federal court to determine a final, non-default 
judgement that the institution violated the First Amendment 
and, therefore, ED grant requirements. H.R. 7683 uses a similar 
enforcement policy by amending the HEA to provide a right of 
action against a public institution that has seemingly violated 
the policies included in the bill and would rely on a court's 
non-default, final judgement to determine if an institution is 
in fact in violation. H.R. 7683 would require a public 
institution to report any final, non-default judgement to ED no 
more than seven days after the judgement is received and submit 
a report within 30 days to ED to certify the practice has been 
reversed. If the institution were to fail to submit this 
report, the institution would have its Title IV eligibility 
revoked for the following award year. To be clear, an 
institution would not automatically lose federal aid 
eligibility if there were a claim of a violation of H.R. 7683. 
Instead, H.R. 7683 provides for a fair and orderly process to 
evaluate if an institution has breached an individual's or a 
group's rights, and it provides time and opportunities for an 
institution to reverse a court-affirmed violation before the 
final enforcement policy is exerted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09-23/pdf/2020-
20152.pdf.
    \34\https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/22/2023-
03671/request-for-information-regarding-first-amendment-and-free-
inquiry-related-grant-conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    College campuses are a breeding ground for illiberal 
thought. Shout downs, cancelations, disinvitations, 
disciplinary action, and even physical violence in reaction to 
speech are pervasive on college campuses. The forced commitment 
to DEI is exploding. Political litmus tests in admissions and 
hiring processes penalize applicants for not conforming to the 
``acceptable'' beliefs of the day. Universities receive 
hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars but deny students and 
staff American freedoms, ignoring established court doctrine 
respecting the First Amendment. H.R. 7683, the Respecting the 
First Amendment on Campus Act, restores the spirit and letter 
of constitutional principles on college campuses by making 
First Amendment rights on campus a condition of receiving Title 
IV funds under the HEA.

                                Summary


                  H.R. 7683 SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY

Section 1. Short title

     Identifies the short title of the bill as the 
Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act.

Section 2. Sense of Congress

     The bill adds a sense of Congress acknowledging 
the profound contribution of the University of Chicago's 
Chicago Principles that emphasize a commitment to freedom of 
speech and calls on non-sectarian institutions of higher 
education to adopt the Chicago Principles, or substantially 
similar principles, and to develop and consistently implement 
policies accordingly.
     The bill adds a sense of Congress originally 
introduced as H. Res. 282 by Representative Murphy. The sense 
of Congress condemns public institutions for conditioning 
student admission, hiring, reappointment, or promotion of any 
faculty member on making a statement of support or opposition 
to any political ideology, including regarding diversity, 
equity, and inclusion. The sense of Congress also discourages 
any institutions from requesting or compelling this type of 
statement from student applicants or faculty members.
     The bill includes a provision affirming that 
nothing in this bill shall be construed to infringe upon, or 
otherwise impact, the protections provided under title VI and 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Section 3. Disclosure of institutional policies related to speech, 
        association and religious rights

     No institution will be eligible to receive Title 
IV funding unless it certifies to ED that the institution has 
annually disclosed to current and prospective students and 
faculty any policies held by the institution related to 
association, religion, and speech. The bill also requires 
public institutions to disclose the right to a cause of action.

Section 4. Freedom of association and religion

     The bill includes Representative Houchin's 
Students Bill of Rights Act, which would affirm the rights of 
student organizations and students at public institutions 
receiving funding through Title IV of the HEA.
           An institution may not deny recognition 
        to a student organization because the organization is 
        unable to find a faculty sponsor. In the case of a 
        student organization that meets all other institutional 
        requirements for recognition but cannot find a faculty 
        sponsor, an institution must provide an alternative to 
        be recognized, which may include waiving the faculty 
        sponsor requirement or the assignment of a sponsor by 
        the university to perform the required administrative 
        functions. An institution is also required to provide 
        an appeals process for student organizations that are 
        initially denied recognition. The institution must 
        provide a written explanation for denying recognition 
        in a timely manner, provide written notice of the 
        appeal process and the timeline to resolve the appeal, 
        allow students to obtain counsel, and ensure that an 
        appellate entity did not participate in the prior 
        decision to deny recognition to the student 
        organization.
           An institution that collects mandatory 
        student fees must establish and make publicly available 
        clear, objective, content- and viewpoint-neutral 
        standards to allocate funding for recognized student 
        organizations. If a recognized student organization 
        requests information on why it was denied some or all 
        of its funding, an institution must provide a specific 
        reason, copies of policies relied on to deny the 
        funding, and provide an appeals process for the 
        recognized student organization.
           An institution must make publicly 
        available clear, objective, and content- and viewpoint-
        neutral standards to determine the security fees 
        assessed for events organized by a student or student 
        organizations.
           An institution must establish and make 
        publicly available clear, objective, and content- and 
        viewpoint-neutral standards to be used by the 
        institution for the safety and protection of speakers 
        and guests who are invited to an institution by a 
        student or student organization.
     The bill includes Representative Walberg's Equal 
Campus Access Act to prohibit public institutions receiving 
funding through Title IV of the HEA from denying a religious 
student organization any right otherwise afforded to other 
student organizations because of the organization's religious 
beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards, or standards 
of conduct.
     The bill includes Representative Stefanik's 
Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act to protect 
students' free association right to join a single-sex social 
organization. Students or a group of students at all 
institutions receiving Title IV funding must be able to form or 
apply to join a single-sex social organization. An institution 
must not take any adverse action against a single-sex social 
organization or a member of the single-sex organization, such 
as suspension, other disciplinary action, withholding financial 
assistance or access to on-campus housing, participation in 
extracurricular clubs, or withholding letters of recommendation 
because of the membership practice of the organization. The 
bill allows single-sex social organizations to regulate their 
own membership. However, nothing prevents the institution from 
not officially recognizing a single-sex social organization or 
taking adverse action against a student because of misconduct. 
Public institutions can also take adverse action if the 
organization's purposes incite imminent lawless action; for 
private institutions can take adverse action if the 
organization's purpose is incompatible with the religious 
mission of the institution, so long as that adverse action is 
not based on the organization being a single-sex social 
organization.

Section 5. Freedom of speech

     The bill includes Representative Kiley's Free 
Speech on Campus Act, which requires a public institution 
receiving funding through Title IV of the HEA to provide a 
written statement to new and transfer students at orientation 
that explains the First Amendment rights of students, including 
assurances of the institution's commitment to freedom of 
expression and stating that students and speakers will not have 
their rights violated. Institutions must also provide 
educational programming at orientation on free speech rights 
and responsibilities and post the materials online.
     The bill includes provisions based on 
Representative Murphy's Campus Free Speech Restoration Act, 
which prohibits a public institution receiving funding through 
Title IV of the HEA from preventing a person from freely 
engaging in noncommercial expressive activity on campus, 
including by enforcing restrictions on expressive activity to 
only ``free speech zones,'' except in limited content- and 
viewpoint-neutral circumstances consistent with the First 
Amendment.
     The bill includes provisions based on 
Representative Stefanik's Restoring Academic Freedom on Campus 
Act, which prevents a public institution receiving funding 
through Title IV of the HEA from requiring a political test for 
student admission or appointment, hiring, promotion, or 
granting of tenure to faculty. The bill defines a political 
test as compelling a student applicant or employee of an 
institution to commit to or make a statement in support or 
opposition to any ideology or partisan belief. A political test 
is also defined as compelling a student or employee to promote 
the disparate treatment of an individual because of his or her 
race, color, or national origin, such as through diversity, 
equity, and inclusion initiatives.

Section 6. Enforcement

     If an institution fails to certify that it 
disclosed its policies on speech, association, or religion to 
current and prospective students and faculty annually, the 
institution will be ineligible to receive Title IV funding. In 
order to regain eligibility to receive funding, an institution 
must demonstrate compliance with the disclosure requirement.
     The bill would add a cause of action to the HEA 
for an aggrieved individual or organization that is harmed by a 
violation of the requirements of this bill and who has 
exhausted any available appeals. This cause of action would 
only apply to violations at a public institution receiving 
Title IV funding. Similar to the judicial enforcement piece of 
the Trump administration's Religious Liberty and Free Inquiry 
Rule, if a court's non-default final judgement finds the 
institution violated any requirements in this bill, the 
institution must notify ED no later than seven days after the 
non-default, final judgement. The institution must also submit 
a report not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
court makes a non-default final decision certifying that the 
policy or practice is no longer in use and providing evidence 
to support the certification. If the institution does not 
notify ED or reverse the policy or practice, then ED will 
revoke Title IV eligibility for the following award year. An 
institution may submit a report to ED providing evidence that 
the policy or practice is no longer in use to restore Title IV 
eligibility.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch. H.R. 7683 ensures that First Amendment protections are 
upheld at colleges and universities that receive funding 
through Title IV of the HEA. H.R. 7683 is applicable only to 
institutions of higher education and therefore does not apply 
to the Legislative Branch.

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

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

                           Earmark Statement

    H.R. 7683 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

                            Roll Call Votes

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


         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause (3)(c) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the goal of H.R. 7683 is to 
require institutions of higher education that receive funding 
through Title IV of the HEA to adopt and adhere to principles 
of free speech.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 7683 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

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

            Required Committee Hearing and Related Hearings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives the following hearing held 
during the 118th Congress was used to develop or consider H.R. 
7683: On March 29, 2023, the Subcommittee on Higher Education 
and Workforce Development of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing entitled, ``Diversity of Thought: 
Protecting Free Speech on College Campuses.'' On March 7, 2024, 
the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development 
held a hearing entitled, ``Divisive, Excessive, Ineffective: 
The Real Impact of DEI on College Campuses.''

               New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate

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




    H.R. 7683 would require postsecondary education 
institutions to meet certain requirements to participate in 
federal student aid programs, including the Federal Pell Grant 
Program and the federal student loan programs.
    Under the bill, public institutions generally would have 
to:
     Allow students to freely engage in noncommercial 
expressive activity on campus;
     Provide religious student organizations with any 
rights otherwise afforded to other student organizations;
     Make admission and employment decisions without 
soliciting applicants' or employees' personal beliefs regarding 
any particular social or political issues, including diversity, 
equity, and inclusion initiatives beyond upholding existing 
federal law; and
     Publish viewpoint-neutral policies for allocating 
mandatory student fees among student organizations and for 
assessing security fees for student-organized events.
    If a public institution was found by a court to have 
violated any of the bill's requirements, the institution would 
lose eligibility for federal student aid until the Secretary of 
Education determined that the institution was no longer in 
violation.
    In addition, public and private institutions could lose 
eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs if 
they violated the bill's requirements to allow students to form 
or join single-sex organizations and disclose annually to 
students and faculty any institutional policies related to 
freedom of association, religion, or speech. Institutions could 
still prohibit student organizations that knowingly provide 
support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.
    Finally, H.R. 7683 would require the Department of 
Education to report annually to the Congress summarizing 
institutional violations and the actions taken by the 
department to restore institutions' eligibility.
    Using information about the cost of similar activities, CBO 
estimates that it would cost less than $500,000 over the 2024-
2029 period for the Department of Education to publish 
regulations, monitor violations, and report annually. Any 
spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated 
funds.
    In addition, institutions that violated the provisions of 
H.R. 7683 could lose eligibility for federal student aid; those 
programs are funded both by direct spending and by spending 
subject to appropriation. Because CBO expects that institutions 
would generally comply with the bill's requirements, we 
estimate that enacting the bill would not significantly reduce 
direct spending or spending subject to appropriation.
    CBO's estimate of H.R. 7683 is subject to uncertainty. 
Enacting the bill would allow individuals and organizations to 
bring civil suits against public postsecondary educational 
institutions that fail to meet the bill's requirements. The 
number of such actions that might be brought, and their 
ultimate outcome, is uncertain. If more institutions lose 
eligibility under H.R. 7683 than CBO expects, the reduction in 
federal spending would be larger than CBO estimates.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Margot Berman. 
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Director of Budget Analysis.
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                             Director, Congressional Budget Office.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the 
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 3400. 
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when, as with the present report, 
the Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART B--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--STUDENT ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Part G--General Provisions Relating to Student Assistance Programs

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 487. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS.

  (a) Required for Programs of Assistance; Contents.--In order 
to be an eligible institution for the purposes of any program 
authorized under this title, an institution must be an 
institution of higher education or an eligible institution (as 
that term is defined for the purpose of that program) and 
shall, except with respect to a program under subpart 4 of part 
A, enter into a program participation agreement with the 
Secretary. The agreement shall condition the initial and 
continuing eligibility of an institution to participate in a 
program upon compliance with the following requirements:
          (1) The institution will use funds received by it for 
        any program under this title and any interest or other 
        earnings thereon solely for the purpose specified in 
        and in accordance with the provision of that program.
          (2) The institution shall not charge any student a 
        fee for processing or handling any application, form, 
        or data required to determine the student's eligibility 
        for assistance under this title or the amount of such 
        assistance.
          (3) The institution will establish and maintain such 
        administrative and fiscal procedures and records as may 
        be necessary to ensure proper and efficient 
        administration of funds received from the Secretary or 
        from students under this title, together with 
        assurances that the institution will provide, upon 
        request and in a timely fashion, information relating 
        to the administrative capability and financial 
        responsibility of the institution to--
                  (A) the Secretary;
                  (B) the appropriate guaranty agency; and
                  (C) the appropriate accrediting agency or 
                association.
          (4) The institution will comply with the provisions 
        of subsection (c) of this section and the regulations 
        prescribed under that subsection, relating to fiscal 
        eligibility.
          (5) The institution will submit reports to the 
        Secretary and, in the case of an institution 
        participating in a program under part B or part E, to 
        holders of loans made to the institution's students 
        under such parts at such times and containing such 
        information as the Secretary may reasonably require to 
        carry out the purpose of this title.
          (6) The institution will not provide any student with 
        any statement or certification to any lender under part 
        B that qualifies the student for a loan or loans in 
        excess of the amount that student is eligible to borrow 
        in accordance with sections 425(a), 428(a)(2), and 
        428(b)(1) (A) and (B).
          (7) The institution will comply with the requirements 
        of section 485.
          (8) In the case of an institution that advertises job 
        placement rates as a means of attracting students to 
        enroll in the institution, the institution will make 
        available to prospective students, at or before the 
        time of application (A) the most recent available data 
        concerning employment statistics, graduation 
        statistics, and any other information necessary to 
        substantiate the truthfulness of the advertisements, 
        and (B) relevant State licensing requirements of the 
        State in which such institution is located for any job 
        for which the course of instruction is designed to 
        prepare such prospective students.
          (9) In the case of an institution participating in a 
        program under part B or D, the institution will inform 
        all eligible borrowers enrolled in the institution 
        about the availability and eligibility of such 
        borrowers for State grant assistance from the State in 
        which the institution is located, and will inform such 
        borrowers from another State of the source for further 
        information concerning such assistance from that State.
          (10) The institution certifies that it has in 
        operation a drug abuse prevention program that is 
        determined by the institution to be accessible to any 
        officer, employee, or student at the institution.
          (11) In the case of any institution whose students 
        receive financial assistance pursuant to section 
        484(d), the institution will make available to such 
        students a program proven successful in assisting 
        students in obtaining a certificate of high school 
        equivalency.
          (12) The institution certifies that--
                  (A) the institution has established a campus 
                security policy; and
                  (B) the institution has complied with the 
                disclosure requirements of section 485(f).
          (13) The institution will not deny any form of 
        Federal financial aid to any student who meets the 
        eligibility requirements of this title on the grounds 
        that the student is participating in a program of study 
        abroad approved for credit by the institution.
          (14)(A) The institution, in order to participate as 
        an eligible institution under part B or D, will develop 
        a Default Management Plan for approval by the Secretary 
        as part of its initial application for certification as 
        an eligible institution and will implement such Plan 
        for two years thereafter.
          (B) Any institution of higher education which changes 
        ownership and any eligible institution which changes 
        its status as a parent or subordinate institution 
        shall, in order to participate as an eligible 
        institution under part B or D, develop a Default 
        Management Plan for approval by the Secretary and 
        implement such Plan for two years after its change of 
        ownership or status.
          (C) This paragraph shall not apply in the case of an 
        institution in which (i) neither the parent nor the 
        subordinate institution has a cohort default rate in 
        excess of 10 percent, and (ii) the new owner of such 
        parent or subordinate institution does not, and has 
        not, owned any other institution with a cohort default 
        rate in excess of 10 percent.
          (15) The institution acknowledges the authority of 
        the Secretary, guaranty agencies, lenders, accrediting 
        agencies, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the 
        State agencies under subpart 1 of part H to share with 
        each other any information pertaining to the 
        institution's eligibility to participate in programs 
        under this title or any information on fraud and abuse.
          (16)(A) The institution will not knowingly employ an 
        individual in a capacity that involves the 
        administration of programs under this title, or the 
        receipt of program funds under this title, who has been 
        convicted of, or has pled nolo contendere or guilty to, 
        a crime involving the acquisition, use, or expenditure 
        of funds under this title, or has been judicially 
        determined to have committed fraud involving funds 
        under this title or contract with an institution or 
        third party servicer that has been terminated under 
        section 432 involving the acquisition, use, or 
        expenditure of funds under this title, or who has been 
        judicially determined to have committed fraud involving 
        funds under this title.
          (B) The institution will not knowingly contract with 
        or employ any individual, agency, or organization that 
        has been, or whose officers or employees have been--
                  (i) convicted of, or pled nolo contendere or 
                guilty to, a crime involving the acquisition, 
                use, or expenditure of funds under this title; 
                or
                  (ii) judicially determined to have committed 
                fraud involving funds under this title.
          (17) The institution will complete surveys conducted 
        as a part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education 
        Data System (IPEDS) or any other Federal postsecondary 
        institution data collection effort, as designated by 
        the Secretary, in a timely manner and to the 
        satisfaction of the Secretary.
          (18) The institution will meet the requirements 
        established pursuant to section 485(g).
          (19) The institution will not impose any penalty, 
        including the assessment of late fees, the denial of 
        access to classes, libraries, or other institutional 
        facilities, or the requirement that the student borrow 
        additional funds, on any student because of the 
        student's inability to meet his or her financial 
        obligations to the institution as a result of the 
        delayed disbursement of the proceeds of a loan made 
        under this title due to compliance with the provisions 
        of this title, or delays attributable to the 
        institution.
          (20) The institution will not provide any commission, 
        bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or 
        indirectly on success in securing enrollments or 
        financial aid to any persons or entities engaged in any 
        student recruiting or admission activities or in making 
        decisions regarding the award of student financial 
        assistance, except that this paragraph shall not apply 
        to the recruitment of foreign students residing in 
        foreign countries who are not eligible to receive 
        Federal student assistance.
          (21) The institution will meet the requirements 
        established by the Secretary and accrediting agencies 
        or associations, and will provide evidence to the 
        Secretary that the institution has the authority to 
        operate within a State.
          (22) The institution will comply with the refund 
        policy established pursuant to section 484B.
          (23)(A) The institution, if located in a State to 
        which section 4(b) of the National Voter Registration 
        Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-2(b)) does not apply, 
        will make a good faith effort to distribute a mail 
        voter registration form, requested and received from 
        the State, to each student enrolled in a degree or 
        certificate program and physically in attendance at the 
        institution, and to make such forms widely available to 
        students at the institution.
          (B) The institution shall request the forms from the 
        State 120 days prior to the deadline for registering to 
        vote within the State. If an institution has not 
        received a sufficient quantity of forms to fulfill this 
        section from the State within 60 days prior to the 
        deadline for registering to vote in the State, the 
        institution shall not be held liable for not meeting 
        the requirements of this section during that election 
        year.
          (C) This paragraph shall apply to general and special 
        elections for Federal office, as defined in section 
        301(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
        U.S.C. 431(3)), and to the elections for Governor or 
        other chief executive within such State).
                  (D) The institution shall be considered in 
                compliance with the requirements of 
                subparagraph (A) for each student to whom the 
                institution electronically transmits a message 
                containing a voter registration form acceptable 
                for use in the State in which the institution 
                is located, or an Internet address where such a 
                form can be downloaded, if such information is 
                in an electronic message devoted exclusively to 
                voter registration.
          (24) In the case of a proprietary institution of 
        higher education (as defined in section 102(b)), such 
        institution will derive not less than ten percent of 
        such institution's revenues from sources other than 
        Federal funds that are disbursed or delivered to or on 
        behalf of a student to be used to attend such 
        institution (referred to in this paragraph and 
        subsection (d) as ``Federal education assistance 
        funds''), as calculated in accordance with subsection 
        (d)(1), or will be subject to the sanctions described 
        in subsection (d)(2).
          (25) In the case of an institution that participates 
        in a loan program under this title, the institution 
        will--
                  (A) develop a code of conduct with respect to 
                such loans with which the institution's 
                officers, employees, and agents shall comply, 
                that--
                          (i) prohibits a conflict of interest 
                        with the responsibilities of an 
                        officer, employee, or agent of an 
                        institution with respect to such loans; 
                        and
                          (ii) at a minimum, includes the 
                        provisions described in subsection (e);
                  (B) publish such code of conduct prominently 
                on the institution's website; and
                  (C) administer and enforce such code by, at a 
                minimum, requiring that all of the 
                institution's officers, employees, and agents 
                with responsibilities with respect to such 
                loans be annually informed of the provisions of 
                the code of conduct.
          (26) The institution will, upon written request, 
        disclose to the alleged victim of any crime of violence 
        (as that term is defined in section 16 of title 18, 
        United States Code), or a nonforcible sex offense, the 
        report on the results of any disciplinary proceeding 
        conducted by such institution against a student who is 
        the alleged perpetrator of such crime or offense with 
        respect to such crime or offense. If the alleged victim 
        of such crime or offense is deceased as a result of 
        such crime or offense, the next of kin of such victim 
        shall be treated as the alleged victim for purposes of 
        this paragraph.
          (27) In the case of an institution that has entered 
        into a preferred lender arrangement, the institution 
        will at least annually compile, maintain, and make 
        available for students attending the institution, and 
        the families of such students, a list, in print or 
        other medium, of the specific lenders for loans made, 
        insured, or guaranteed under this title or private 
        education loans that the institution recommends, 
        promotes, or endorses in accordance with such preferred 
        lender arrangement. In making such list, the 
        institution shall comply with the requirements of 
        subsection (h).
          (28)(A) The institution will, upon the request of an 
        applicant for a private education loan, provide to the 
        applicant the form required under section 128(e)(3) of 
        the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1638(e)(3)), and 
        the information required to complete such form, to the 
        extent the institution possesses such information.
          (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
        ``private education loan'' has the meaning given such 
        term in section 140 of the Truth in Lending Act.
          (29) The institution certifies that the institution--
                  (A) has developed plans to effectively combat 
                the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted 
                material, including through the use of a 
                variety of technology-based deterrents; and
                  (B) will, to the extent practicable, offer 
                alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-
                peer distribution of intellectual property, as 
                determined by the institution in consultation 
                with the chief technology officer or other 
                designated officer of the institution.
          (30)(A) In the case of an institution that is a 
        public institution, the institution will comply with 
        all the requirements of sections 112B through 112D.
          (B) In the case of an institution that is not a 
        public institution, the institution will comply with 
        sections 112B and 112C(c).
          (C) An institution that fails to comply with section 
        112B or 112C(c) 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) Hearings.--(1) An institution that has received written 
notice of a final audit or program review determination and 
that desires to have such determination reviewed by the 
Secretary shall submit to the Secretary a written request for 
review not later than 45 days after receipt of notification of 
the final audit or program review determination.
  (2) The Secretary shall, upon receipt of written notice under 
paragraph (1), arrange for a hearing and notify the institution 
within 30 days of receipt of such notice the date, time, and 
place of such hearing. Such hearing shall take place not later 
than 120 days from the date upon which the Secretary notifies 
the institution.
  (c) Audits; Financial Responsibility; Enforcement of 
Standards.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 
title, the Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
necessary to provide for--
          (A)(i) except as provided in clauses (ii) and (iii), 
        a financial audit of an eligible institution with 
        regard to the financial condition of the institution in 
        its entirety, and a compliance audit of such 
        institution with regard to any funds obtained by it 
        under this title or obtained from a student or a parent 
        who has a loan insured or guaranteed by the Secretary 
        under this title, on at least an annual basis and 
        covering the period since the most recent audit, 
        conducted by a qualified, independent organization or 
        person in accordance with standards established by the 
        Comptroller General for the audit of governmental 
        organizations, programs, and functions, and as 
        prescribed in regulations of the Secretary, the results 
        of which shall be submitted to the Secretary and shall 
        be available to cognizant guaranty agencies, eligible 
        lenders, State agencies, and the appropriate State 
        agency notifying the Secretary under subpart 1 of part 
        H, except that the Secretary may modify the 
        requirements of this clause with respect to 
        institutions of higher education that are foreign 
        institutions, and may waive such requirements with 
        respect to a foreign institution whose students receive 
        less than $500,000 in loans under this title during the 
        award year preceding the audit period;
          (ii) with regard to an eligible institution which is 
        audited under chapter 75 of title 31, United States 
        Code, deeming such audit to satisfy the requirements of 
        clause (i) for the period covered by such audit; or
          (iii) at the discretion of the Secretary, with regard 
        to an eligible institution (other than an eligible 
        institution described in section 102(a)(1)(C)) that has 
        obtained less than $200,000 in funds under this title 
        during each of the 2 award years that precede the audit 
        period and submits a letter of credit payable to the 
        Secretary equal to not less than \1/2\ of the annual 
        potential liabilities of such institution as determined 
        by the Secretary, deeming an audit conducted every 3 
        years to satisfy the requirements of clause (i), except 
        for the award year immediately preceding renewal of the 
        institution's eligibility under section 498(g);
          (B) in matters not governed by specific program 
        provisions, the establishment of reasonable standards 
        of financial responsibility and appropriate 
        institutional capability for the administration by an 
        eligible institution of a program of student financial 
        aid under this title, including any matter the 
        Secretary deems necessary to the sound administration 
        of the financial aid programs, such as the pertinent 
        actions of any owner, shareholder, or person exercising 
        control over an eligible institution;
          (C)(i) except as provided in clause (ii), a 
        compliance audit of a third party servicer (other than 
        with respect to the servicer's functions as a lender if 
        such functions are otherwise audited under this part 
        and such audits meet the requirements of this clause), 
        with regard to any contract with an eligible 
        institution, guaranty agency, or lender for 
        administering or servicing any aspect of the student 
        assistance programs under this title, at least once 
        every year and covering the period since the most 
        recent audit, conducted by a qualified, independent 
        organization or person in accordance with standards 
        established by the Comptroller General for the audit of 
        governmental organizations, programs, and functions, 
        and as prescribed in regulations of the Secretary, the 
        results of which shall be submitted to the Secretary; 
        or
          (ii) with regard to a third party servicer that is 
        audited under chapter 75 of title 31, United States 
        Code, such audit shall be deemed to satisfy the 
        requirements of clause (i) for the period covered by 
        such audit;
          (D)(i) a compliance audit of a secondary market with 
        regard to its transactions involving, and its servicing 
        and collection of, loans made under this title, at 
        least once a year and covering the period since the 
        most recent audit, conducted by a qualified, 
        independent organization or person in accordance with 
        standards established by the Comptroller General for 
        the audit of governmental organizations, programs, and 
        functions, and as prescribed in regulations of the 
        Secretary, the results of which shall be submitted to 
        the Secretary; or
          (ii) with regard to a secondary market that is 
        audited under chapter 75 of title 31, United States 
        Code, such audit shall be deemed to satisfy the 
        requirements of clause (i) for the period covered by 
        the audit;
          (E) the establishment, by each eligible institution 
        under part B responsible for furnishing to the lender 
        the statement required by section 428(a)(2)(A)(i), of 
        policies and procedures by which the latest known 
        address and enrollment status of any student who has 
        had a loan insured under this part and who has either 
        formally terminated his enrollment, or failed to re-
        enroll on at least a half-time basis, at such 
        institution, shall be furnished either to the holder 
        (or if unknown, the insurer) of the note, not later 
        than 60 days after such termination or failure to re-
        enroll;
          (F) the limitation, suspension, or termination of the 
        participation in any program under this title of an 
        eligible institution, or the imposition of a civil 
        penalty under paragraph (3)(B) whenever the Secretary 
        has determined, after reasonable notice and opportunity 
        for hearing, that such institution has violated or 
        failed to carry out any provision of this title, any 
        regulation prescribed under this title, or any 
        applicable special arrangement, agreement, or 
        limitation, except that no period of suspension under 
        this section shall exceed 60 days unless the 
        institution and the Secretary agree to an extension or 
        unless limitation or termination proceedings are 
        initiated by the Secretary within that period of time;
          (G) an emergency action against an institution, under 
        which the Secretary shall, effective on the date on 
        which a notice and statement of the basis of the action 
        is mailed to the institution (by registered mail, 
        return receipt requested), withhold funds from the 
        institution or its students and withdraw the 
        institution's authority to obligate funds under any 
        program under this title, if the Secretary--
                  (i) receives information, determined by the 
                Secretary to be reliable, that the institution 
                is violating any provision of this title, any 
                regulation prescribed under this title, or any 
                applicable special arrangement, agreement, or 
                limitation,
                  (ii) determines that immediate action is 
                necessary to prevent misuse of Federal funds, 
                and
                  (iii) determines that the likelihood of loss 
                outweighs the importance of the procedures 
                prescribed under subparagraph (D) for 
                limitation, suspension, or termination,
        except that an emergency action shall not exceed 30 
        days unless limitation, suspension, or termination 
        proceedings are initiated by the Secretary against the 
        institution within that period of time, and except that 
        the Secretary shall provide the institution an 
        opportunity to show cause, if it so requests, that the 
        emergency action is unwarranted;
          (H) the limitation, suspension, or termination of the 
        eligibility of a third party servicer to contract with 
        any institution to administer any aspect of an 
        institution's student assistance program under this 
        title, or the imposition of a civil penalty under 
        paragraph (3)(B), whenever the Secretary has 
        determined, after reasonable notice and opportunity for 
        a hearing, that such organization, acting on behalf of 
        an institution, has violated or failed to carry out any 
        provision of this title, any regulation prescribed 
        under this title, or any applicable special 
        arrangement, agreement, or limitation, except that no 
        period of suspension under this subparagraph shall 
        exceed 60 days unless the organization and the 
        Secretary agree to an extension, or unless limitation 
        or termination proceedings are initiated by the 
        Secretary against the individual or organization within 
        that period of time; and
          (I) an emergency action against a third party 
        servicer that has contracted with an institution to 
        administer any aspect of the institution's student 
        assistance program under this title, under which the 
        Secretary shall, effective on the date on which a 
        notice and statement of the basis of the action is 
        mailed to such individual or organization (by 
        registered mail, return receipt requested), withhold 
        funds from the individual or organization and withdraw 
        the individual or organization's authority to act on 
        behalf of an institution under any program under this 
        title, if the Secretary--
                  (i) receives information, determined by the 
                Secretary to be reliable, that the individual 
                or organization, acting on behalf of an 
                institution, is violating any provision of this 
                title, any regulation prescribed under this 
                title, or any applicable special arrangement, 
                agreement, or limitation,
                  (ii) determines that immediate action is 
                necessary to prevent misuse of Federal funds, 
                and
                  (iii) determines that the likelihood of loss 
                outweighs the importance of the procedures 
                prescribed under subparagraph (F), for 
                limitation, suspension, or termination,
        except that an emergency action shall not exceed 30 
        days unless the limitation, suspension, or termination 
        proceedings are initiated by the Secretary against the 
        individual or organization within that period of time, 
        and except that the Secretary shall provide the 
        individual or organization an opportunity to show 
        cause, if it so requests, that the emergency action is 
        unwarranted.
  (2) If an individual who, or entity that, exercises 
substantial control, as determined by the Secretary in 
accordance with the definition of substantial control in 
subpart 3 of part H, over one or more institutions 
participating in any program under this title, or, for purposes 
of paragraphs (1) (H) and (I), over one or more organizations 
that contract with an institution to administer any aspect of 
the institution's student assistance program under this title, 
is determined to have committed one or more violations of the 
requirements of any program under this title, or has been 
suspended or debarred in accordance with the regulations of the 
Secretary, the Secretary may use such determination, 
suspension, or debarment as the basis for imposing an emergency 
action on, or limiting, suspending, or terminating, in a single 
proceeding, the participation of any or all institutions under 
the substantial control of that individual or entity.
  (3)(A) Upon determination, after reasonable notice and 
opportunity for a hearing, that an eligible institution has 
engaged in substantial misrepresentation of the nature of its 
educational program, its financial charges, or the 
employability of its graduates, the Secretary may suspend or 
terminate the eligibility status for any or all programs under 
this title of any otherwise eligible institution, in accordance 
with procedures specified in paragraph (1)(D) of this 
subsection, until the Secretary finds that such practices have 
been corrected.
  (B)(i) Upon determination, after reasonable notice and 
opportunity for a hearing, that an eligible institution--
          (I) has violated or failed to carry out any provision 
        of this title or any regulation prescribed under this 
        title; or
          (II) has engaged in substantial misrepresentation of 
        the nature of its educational program, its financial 
        charges, and the employability of its graduates,
the Secretary may impose a civil penalty upon such institution 
of not to exceed $25,000 for each violation or 
misrepresentation.
  (ii) Any civil penalty may be compromised by the Secretary. 
In determining the amount of such penalty, or the amount agreed 
upon in compromise, the appropriateness of the penalty to the 
size of the institution of higher education subject to the 
determination, and the gravity of the violation, failure, or 
misrepresentation shall be considered. The amount of such 
penalty, when finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in 
compromise, may be deducted from any sums owing by the United 
States to the institution charged.
  (4) The Secretary shall publish a list of State agencies 
which the Secretary determines to be reliable authority as to 
the quality of public postsecondary vocational education in 
their respective States for the purpose of determining 
eligibility for all Federal student assistance programs.
  (5) The Secretary shall make readily available to appropriate 
guaranty agencies, eligible lenders, State agencies notifying 
the Secretary under subpart 1 of part H, and accrediting 
agencies or associations the results of the audits of eligible 
institutions conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)(A).
  (6) The Secretary is authorized to provide any information 
collected as a result of audits conducted under this section, 
together with audit information collected by guaranty agencies, 
to any Federal or State agency having responsibilities with 
respect to student financial assistance, including those 
referred to in subsection (a)(15) of this section.
  (7) Effective with respect to any audit conducted under this 
subsection after December 31, 1988, if, in the course of 
conducting any such audit, the personnel of the Department of 
Education discover, or are informed of, grants or other 
assistance provided by an institution in accordance with this 
title for which the institution has not received funds 
appropriated under this title (in the amount necessary to 
provide such assistance), including funds for which 
reimbursement was not requested prior to such discovery or 
information, such institution shall be permitted to offset that 
amount against any sums determined to be owed by the 
institution pursuant to such audit, or to receive reimbursement 
for that amount (if the institution does not owe any such 
sums).
  (d) Implementation of Non-Federal Revenue Requirement.--
          (1) Calculation.--In making calculations under 
        subsection (a)(24), a proprietary institution of higher 
        education shall--
                  (A) use the cash basis of accounting, except 
                in the case of loans described in subparagraph 
                (D)(i) that are made by the proprietary 
                institution of higher education;
                  (B) consider as revenue only those funds 
                generated by the institution from--
                          (i) tuition, fees, and other 
                        institutional charges for students 
                        enrolled in programs eligible for 
                        assistance under this title;
                          (ii) activities conducted by the 
                        institution that are necessary for the 
                        education and training of the 
                        institution's students, if such 
                        activities are--
                                  (I) conducted on campus or at 
                                a facility under the control of 
                                the institution;
                                  (II) performed under the 
                                supervision of a member of the 
                                institution's faculty; and
                                  (III) required to be 
                                performed by all students in a 
                                specific educational program at 
                                the institution; and
                          (iii) funds paid by a student, or on 
                        behalf of a student by a party other 
                        than the institution, for an education 
                        or training program that is not 
                        eligible for funds under this title, if 
                        the program--
                                  (I) is approved or licensed 
                                by the appropriate State 
                                agency;
                                  (II) is accredited by an 
                                accrediting agency recognized 
                                by the Secretary; or
                                  (III) provides an industry-
                                recognized credential or 
                                certification;
                  (C) presume that any Federal education 
                assistance funds that are disbursed or 
                delivered to or on behalf of a student will be 
                used to pay the student's tuition, fees, or 
                other institutional charges, regardless of 
                whether the institution credits those funds to 
                the student's account or pays those funds 
                directly to the student, except to the extent 
                that the student's tuition, fees, or other 
                institutional charges are satisfied by--
                          (i) grant funds provided by non-
                        Federal public agencies or private 
                        sources independent of the institution;
                          (ii) funds provided under a 
                        contractual arrangement with a Federal, 
                        State, or local government agency for 
                        the purpose of providing job training 
                        to low-income individuals who are in 
                        need of that training;
                          (iii) funds used by a student from 
                        savings plans for educational expenses 
                        established by or on behalf of the 
                        student and which qualify for special 
                        tax treatment under the Internal 
                        Revenue Code of 1986; or
                          (iv) institutional scholarships 
                        described in subparagraph (D)(iii);
                  (D) include institutional aid as revenue to 
                the school only as follows:
                          (i) in the case of loans made by a 
                        proprietary institution of higher 
                        education on or after July 1, 2008 and 
                        prior to July 1, 2012, the net present 
                        value of such loans made by the 
                        institution during the applicable 
                        institutional fiscal year accounted for 
                        on an accrual basis and estimated in 
                        accordance with generally accepted 
                        accounting principles and related 
                        standards and guidance, if the loans--
                                  (I) are bona fide as 
                                evidenced by enforceable 
                                promissory notes;
                                  (II) are issued at intervals 
                                related to the institution's 
                                enrollment periods; and
                                  (III) are subject to regular 
                                loan repayments and 
                                collections;
                          (ii) in the case of loans made by a 
                        proprietary institution of higher 
                        education on or after July 1, 2012, 
                        only the amount of loan repayments 
                        received during the applicable 
                        institutional fiscal year, excluding 
                        repayments on loans made and accounted 
                        for as specified in clause (i); and
                          (iii) in the case of scholarships 
                        provided by a proprietary institution 
                        of higher education, only those 
                        scholarships provided by the 
                        institution in the form of monetary aid 
                        or tuition discounts based upon the 
                        academic achievements or financial need 
                        of students, disbursed during each 
                        fiscal year from an established 
                        restricted account, and only to the 
                        extent that funds in that account 
                        represent designated funds from an 
                        outside source or from income earned on 
                        those funds;
                  (E) in the case of each student who receives 
                a loan on or after July 1, 2008, and prior to 
                July 1, 2011, that is authorized under section 
                428H or that is a Federal Direct Unsubsidized 
                Stafford Loan, treat as revenue received by the 
                institution from sources other than funds 
                received under this title, the amount by which 
                the disbursement of such loan received by the 
                institution exceeds the limit on such loan in 
                effect on the day before the date of enactment 
                of the Ensuring Continued Access to Student 
                Loans Act of 2008; and
                  (F) exclude from revenues--
                          (i) the amount of funds the 
                        institution received under part C, 
                        unless the institution used those funds 
                        to pay a student's institutional 
                        charges;
                          (ii) the amount of funds the 
                        institution received under subpart 4 of 
                        part A;
                          (iii) the amount of funds provided by 
                        the institution as matching funds for a 
                        program under this title;
                          (iv) the amount of funds provided by 
                        the institution for a program under 
                        this title that are required to be 
                        refunded or returned; and
                          (v) the amount charged for books, 
                        supplies, and equipment, unless the 
                        institution includes that amount as 
                        tuition, fees, or other institutional 
                        charges.
          (2) Sanctions.--
                  (A) Ineligibility.--A proprietary institution 
                of higher education that fails to meet a 
                requirement of subsection (a)(24) for two 
                consecutive institutional fiscal years shall be 
                ineligible to participate in the programs 
                authorized by this title for a period of not 
                less than two institutional fiscal years. To 
                regain eligibility to participate in the 
                programs authorized by this title, a 
                proprietary institution of higher education 
                shall demonstrate compliance with all 
                eligibility and certification requirements 
                under section 498 for a minimum of two 
                institutional fiscal years after the 
                institutional fiscal year in which the 
                institution became ineligible.
                  (B) Additional enforcement.--In addition to 
                such other means of enforcing the requirements 
                of this title as may be available to the 
                Secretary, if a proprietary institution of 
                higher education fails to meet a requirement of 
                subsection (a)(24) for any institutional fiscal 
                year, then the institution's eligibility to 
                participate in the programs authorized by this 
                title becomes provisional for the two 
                institutional fiscal years after the 
                institutional fiscal year in which the 
                institution failed to meet the requirement of 
                subsection (a)(24), except that such 
                provisional eligibility shall terminate--
                          (i) on the expiration date of the 
                        institution's program participation 
                        agreement under this subsection that is 
                        in effect on the date the Secretary 
                        determines that the institution failed 
                        to meet the requirement of subsection 
                        (a)(24); or
                          (ii) in the case that the Secretary 
                        determines that the institution failed 
                        to meet a requirement of subsection 
                        (a)(24) for two consecutive 
                        institutional fiscal years, on the date 
                        the institution is determined 
                        ineligible in accordance with 
                        subparagraph (A).
          (3) Publication on college navigator website.--The 
        Secretary shall publicly disclose on the College 
        Navigator website--
                  (A) the identity of any proprietary 
                institution of higher education that fails to 
                meet a requirement of subsection (a)(24); and
                  (B) the extent to which the institution 
                failed to meet such requirement.
          (4) Report to congress.--Not later than July 1, 2009, 
        and July 1 of each succeeding year, the Secretary shall 
        submit to the authorizing committees a report that 
        contains, for each proprietary institution of higher 
        education that receives assistance under this title, as 
        provided in the audited financial statements submitted 
        to the Secretary by each institution pursuant to the 
        requirements of subsection (a)(24)--
                  (A) the amount and percentage of such 
                institution's revenues received from sources 
                under this title; and
                  (B) the amount and percentage of such 
                institution's revenues received from other 
                sources.
  (e) Code of Conduct Requirements.--An institution of higher 
education's code of conduct, as required under subsection 
(a)(25), shall include the following requirements:
          (1) Ban on revenue-sharing arrangements.--
                  (A) Prohibition.--The institution shall not 
                enter into any revenue-sharing arrangement with 
                any lender.
                  (B) Definition.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term ``revenue-sharing 
                arrangement'' means an arrangement between an 
                institution and a lender under which--
                          (i) a lender provides or issues a 
                        loan that is made, insured, or 
                        guaranteed under this title to students 
                        attending the institution or to the 
                        families of such students; and
                          (ii) the institution recommends the 
                        lender or the loan products of the 
                        lender and in exchange, the lender pays 
                        a fee or provides other material 
                        benefits, including revenue or profit 
                        sharing, to the institution, an officer 
                        or employee of the institution, or an 
                        agent.
          (2) Gift ban.--
                  (A) Prohibition.--No officer or employee of 
                the institution who is employed in the 
                financial aid office of the institution or who 
                otherwise has responsibilities with respect to 
                education loans, or agent who has 
                responsibilities with respect to education 
                loans, shall solicit or accept any gift from a 
                lender, guarantor, or servicer of education 
                loans.
                  (B) Definition of gift.--
                          (i) In general.--In this paragraph, 
                        the term ``gift'' means any gratuity, 
                        favor, discount, entertainment, 
                        hospitality, loan, or other item having 
                        a monetary value of more than a de 
                        minimus amount. The term includes a 
                        gift of services, transportation, 
                        lodging, or meals, whether provided in 
                        kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment 
                        in advance, or reimbursement after the 
                        expense has been incurred.
                          (ii) Exceptions.--The term ``gift'' 
                        shall not include any of the following:
                                  (I) Standard material, 
                                activities, or programs on 
                                issues related to a loan, 
                                default aversion, default 
                                prevention, or financial 
                                literacy, such as a brochure, a 
                                workshop, or training.
                                  (II) Food, refreshments, 
                                training, or informational 
                                material furnished to an 
                                officer or employee of an 
                                institution, or to an agent, as 
                                an integral part of a training 
                                session that is designed to 
                                improve the service of a 
                                lender, guarantor, or servicer 
                                of education loans to the 
                                institution, if such training 
                                contributes to the professional 
                                development of the officer, 
                                employee, or agent.
                                  (III) Favorable terms, 
                                conditions, and borrower 
                                benefits on an education loan 
                                provided to a student employed 
                                by the institution if such 
                                terms, conditions, or benefits 
                                are comparable to those 
                                provided to all students of the 
                                institution.
                                  (IV) Entrance and exit 
                                counseling services provided to 
                                borrowers to meet the 
                                institution's responsibilities 
                                for entrance and exit 
                                counseling as required by 
                                subsections (b) and (l) of 
                                section 485, as long as--
                                          (aa) the 
                                        institution's staff are 
                                        in control of the 
                                        counseling, (whether in 
                                        person or via 
                                        electronic 
                                        capabilities); and
                                          (bb) such counseling 
                                        does not promote the 
                                        products or services of 
                                        any specific lender.
                                  (V) Philanthropic 
                                contributions to an institution 
                                from a lender, servicer, or 
                                guarantor of education loans 
                                that are unrelated to education 
                                loans or any contribution from 
                                any lender, guarantor, or 
                                servicer that is not made in 
                                exchange for any advantage 
                                related to education loans.
                                  (VI) State education grants, 
                                scholarships, or financial aid 
                                funds administered by or on 
                                behalf of a State.
                          (iii) Rule for gifts to family 
                        members.--For purposes of this 
                        paragraph, a gift to a family member of 
                        an officer or employee of an 
                        institution, to a family member of an 
                        agent, or to any other individual based 
                        on that individual's relationship with 
                        the officer, employee, or agent, shall 
                        be considered a gift to the officer, 
                        employee, or agent if--
                                  (I) the gift is given with 
                                the knowledge and acquiescence 
                                of the officer, employee, or 
                                agent; and
                                  (II) the officer, employee, 
                                or agent has reason to believe 
                                the gift was given because of 
                                the official position of the 
                                officer, employee, or agent.
          (3) Contracting arrangements prohibited.--
                  (A) Prohibition.--An officer or employee who 
                is employed in the financial aid office of the 
                institution or who otherwise has 
                responsibilities with respect to education 
                loans, or an agent who has responsibilities 
                with respect to education loans, shall not 
                accept from any lender or affiliate of any 
                lender any fee, payment, or other financial 
                benefit (including the opportunity to purchase 
                stock) as compensation for any type of 
                consulting arrangement or other contract to 
                provide services to a lender or on behalf of a 
                lender relating to education loans.
                  (B) Exceptions.--Nothing in this subsection 
                shall be construed as prohibiting--
                          (i) an officer or employee of an 
                        institution who is not employed in the 
                        institution's financial aid office and 
                        who does not otherwise have 
                        responsibilities with respect to 
                        education loans, or an agent who does 
                        not have responsibilities with respect 
                        to education loans, from performing 
                        paid or unpaid service on a board of 
                        directors of a lender, guarantor, or 
                        servicer of education loans;
                          (ii) an officer or employee of the 
                        institution who is not employed in the 
                        institution's financial aid office but 
                        who has responsibility with respect to 
                        education loans as a result of a 
                        position held at the institution, or an 
                        agent who has responsibility with 
                        respect to education loans, from 
                        performing paid or unpaid service on a 
                        board of directors of a lender, 
                        guarantor, or servicer of education 
                        loans, if the institution has a written 
                        conflict of interest policy that 
                        clearly sets forth that officers, 
                        employees, or agents must recuse 
                        themselves from participating in any 
                        decision of the board regarding 
                        education loans at the institution; or
                          (iii) an officer, employee, or 
                        contractor of a lender, guarantor, or 
                        servicer of education loans from 
                        serving on a board of directors, or 
                        serving as a trustee, of an 
                        institution, if the institution has a 
                        written conflict of interest policy 
                        that the board member or trustee must 
                        recuse themselves from any decision 
                        regarding education loans at the 
                        institution.
          (4) Interaction with borrowers.--The institution 
        shall not--
                  (A) for any first-time borrower, assign, 
                through award packaging or other methods, the 
                borrower's loan to a particular lender; or
                  (B) refuse to certify, or delay certification 
                of, any loan based on the borrower's selection 
                of a particular lender or guaranty agency.
          (5) Prohibition on offers of funds for private 
        loans.--
                  (A) Prohibition.--The institution shall not 
                request or accept from any lender any offer of 
                funds to be used for private education loans 
                (as defined in section 140 of the Truth in 
                Lending Act), including funds for an 
                opportunity pool loan, to students in exchange 
                for the institution providing concessions or 
                promises regarding providing the lender with--
                          (i) a specified number of loans made, 
                        insured, or guaranteed under this 
                        title;
                          (ii) a specified loan volume of such 
                        loans; or
                          (iii) a preferred lender arrangement 
                        for such loans.
                  (B) Definition of opportunity pool loan.--In 
                this paragraph, the term ``opportunity pool 
                loan'' means a private education loan made by a 
                lender to a student attending the institution 
                or the family member of such a student that 
                involves a payment, directly or indirectly, by 
                such institution of points, premiums, 
                additional interest, or financial support to 
                such lender for the purpose of such lender 
                extending credit to the student or the family.
          (6) Ban on staffing assistance.--
                  (A) Prohibition.--The institution shall not 
                request or accept from any lender any 
                assistance with call center staffing or 
                financial aid office staffing.
                  (B) Certain assistance permitted.--Nothing in 
                paragraph (1) shall be construed to prohibit 
                the institution from requesting or accepting 
                assistance from a lender related to--
                          (i) professional development training 
                        for financial aid administrators;
                          (ii) providing educational counseling 
                        materials, financial literacy 
                        materials, or debt management materials 
                        to borrowers, provided that such 
                        materials disclose to borrowers the 
                        identification of any lender that 
                        assisted in preparing or providing such 
                        materials; or
                          (iii) staffing services on a short-
                        term, nonrecurring basis to assist the 
                        institution with financial aid-related 
                        functions during emergencies, including 
                        State-declared or federally declared 
                        natural disasters, federally declared 
                        national disasters, and other localized 
                        disasters and emergencies identified by 
                        the Secretary.
          (7) Advisory board compensation.--Any employee who is 
        employed in the financial aid office of the 
        institution, or who otherwise has responsibilities with 
        respect to education loans or other student financial 
        aid of the institution, and who serves on an advisory 
        board, commission, or group established by a lender, 
        guarantor, or group of lenders or guarantors, shall be 
        prohibited from receiving anything of value from the 
        lender, guarantor, or group of lenders or guarantors, 
        except that the employee may be reimbursed for 
        reasonable expenses incurred in serving on such 
        advisory board, commission, or group.
  (f) Institutional Requirements for Teach-Outs.--
          (1) In general.--In the event the Secretary initiates 
        the limitation, suspension, or termination of the 
        participation of an institution of higher education in 
        any program under this title under the authority of 
        subsection (c)(1)(F) or initiates an emergency action 
        under the authority of subsection (c)(1)(G) and its 
        prescribed regulations, the Secretary shall require 
        that institution to prepare a teach-out plan for 
        submission to the institution's accrediting agency or 
        association in compliance with section 496(c)(3), the 
        Secretary's regulations on teach-out plans, and the 
        standards of the institution's accrediting agency or 
        association.
          (2) Teach-out plan defined.--In this subsection, the 
        term ``teach-out plan'' means a written plan that 
        provides for the equitable treatment of students if an 
        institution of higher education ceases to operate 
        before all students have completed their program of 
        study, and may include, if required by the 
        institution's accrediting agency or association, an 
        agreement between institutions for such a teach-out 
        plan.
  (g) Inspector General Report on Gift Ban Violations.--The 
Inspector General of the Department shall--
          (1) submit an annual report to the authorizing 
        committees identifying all violations of an 
        institution's code of conduct that the Inspector 
        General has substantiated during the preceding year 
        relating to the gift ban provisions described in 
        subsection (e)(2); and
          (2) make the report available to the public through 
        the Department's website.
  (h) Preferred Lender List Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--In compiling, maintaining, and 
        making available a preferred lender list as required 
        under subsection (a)(27), the institution will--
                  (A) clearly and fully disclose on such 
                preferred lender list--
                          (i) not less than the information 
                        required to be disclosed under section 
                        153(a)(2)(A);
                          (ii) why the institution has entered 
                        into a preferred lender arrangement 
                        with each lender on the preferred 
                        lender list, particularly with respect 
                        to terms and conditions or provisions 
                        favorable to the borrower; and
                          (iii) that the students attending the 
                        institution, or the families of such 
                        students, do not have to borrow from a 
                        lender on the preferred lender list;
                  (B) ensure, through the use of the list of 
                lender affiliates provided by the Secretary 
                under paragraph (2), that--
                          (i) there are not less than three 
                        lenders of loans made under part B that 
                        are not affiliates of each other 
                        included on the preferred lender list 
                        and, if the institution recommends, 
                        promotes, or endorses private education 
                        loans, there are not less than two 
                        lenders of private education loans that 
                        are not affiliates of each other 
                        included on the preferred lender list; 
                        and
                          (ii) the preferred lender list under 
                        this paragraph--
                                  (I) specifically indicates, 
                                for each listed lender, whether 
                                the lender is or is not an 
                                affiliate of each other lender 
                                on the preferred lender list; 
                                and
                                  (II) if a lender is an 
                                affiliate of another lender on 
                                the preferred lender list, 
                                describes the details of such 
                                affiliation;
                  (C) prominently disclose the method and 
                criteria used by the institution in selecting 
                lenders with which to enter into preferred 
                lender arrangements to ensure that such lenders 
                are selected on the basis of the best interests 
                of the borrowers, including--
                          (i) payment of origination or other 
                        fees on behalf of the borrower;
                          (ii) highly competitive interest 
                        rates, or other terms and conditions or 
                        provisions of loans under this title or 
                        private education loans;
                          (iii) high-quality servicing for such 
                        loans; or
                          (iv) additional benefits beyond the 
                        standard terms and conditions or 
                        provisions for such loans;
                  (D) exercise a duty of care and a duty of 
                loyalty to compile the preferred lender list 
                under this paragraph without prejudice and for 
                the sole benefit of the students attending the 
                institution, or the families of such students;
                  (E) not deny or otherwise impede the 
                borrower's choice of a lender or cause 
                unnecessary delay in loan certification under 
                this title for those borrowers who choose a 
                lender that is not included on the preferred 
                lender list; and
                  (F) comply with such other requirements as 
                the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
          (2) Lender affiliates list.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain 
                and regularly update a list of lender 
                affiliates of all eligible lenders, and shall 
                provide such list to institutions for use in 
                carrying out paragraph (1)(B).
                  (B) Use of most recent list.--An institution 
                shall use the most recent list of lender 
                affiliates provided by the Secretary under 
                subparagraph (A) in carrying out paragraph 
                (1)(B).
  (i) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section:
          (1) Agent.--The term ``agent'' has the meaning given 
        the term in section 151.
          (2) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' means a person 
        that controls, is controlled by, or is under common 
        control with another person. A person controls, is 
        controlled by, or is under common control with another 
        person if--
                  (A) the person directly or indirectly, or 
                acting through one or more others, owns, 
                controls, or has the power to vote five percent 
                or more of any class of voting securities of 
                such other person;
                  (B) the person controls, in any manner, the 
                election of a majority of the directors or 
                trustees of such other person; or
                  (C) the Secretary determines (after notice 
                and opportunity for a hearing) that the person 
                directly or indirectly exercises a controlling 
                interest over the management or policies of 
                such other person's education loans.
          (3) Education loan.--The term ``education loan'' has 
        the meaning given the term in section 151.
          (4) Eligible institution.--The term ``eligible 
        institution'' means any such institution described in 
        section 102 of this Act.
          (5) Officer.--The term ``officer'' has the meaning 
        given the term in section 151.
          (6) Preferred lender arrangement.--The term 
        ``preferred lender arrangement'' has the meaning given 
        the term in section 151.
  (j) Construction.--Nothing in the amendments made by the 
Higher Education Amendments of 1992 shall be construed to 
prohibit an institution from recording, at the cost of the 
institution, a hearing referred to in subsection (b)(2), 
subsection (c)(1)(D), or subparagraph (A) or (B)(i) of 
subsection (c)(2), of this section to create a record of the 
hearing, except the unavailability of a recording shall not 
serve to delay the completion of the proceeding. The Secretary 
shall allow the institution to use any reasonable means, 
including stenographers, of recording the hearing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

                              INTRODUCTION

    H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus 
Act, amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to create a 
new compliance regime for public colleges and universities 
around aspects of the Constitutionally-protected freedoms of 
speech, religion and association. Supporters of H.R. 7683 
suggest it protects freedoms for all students and faculty, but 
such protections are only necessary if you first accept the 
Majority's premise that there is a ``free speech crisis'' on 
campuses around the country.\1\ This ``crisis'' does not exist, 
as described by the Majority, and this bill is unnecessary. The 
First Amendment has existed to protect the rights of free 
expression on college campuses since 1791. Individuals can and 
will continue to avail themselves of its protections--they do 
not need any help from H.R. 7683 to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Campus free speech was the subject of the last education-related 
hearing held by the Majority in the 115th Congress before it lost the 
gavel, and the third education-related hearing held by the Majority in 
the 118th Congress when it regained the gavel. Examining First 
Amendment Rights on Campus: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Educ. & the 
Workforce, 115th Cong. (2018); Diversity of Thought: Protecting Free 
Speech on College Campuses: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Higher Educ. 
& Workforce Development of the H. Comm on Educ. & the Workforce, 118th 
Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         BACKGROUND ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES

    Despite the premise underlying H.R. 7683, public 
institutions of higher education (IHEs) are state actors, and 
must already comply with First Amendment protections related to 
speech, religion, and association.\2\ College campuses are 
often fora where controversial ideas are discussed both in and 
out of classroom settings, and tensions may naturally run high. 
Such discussions can be infused with hateful speech--speech 
that while abhorrent, is constitutionally protected.\3\ This 
results in situations where public IHEs are compelled to grant 
fora to hateful speech they disagree with, lest they violate 
the First Amendment. Tension around this issue has been at the 
center of the response of many colleges to student discourse in 
the aftermath of the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel.\4\ 
Similarly, when a student group brings a controversial speaker 
to campus, public universities must provide a platform for such 
speakers, even if a school reasonably believes the presence of 
that speaker could result in commotion and counterprotest.\5\ 
Free speech on campus is not absolute--courts have held that 
states (and by extension state colleges and universities) have 
power to control access to their property and make 
determination as to whether an area is a public forum with 
largely unfettered free speech rights, or something lesser.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\E.g., Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972) (``At the outset 
we note that state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune 
from the sweep of the First Amendment.'').
    \3\See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). Free speech 
rights are not absolute. Over time courts have devised tests to 
determine what types of speech are not deserving of First Amendment 
protection. The result is three very narrowly tailored classes or types 
of speech that the government, and by extension public IHEs, can 
prohibit without violating the First Amendment. These are obscenity, 
defamation, and fighting words. E.g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 
U.S. 568 (1942).
    \4\This specifically refers to Constitutionally protected speech 
and not incidents that fall outside of First Amendment protection, or 
speech and actions that could be considered harassment under Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    \5\See, e.g., Am. C.L. Union, Speech on Campus, (Dec. 18, 2023), 
https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus.
    \6\E.g., Turning Point USA v. Rhodes, 973 F.3d 868, 875-77 (8th 
Cir., 2020) (``The First Amendment guarantees a right of free speech. 
But while the First Amendment's text prohibits laws `abridging the 
freedom of speech,' the freedom of speech enjoyed by citizens is not 
absolute. The Constitution does not give Hoggard `unfettered latitude' 
to speak and set up tables `wherever and whenever [s]he might choose.' 
Rather, the State of Arkansas, `no less than a private owner of 
property, has the power to preserve the property under its control for 
the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.' As such, the First 
Amendment does not require Arkansas to `freely . . . grant access to 
all who wish to exercise their right to free speech' on its property 
`without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that 
might be caused by the speaker's activities.' Thus, the legality of 
speech restrictions on state property `turns on the nature of the 
property involved and the restrictions imposed.'(internal citations 
omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the event that an individual believes that a public IHE 
has infringed on its rights, they can sue for injunctive relief 
and the remedy would be the IHE would be forced to stop the 
infringement. However, state entities generally retain 
sovereign immunity against money damage remedies.\7\ Similarly, 
under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public school 
officials themselves may only be held liable for damages under 
certain proscribed circumstances.\8\ It is the elimination of 
these immunities, not the protection of free speech, that is 
the key to understanding H.R. 7683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\U.S. Const. amend. XI.
    \8\Turning Point, supra note 6. at 875 (``Qualified immunity 
shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their 
conduct did not 'violate clearly established statutory or 
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 
known.'')(internal quotes omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         H.R. 7683 IS A POOR SUBSTITUTE FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT

    Nothing currently prevents individuals from seeking 
injunctive relief to stop a public IHE from violating their 
First Amendment rights. H.R. 7683 simply abandons the First 
Amendment as the protector of speech and creates instead a new 
legislative scheme. In doing so it makes an end- run around the 
civil rights principles of sovereign and qualified immunity 
courts have consistently upheld in First Amendment cases.\9\ 
The bill adds four new substantive sections to HEA that dictate 
how a public IHE must disclose free speech, religion, and 
association policies, and proscribe specific rules a public IHE 
must follow in regards to First Amendment activity that differ 
from existing constitutional caselaw. The bill then creates a 
specific cause of action to hold schools (and their staff) 
liable for money damages for violating this new scheme by 
conditioning a public IHE's participation in federal student 
aid as an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity. This 
conditioning has the added benefit of placing the bill in the 
Committee's jurisdiction, as discussion of such Constitutional 
issues would normally be the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
the Judiciary. This is reinforced by including for good measure 
the possibility a public IHE could lose that Title IV aid as 
well for a violation of this new system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See, e.g., Cent. Va. Cmty. Coll. V. Katz, 546 U.S. 356, 360 
(2006)(``Petitioners are Virginia institutions of higher education that 
are considered ``arms of the State'' entitled to sovereign immunity.'' 
(internal quotes omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservative speech, along with other First Amendment freedoms, thrive 
        on campus
    The Majority continues to iterate its concerns about a free 
speech crisis on campus and claims that H.R. 7683 will make 
entire public university campuses a ```free speech zone' where 
students are exposed to different opinions'', and ``learn how 
to debate contested ideas''.\10\ They claim the lack of 
``viewpoint diversity'' on campus inhibits the ability of 
conservative students to express their views. Evidence suggests 
that notwithstanding such a viewpoint imbalance, conservative 
thought continues to flourish on college campuses. The 
Majority's analysis consistently fails to acknowledge that 
conservative speech on campus is propped up by a vast network 
of outside organizations that support such speech,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Press Release, H. Comm. on Educ. & the Workforce, Chairwoman 
Foxx Delivers Opening Remarks at Markup to Bolster Workforce and 
Advance Academic Freedom, Mar. 21, 2024, https://edworkforce.house.gov/
news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=410332.

        . . . ranging from financial resources for campus 
        recruiting, conference travel, and summer fellowships 
        to opportunities to bring speakers onto campus and 
        templates for media blitzes. . . . [C]onservative 
        organizations not only channel activism, but also 
        create a career funnel that helps young activists find 
        paid internships and occupational opportunities within 
        the conservative sector. In contrast, students in the 
        progressive channel are unable to build upon external 
        sponsorships, but must navigate in more of a do-it-
        yourself environment, both in terms of political 
        activism and future career prospects.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Daniel Meyer, Campus Activism in Polarized Times, 87 Higher 
Educ. 813-818 (2023) (reviewing The Channels of Student Activism: How 
the Left and Right Are Winning (and Losing) in Campus Politics Today by 
Amy Binder and Jeffrey Kidder).

    By their own accounts, there are over 2,000 College 
Republicans chapters on American college campuses,\12\ over 
2,000 chapters of Young Americans for Freedom,\13\ over 800 
college chapters of Turning Point USA,\14\ and over 200 
chapters of the Federalist Society at U.S. law schools.\15\ 
This is just the most public tip of the iceberg of 
infrastructure and private capital dedicated to incubating 
conservative thinkers and leaders on campus and vaulting them 
into positions of political influence in Washington, D.C. and 
state capitals around the country.\16\ Claims of a campus free 
speech crisis simply perpetuate the need to continue to 
subsidize more conservative voices on campus who then claim as 
part of their activism, that there is a free speech crisis on 
campus.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\College Republican National Committee, About CRNC, https://
www.crnc.org/about (last visited Mar. 30, 2024). This is distinct from 
College Republicans of America, the Political Action Committee founded 
former college republicans designed ``to empower, train, and develop 
the next generation of Republican leaders. By providing resources, 
training, networking opportunities, and incentives for students to 
volunteer in our various initiatives, CRA enables our young Republicans 
to advocate for conservative principles, support Republican candidates, 
effect change in our communities, conserve our environment, secure 
employment, and shape public policy.'' https://www.uscollegegop.com/.
    \13\Young America's Foundation, Home Page, https://yaf.org/ (last 
visited Mar.30, 2024) (``Young America's Foundation is the leading 
organization for young conservatives. With more than 60 years of 
experience and contacts on more than 2,000 campuses, we help students 
like you find support, promote conservatism, and take action.'').
    \14\Turning Point USA, College Program--Turning Point USA, https://
www.tpusa.com/college (last visited Mar. 30, 2024) (``Turning Point USA 
College educates students about the importance of limited government, 
freedom, and capitalism. This department has 48 full-time field 
representatives that exist to educate, support, train, and empower 
students through grassroots activism and peer-to-peer conversations. . 
. . With nearly over 800+ college chapters, this program is the largest 
and most impactful--successfully rebranding the movement to make it fun 
and engaging to young people.'').
    \15\The Federalist Society, Student Division, The Federalist 
Society, https://fedsoc.org/divisions/student (last visited Mar. 30, 
2024) (``Student Division programming fosters a network of conservative 
and libertarian students eager to challenge the legal establishment as 
lawyers, faculty, judges, and policy makers.''); The Federalist 
Society, About Us, https://fedsoc.org/about-us#FAQ (last visited Apr. 
1, 2024) (``Everyone is welcome to the programs of our more than 200 
law school chapters, over 100 metropolitan lawyers chapters, and 15 
nationwide practice groups. The several hundred events sponsored each 
year by the Federalist Society are publicly advertised and are open to 
the press and the general public.'')
    \16\See, e.g., Julian Epp, Republicans Have Spent Millions on Youth 
Outreach. And It's Working., The Nation, Oct. 6, 2022, https://
www.thenation.com/article/politics/raising-them-right-kyle-spencer-
conservative-youth/ (featuring discussion with Kyle Spencer, author of 
Raising Them Right, The Untold Story of America's Ultraconservative 
Youth Movement and Its Plot for Power).
    \17\Id. (``Once the young conservatives began to latch onto the 
culture wars--and particularly around the idea of ``free speech''--they 
really started to gain traction. They spread this idea that young 
conservatives were not allowed to speak on college campuses. If you 
send that message enough, and then present yourself as the antidote, 
that's pretty powerful.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7683 is not limited to political speech. Portions of 
the bill include new requirements for public IHEs in 
recognizing both sectarian and religious student organizations. 
Under H.R. 7683, public IHE's would have to ensure that any 
student organization that wanted official recognition by the 
school but could not achieve this for lack of a willing faculty 
advisor had some path to official recognition.\18\ Further, the 
bill would require public IHEs to develop specific procedures, 
including appellate procedures, for determining how funds are 
allocated to official organizations.\19\ The bill would require 
all IHEs that receive Title IV aid (including private 
institutions) to allow students to organize and join ``any 
single-sex social organization'', regardless of whether such 
organization has been recognized by the IHE.\20\ While the 
Majority's rhetoric is not as explicit in these areas, the 
implication of H.R. 7683 is that college administrations are 
preventing students from joining groups en masse and stopping 
religious groups from existing on campus. Again, the numbers do 
not reflect this reality. There are over 350,000 fraternity and 
410,000 sorority undergraduate members in the US.\21\ There are 
over 2,000 American chapters of Campus Crusade for Christ and 
nearly 600 U.S. colleges served by Hillel International.\22\ 
Just as there is no free speech crisis, there is not a crisis 
on campus preventing students from joining organizations or 
exercising their freedom of religion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\H.R. 7683, Sec. 4 (creating HEA Sec. 112C(a)(1)(A)(i), Faculty 
Advisors).
    \19\Id. (creating HEA Sec. 112C(a)(1)(B), Distribution of Funds to 
Student Organizations).
    \20\Id. (creating HEA Sec. 112C(c), Freedom of Association).
    \21\E.g., Elon University, IFC Fraternities and Sororities, https:/
/www.elon.edu/u/fraternity-and-sorority-life/about-us/councils/ifc/ 
(last visited Mar. 30, 2024); Cleveland Panhellenic CAPA, National 
Panhellenic Conference, https://www.clevelandpanhellenic.org/ national-
panhellenic-conference#::text=NPC%20sororities%20are 
%20located%20on,undergraduate %20members%20in%205%2C110 %20chapters. 
(last visited Mar. 30, 2024). This represents the undergraduate 
population of fraternities that belong to the North American 
Interfraternity Conference and sororities that are members of the 
National Panhellenic Conference. This number does not include the 
approximately 4 million members of the fraternities and sororities that 
compose the National Pan-Hellenic Conference (colloquially referred to 
as the Divine Nine). Jay King, `Divine Nine' fraternities and 
sororities continue to have powerful influence, Greenville Journal, 
Feb. 22, 2022. Many of the chapters of these fraternities and 
sororities are graduate chapters where members join after completing 
their undergraduate degree, or chapters based not at specific schools 
but cities, counties or other regional subdivisions, as participation 
in the chapter extends through a member's entire life.
    \22\Campus Crusade for Christ, International, Cru, https://
www.cru.org/us/en/communities/campus/collegebound/studentwelcome.html 
(last visited Mar. 30, 2024); Hillel International, Find a Hillel, 
https://www.hillel.org/find-a-hillel/?search=&location=&location-
distance=25mi&jewish-experience%5B%5D=has-hillel&college-
type=all&country=US (last visited Mar. 30, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While there is not a ``free speech'' crisis, or a ``freedom 
of association crisis'' there are, however nearly 2,000 public 
colleges and universities in the United States,\23\ each with 
their own distinctive student bodies, campuses, and local, 
state, and federal legal frameworks. As such there is an array 
of differing rules and requirements (with corresponding 
rationales and justifications) regulating free expression, 
association, and student organizations on each campus. 
Regardless of the situation on any particular campus, there are 
self-evident simple rationales for many of these rules. Yet, 
despite the lack of evidence of rampant First Amendment 
violations unresolved by existing remedies afforded by the 
First Amendment, H.R. 7683 would require schools to participate 
in a compliance system for certain aspects of the First 
Amendment expression on campus. As the American Council on 
Education wrote in its joint letter with the American 
Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of 
State Colleges and Universities, the Association of American 
Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant 
Universities, and the National Association of Independent 
Colleges and Universities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Nat'l. Ctr. for Educ. Stats. Fast Facts--Educational 
Institutions, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1122 
(reporting that in 2020-21, there were 1.892 public postsecondary 
institutions participating in HEA Title IV).

          H.R. 7683 would inject the federal government in 
        higher education in a new and counterproductive fashion 
        by imposing a rigid, highly prescriptive, and costly 
        regulatory and enforcement framework on nearly 2,000 
        public colleges and universities. These institutions 
        are already subject to the protections afforded by the 
        First Amendment and would therefore have to implement a 
        new campus-wide compliance scheme on top of existing 
        practices.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Letter from Ted Mitchell, President, Am. Council on Educ. et 
al., to Reps. Foxx & Scott (Mar. 20, 2024), https://www.acenet.edu/
Documents/Letter-House-First-Amendment-Campus-Act-032024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 7683 creates free speech requirements outside of First Amendment 
        jurisprudence
    Under H.R. 7683, a public IHE would be required to treat 
any ``generally accessible'' part of its campus as a public 
forum, where restrictions on speech may regulate solely the 
time, place, and manner, of the expression, not its content or 
viewpoint.\25\ This again attempts to elevate H.R. 7683 over 
what the First Amendment allows as it has been interpreted by 
the federal courts; state universities do not have to grant 
unfettered free speech rights across a campus, and have the 
power to determine what speech restrictions are necessary given 
the property in question.\26\ Courts can conduct ``forum 
analysis'' and determine if the University is violating the 
First Amendment or not.\27\ As the Association of Public Land-
Grant Universities said in its letter to the Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\H.R. 7683, Sec. 5 (creating HEA Sec. 112D(b)(2), Expressive 
Activities at an Institution).
    \26\Turning Point USA v. Rhodes, 973 F.3d 868, 875-77 (8th cir. 
2020).
    \27\Id.

          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, view-point 
        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 existing precedent 
        within some circuits, not all circuit courts have 
        adopted such standards. The result of the legislation 
        in some cases will restrict public universities' 
        ability to protect the use of property for the campus 
        community and likely make institutions greater targets 
        by outsiders who seek to disrupt learning environments. 
        As such, the bill would treat all public university 
        outdoor property as if it was traditional public fora. 
        However, public institutions own and maintain an 
        incredible diversity of property including biological 
        field stations, athletics fields, sewage plants, 
        parking lots, residence halls, forests, 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Letter from Mark Becker, President, Assoc. of Pub. Land-Grant 
Univ. to Reps. Foxx & Scott (Mar. 20, 2024), https://www.aplu.org/wp-
content/uploads/ APLU-Response-Respecting-the-First- Amendment-on-
Campus-Act 1.pdf.

    H.R. 7683's free speech provisions would also force public 
IHEs to grant essentially unfettered hate speech rights in any 
publicly accessible space on campus, as hate speech is speech 
``guaranteed under the First Amendment to the 
Constitution''.\29\ However, unlike the First Amendment, H.R. 
7683 does not recognize schools can, in theory, enact content-
based speech restrictions on speech under very specific 
circumstances.\30\ One of the specific settings where the Court 
has upheld content-based restrictions on speech is in 
schools.\31\ This increases the likelihood that there is speech 
that a public IHE can conceivably regulate based on content 
under the First Amendment but open itself up to a violation 
under H.R. 7683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\H.R. 7683, Sec. 5 (creating HEA Sec. 112D(b)(2), Expressive 
Activities at an Institution); e.g., Volokh v. James, 656 F.Supp. 3d 
431 439-40 (S.D. N.Y. 2023) (```The First Amendment generally prevents 
government from proscribing speech . . . or even expressive conduct . . 
. because of disapproval of the ideas expressed.' The First Amendment 
reflects `a profound national commitment to the principle that debate 
on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.' Thus, 
as is relevant to the current facts, `[a]s a Nation we have chosen . . 
. to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do 
not stifle public debate.' This protection extends to speech which the 
government may seek to limit because it is offensive or 
insulting.'')(internal citations omitted).
    \30\Id. quoting Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 163 
(2015) (``Content-based laws-those that target speech based on its 
communicative content--are presumptively unconstitutional and may be 
justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored 
to serve compelling state interests.'')
    \31\Morse v. Frederick 551 U.S. 393 (2007) (holding that a school 
principal consistent with the First Amendment may restrict student 
speech at a school event when that speech is reasonably viewed as 
promoting illegal drug use, which due to the myriad of laws enacted by 
Congress, was considered an important, and arguably compelling 
interest).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This fact is especially troubling based on the Majority's 
current focus on incidents of antisemitic harassment on campus 
in the wake of the Oct. 7 attack on the state of Israel. 
Chairwoman Foxx at the markup of H.R. 7683 insisted the 
Committee in its investigation of antisemitism is interested in 
not ``offensive'' and ``vulgar'' speech that she concedes is 
constitutionally protected, but speech that ``crosses over'' 
into action.\32\ Under that rationale, if a school decided to 
regulate speech based on antisemitic content in certain 
publicly accessible areas of its campus, arguing the 
maintenance of a safe learning environment free from harassment 
required it to do so, that school arguably may be pushing the 
limits of the First Amendment. They could argue, based on the 
holding in Morse v. Frederick, there was a compelling 
governmental interest--the maintenance of a safe learning 
environment required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, and newly elevated by the actions of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce--that justified a content-based 
speech restriction. While there might be a case to be made 
there on First Amendment grounds both for and against that 
action, there would be no such ambiguity under H.R. 7683, as 
such a restriction would clearly violate the bill's provisions 
on expressive activity. By creating new standards, and arguably 
a whole new regime regulating free expression outside of the 
First Amendment, H.R. 7683 makes already difficult work of 
schools even harder. Schools recognize this in their opposition 
to H.R. 7683:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Statement of Rep. Virginia Foxx. H. Comm. on Educ. and the 
Workforce Markup of H.R. 7683, Mar. 21, 2024 (available at: https://
youtu.be/D3mj91wWaSs?t=7547).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Given the Committee's recent focus on concerns 
        regarding antisemitism and the need for campuses to 
        increase their efforts to provide safe environments 
        free from discrimination for all students, we are 
        puzzled by the bill's inclusion of provisions that 
        would tie the hands of campus administrators to address 
        these issues and potentially make campuses less 
        safe.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Letter from Ted Mitchell, supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 7683 creates freedom of association and religion requirements 
        outside of First Amendment jurisprudence

    Under current law, colleges may, as part of its mission to 
ensure welcoming campuses, institute an ``all-comers'' policy 
to prohibit an officially sanctioned student group from 
rejecting a student from membership or a leadership position on 
the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, 
gender identity, disability, religion or another protected 
characteristic to prevent their funds or spaces from becoming 
exclusive or unwelcoming to certain students. This is a policy 
that the Supreme Court has upheld on First Amendment grounds 
but that the Respecting the First Amendment Act on Campus would 
require schools to ignore in applying their policies to 
religious student groups seeking official recognition.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Supreme Court 
rejected a First Amendment challenge by a religious student 
organization that wished to discriminate in violation of the law 
school's all-comers policy and still be officially recognized by the 
school. 561 U.S. 661 (2010). Many university fraternity and sorority 
systems are disproportionately whiter, richer, or male-dominated than 
the student body as a whole. See Clio Chang, Separate but Unequal in 
College Greek Life, The Century Found., Aug. 12, 2014, https://tcf.org/
content/commentary/separate-but-unequal-in-college-greek-life/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7638 also outlaws a requirement that many public IHEs 
have: a requirement that an official student organization, 
eligible to receive programming funds from the IHE, have a 
faculty advisor. There is a myriad of reasons a college may be 
understandably reticent to grant hundreds or thousands of 
dollars to a group of 18-22 year old students without the 
assurance there is at least one member of the faculty with at 
least nominal oversight of the organization's activities. 
Supporters of H.R. 7683 would put their judgment before 
university officials, and ahead of the Courts which have not 
ruled on this question on First Amendment grounds.
    And, in perhaps the most absurd usurpation of a 
university's judgment, H.R. 7683 would prohibit a public IHE, 
when establishing standards regarding security fees charged 
recognized student organizations to take into account ``the 
anticipated reaction by students or the public to the 
event''.\35\ The record is replete with situations where public 
IHEs have faced exorbitant costs to ensure public safety when a 
student group invites a controversial speaker to campus.\36\ It 
is well documented that conservative campus groups have 
embraced the tactic of ``owning the libs'', intentionally 
bringing controversial figures to campus to knowingly stir up 
fervor among students.\37\ Under H.R. 7683, conservatives can 
continue to own the libs on their campus, they just won't have 
to pay the costs of ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\H.R. 7683, Sec. 4, creating a new HEA Sec. 112.
    \36\See, e.g., Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, Lessons from Spencer's Florida 
Speech, Inside Higher Ed. (Oct. 22, 2017)(``As of now, the university 
[of Florida] is estimating at least $600,000 spent on security[for a 
speech by White supremacist Richard Spencer]. Berkeley dropped upwards 
of $800,000 on security for a recent appearance by Yiannopoulos.'').
    \37\E.g., Joe Perticone, How `Owning the Libs' Became the Ethos of 
the Right, Business Insider, Jul. 28, 2018 (``Conservative student 
activist groups have played a significant role in the build up of 
``owning the libs'' as a core principle on the right. Groups like the 
Young America's Foundation and Turning Point USA have vast networks 
across college campuses where students can organize, host events, and 
propel themselves into careers in media and politics. Both YAF and 
TPUSA, while at odds with one another, utilize a heavy strategy of 
provoking what they view as a liberal control of America's colleges and 
universities.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 7683 mirrors Trump administrative actions, but goes further

    H.R. 7683's policies, which create a flawed legislative 
scheme to use Title IV funding as cudgel against public IHES 
for enforcement of its view of the First Amendment, are even 
more extreme than some of the policies put forward by the Trump 
administration. In 2020, the Trump administration finalized a 
rule (hereinafter ``2020 Final Rule'') to add a grant condition 
for direct grants or state-administered formula grant programs 
requiring public IHEs to comply with the First Amendment and 
requiring private institutions to follow their stated 
institutional policies on academic freedom and freedom of 
speech.\38\ These regulations also permit the Department of 
Education to take enforcement action, including withholding 
funds, any time there is a final, non-default judgement by a 
State or Federal court that a public IHE violated the First 
Amendment or a final, non-default judgement by a State or 
Federal court finding that a private IHE violated its stated 
institutional policies.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Direct Grant Programs, State-Administered Formula Grant 
Programs, Non Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs 
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, Developing 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Program, Strengthening Institutions 
Program, Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
Program, and Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions 
Program, 85 Fed. Reg. 59916 (Sept. 23, 2020) (codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 
75 and 76; 34 C.F.R. pt 106; 34 C.F.R. pts 606, 607, 608, and 609).
    \39\34 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 75.500(b) and (c); 34 C.F.R. 
Sec. Sec. 76.500(b) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2020 Final Rule also included a provision to prohibit 
public IHEs, as a material condition of federal funding, from 
denying religious student organizations any benefit, including 
access to funding, that is otherwise afforded to other student 
organizations ``because of the religious student organization's 
beliefs, practices, policies, speech, membership standards, or 
leadership standards, which are formed by sincerely held 
religious beliefs.''\40\ While purporting to create a policy of 
equal treatment, in reality the rule created an exemption for 
religious student groups from nondiscrimination rules 
instituted by public IHEs that apply to all other student 
groups. The 2020 Final Rule is also at odds with Supreme Court 
precedent which has held that the adoption of ``all-comers'' 
policies is constitutionally permissible.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\34 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 75.00(d), 76.500(d).
    \41\Christian Leg. Soc'y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. Hastings 
Coll. of L. v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These provisions are similar to those found in H.R. 7683 
with three major distinctions. First, the regulations apply to 
direct grants and state formula grants, not Title IV funding. 
Second, the Administration did not put its thumb on the scale 
and create a new regime defining these rights outside of the 
First Amendment. Schools must still rely on First amendment 
caselaw when making their decisions regarding free expression, 
association, religion, etc. Under H.R. 7683, the First 
Amendment is jettisoned for the bill's determinations of what 
free expression rules a school must follow. Finally, the 2020 
Final Rule premised any enforcement actions by the Department 
of Education upon a final court judgement whereas H.R. 7863 
also adds compliance with certain portions of the bill to the 
provisional participation agreements that schools must enter 
into to be eligible for Title IV, potentially furthering 
politization of First Amendment issues by some future 
administrations and jeopardizing public IHE's access to Title 
IV funding.
    In providing feedback on the announcement by the previous 
administration to promote free inquiry at colleges the 
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), an 
organization dedicated to protecting freedom of speech on 
college campuses, opposed tying federal education dollars to 
the outcome of free speech cases as it would create 
``incentives to either (1) settle every claim brought before 
[the institution], regardless of how frivolous, or (2) fight 
each case to the bitter end. Neither outcome would be good for 
free speech.''\42\ FIRE also warned against using the 
Department of Education for enforcement of First Amendment 
issues for fear of injecting political bias in the resolution 
of these issues. Importantly, FIRE affirmed that the courts 
remain the best avenue for the resolution of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Newsdesk, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, The 
Department of Education must avoid these pitfalls when crafting 
regulations on campus free speech (Dec. 4, 2019), https://
www.thefire.org/news/department-education-must-avoid-these-pitfalls-
when-crafting-regulations-campus-free-speech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7683 adds a provision similar to the Equal Campus 
Access Act of 2023, as introduced in the 118th Congress by Rep. 
Walberg, to HEA which prohibits a public IHE from denying a 
religious student organization any benefit that is afforded to 
other officially sanctioned student organizations (e.g., 
funding and access to facilities) ``because of the religious 
beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards, or standards 
of conduct of the religious student organization.''\43\ It has 
the effect of codifying the rescinded Trump-era policy to 
unconstitutionally favor religion by exempting only religious 
student groups from nondiscrimination requirements that apply 
to all other officially recognized student organizations.\44\ 
Many colleges and universities adopt anti-discrimination 
policies that require officially recognized student groups to 
allow any student to join, participate in, and seek leadership 
in these groups. As a result, this policy undermines 
nondiscrimination or ``all-comers'' policies that many public 
IHEs have enacted to ensure that officially recognized clubs do 
not reject students from membership or leadership on the basis 
of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, 
disability and other protected characteristics. This provision 
may also put some institutions in the difficult position where 
they may be under legal obligation to follow state and local 
nondiscrimination laws, yet risk loss of Title IV funding if 
they do not comply with federal law, if this provision were to 
be enacted.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act, H.R. 7683, 118th 
Cong. (as reported by the House Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, March 21, 2024). Equal Campus Access Act of 2023, H.R. 1816, 
118th Cong. (as introduced in the House, March 27, 2023).
    \44\Direct Grant Programs, State-Administered Formula Grant 
Programs, Non Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs 
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, Developing 
Hispanic Serving Institutions Program, Strengthening Institutions 
Program, Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
Program, and Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions 
Program, 85 Fed. Reg. 59916 (Sept. 23, 2020) (codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 
75 and 76; 34 C.F.R. pt 106; 34 C.F.R. pts 606, 607, 608, and 609).
    \45\Comment Letter, Am. Council on Educ., Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal 
Awards, Direct Grant Programs, State Administered Formula Grant 
Programs, Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions Program, and 
Strengthening Institutions Program, 85 Fed. Reg. 3190 (Jan. 17, 2020) 
(to be codified at 2 C.F.R. pt. 3474; 34 C.F.R. pts. 
75,76,106,606,607,608, and 609). https://www.regulations.gov/comment/
ED-2019-OPE-0080-17080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To add insult to injury, under this provision, students 
would be forced to subsidize groups that discriminate against 
them. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Supreme Court 
noted, in the Majority opinion, that the Christian Legal 
Society (CLS) was ``effectively seeking a state subsidy, [and 
it] faces only indirect pressure to modify its membership 
policies; CLS may exclude any person for any reason if it 
foregoes the benefits of official recognition.''\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\Christian Legal Soc'y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings 
College of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661, 682 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS OFFERED DURING MARKUP OF H.R. 7683

    Committee Democrats pointed out that the provisions of H.R. 
37683 were antithetical to rights granted under the 
Constitution, so there was little that could be done to improve 
upon the bill. Nevertheless, Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC) was 
successful to amend the bill to require a public IHE, in the 
free speech disclosures mandated in the bill, to disclose 
procedures for students to enforce their rights under Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to ensure that schools 
could take adverse action against student organizations having 
knowing provided material support or resources to foreign 
terrorist organizations. These common-sense amendments were 
adopted by voice vote.

                               CONCLUSION

    Despite claims to the contrary, H.R. 7683 is merely a 
continuation of the wave of ``culture war'' legislation 
proposed by the Majority and reported out of Committee this 
Congress. Strangely however, this bill breaks from the 
Majority's well-worn jeremiad against diversity, equity, and 
inclusion (DEI) programs, and instead embraces a warped DEI 
philosophy all its own.
    H.R. 7683 purports to protect freedoms for all students and 
faculty, but such protections are only necessary if you first 
accept the Majority's premise that there is a ``free speech 
crisis'' on campus.\47\ The Majority cites the lack of 
conservative First Amendment activity on campus as evidence of 
this crisis. In actuality, conservative speech on campus is 
present and flourishing. But, starting from the proposition 
that campus conservative First Amendment rights are stifled, 
H.R. 7683 aims to change that, legislating diversity of 
viewpoints, equity in consideration of campus groups and 
speakers, and inclusion of more student organizations. These 
buzzwords hide the real-world implications of the bill's 
provisions: forcing schools to abide speech regardless of a 
school's mission or student well-being; insisting on 
preferential, costly treatment for certain student groups and 
their speakers; and, demanding the recognition of student 
organizations free to discriminate with college funds. H.R. 
7683 then compels public schools participating in federal 
student aid programs to ascribe to these pernicious DEI views 
and creates a top-down regulatory regime to enforce them. If 
schools do not comply, the bill creates causes of action that 
activist trial lawyers can use to sue schools into oblivion and 
shut off access to the federal student aid funds students need 
to complete their educations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Campus free speech was the subject of the last education-
related hearing held by the Majority in the 115th Congress, and the 
third education-related hearing held by the Majority in the 118th 
Congress. Examining First Amendment Rights on Campus: Hearing Before 
the H. Comm. on Educ. & the Workforce, 115th Cong. (2018); Diversity of 
Thought: Protecting Free Speech on College Campuses: Hearing Before the 
Subcomm. on Higher Educ. & Workforce Development of the H. Comm on 
Educ. & the Workforce, 118th Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For this and the reasons stated above, Committee Democrats 
unanimously opposed H.R. 7683 when the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce considered it on January 31, 2024. We 
strongly urge the House of Representatives to do the same.

                                   Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                   Joe Courtney,
                                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
                                   Suzanne Bonamici,
                                   Mark Takano,
                                   Alma S. Adams,
                                   Mark DeSaulnier,
                                           Members of Congress.

                                  [all]