[Pages H5463-H5477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ACCREDITATION FOR COLLEGE EXCELLENCE ACT OF 2023

General Leave

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

{time} 1214

In the Committee of the Whole

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

[[Page H5464]]

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

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

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

[[Page H5465]]

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

{time} 1230

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

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

American Council on Education,

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

[[Page H5466]]

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

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

[[Page H5467]]

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

{time} 1245

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

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

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

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

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

Association of Public &

Land-Grant Universities,

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

[[Page H5468]]

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

Mark Becker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page H5469]]

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

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

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

Association of American Universities,

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

[[Page H5470]]

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

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

{time} 1300

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

[[Page H5471]]

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

H.R. 3724

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

TITLE I--ACCREDITATION FOR COLLEGE EXCELLENCE

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

TITLE II--RESPECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON CAMPUS

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

TITLE I--ACCREDITATION FOR COLLEGE EXCELLENCE

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

[[Page H5472]]

TITLE II--RESPECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON CAMPUS

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 202. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

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

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

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

SEC. 203. DISCLOSURE OF FREE SPEECH POLICIES.

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

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

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

SEC. 204. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND RELIGION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page H5473]]

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

SEC. 205. FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS.

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

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

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

[[Page H5474]]

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

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

SEC. 206. ENFORCEMENT.

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

``SEC. 112E. ENFORCEMENT.

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

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

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Molinaro

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

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

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

[[Page H5475]]

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

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

{time} 1315

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ogles

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page H5476]]

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

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ogles

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

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

[[Page H5477]]

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

Motion to Recommit

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

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

____________________