Lower Drug Costs Today Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I devoted much of my life to combating anti-Semitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight anti-Semitism on campus or anywhere else.

I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people. However, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.

While there is much in the bill I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of

one particular definition of anti-Semitism to the exclusion of all others, to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of anti-Semitism on campus.

This definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes ``contemporary examples of anti-Semitism.'' The problem is that these examples may include protected speech in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.

To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments toward Israel expressed in those examples, and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent anti-Semitism.

Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus, and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them. However, while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.

As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid title VI investigations or the potential loss of Federal funding could end up suppressing protected speech that is criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians.

Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying the definition that he wrote, the IHRA definition, for this reason.

Vigorous enforcement of the Federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like ``anti-Semitism'' or ``racism.'' In fact, codifying one definition of anti-Semitism to the exclusion of all other possible definitions could actually undermine Federal civil rights law because anti-Semitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as anti-Semitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit, for political gain, the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country.

Much of this activity, whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not, constitutes legally protected speech and expression. Some participants, shamefully, have exhibited anti-Semitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition and other relevant definitions in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries.

Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property, and willful disruption of campus life. They too will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that. There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of anti-Semitism. Congress can help, but this legislation is not the answer.

Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop anti-Semitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is. Last year, the Biden administration outlined a comprehensive national strategy to counter anti-Semitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education.

President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office. If my Republican colleagues are serious about fighting anti-Semitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent, funding to enforce the laws against anti-Semitism on campus. They bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in anti-Semitism complaints. If my Republican colleagues are serious about anti- Semitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the national strategy today instead of fiddling with definitions.

If my Republican colleagues were serious about anti-Semitism, they would have spoken up after neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted: ``Jews will not replace us.''

If my Republican colleagues were serious about anti-Semitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were ``very fine people on both sides'' of that rally.

Additionally, just last week, former President Trump downplayed what happened in Charlottesville, calling it a ``peanut'' compared to recent campus protests of the Israel-Gaza war, and we heard crickets from the Republicans.

We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeated anti-Semitic tropes about George Soros or others.

I say to my Republican friends: For too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening. If you mean what you say here today and if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combatting anti- Semitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education, then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students. Fully fund the administration's efforts to counter anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less.

By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's remarks are slanderous.

First of all, the bill that I cosponsored 2 years ago was a different bill. It did not exclude--let me read from this bill: ``The use of alternative definitions of anti-Semitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of anti-Semitism.''

That is nonsense, and it was not in the bill that was, I think, about 7 or 8 years ago. The two bills are different.

Second, I oppose this bill because it infringes on freedom of speech, and there are Jewish groups, such as Reconstructionist Judaism, J Street and T'ruah that oppose this bill for the same reason, and they are not anti-Semitic. There are Jewish groups that support the bill. There are Jewish groups that oppose the bill.

I have been a supporter of Israel and of Zionism, and an opponent of anti-Semitism all my life. I have been active in Zionist organizations ever since I was in high school, and to say that anyone who votes against this bill is supporting anti-Semitism is a disgrace.

There are differences of opinion that occur on this floor from time to time, honest differences. Someone who opposes this bill may think that it infringes on freedom of speech. Someone who opposes this bill may note that the author of the IHRA definition that this would enshrine in law said don't codify it. The author, Kenneth Stern, said this is a good working definition that may indicate anti-Semitism. So are the other two, but it should not be codified into law because that could make, depending on the circumstances, free speech illegal. The author of the IHRA definition said that.

There may be legitimate differences of opinion between those who support this bill and those who oppose this bill, but to say that anyone who opposes this bill supports anti-Semitism is a disgraceful slander.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, every bit of conduct that Mr. Molinaro described is loathsome, as he says, but that does not mean that we ought to pass a bill that threatens freedom of speech.

This bill will do nothing to help stamp out anti-Semitism on campuses or anywhere else, but it will threaten free speech for the reasons I stated before.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, anti-Semitism is a terrible thing. Hamas is a genocidal organization which wants to kill all Jews, not just the State of Israel. There is no question about that. There is no question we have to fight anti-Semitism. There is no question the Manning bill is a good step in that direction. There is no question we ought to give the Office for Civil Rights the 25 percent increase the President has requested to enforce title VI on college campuses where there has been no question there has been vile anti-Semitism.

That, however, does not mean we should pass this bill. This bill enshrines the IHRA definition, and I would remind you that the IHRA definition's chief author, Kenneth Stern said: Don't codify it in law because if codified into law, it would be destructive of free speech. The author of the IHRA definition said that.

The bill also specifically excludes the Jerusalem and Nexus definitions. There is no good reason for that. All three definitions give examples of things that may be seen as anti-Semitism, that may indicate anti-Semitism. None of them should be codified into law, as this bill would do for one of them.

I don't know why one and not the other two, but this bill would enshrine one of them into law against the will of its own author, who said this is my best definition, but don't enshrine it into law, or, rather, don't codify it into law because if it is made law, it could infringe free expression, and that is why not only the ACLU, but J Street, T'ruah, the Reconstructionist Jewish Movement, and a dozen other Jewish groups oppose this law, not because they support anti- Semitism--they obviously don't--but because they both oppose anti- Semitism and support freedom of speech, and those of us who oppose anti-Semitism and support freedom of speech ought to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support meaningful action to combat anti- Semitism. Unfortunately, that is not the legislation before us. We risk threatening freedom of speech while providing no new tools that the Department of Education does not already have to investigate claims of anti-Semitism.

The White House has developed a strong blueprint for countering anti- Semitism, and there is already legislation to implement these policies. We should be working together to pass that legislation and to provide our civil rights enforcement agencies with the resources they need to address anti-Semitism wherever it occurs.

This legislation is a distraction from the important work ahead of us to protect our students and all those who face discrimination. Not only is it a distraction, but it also threatens freedom of speech.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 6090) to provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 6090.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6090 is designed to combat the deeply disturbing trend of anti-Semitic harassment in schools, colleges, and universities across the country. We are seeing it unfold right now on our television screens.

Anti-Semitic harassment on these university campuses is, unfortunately, not a completely new phenomenon. As early as 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights warned that campus anti-Semitism had become a serious problem.

In 2013, a Pew Research Center survey of Jewish Americans found that experience with anti-Semitism was more prevalent among young adults in higher education.

In 2014, a Brandeis Center-Trinity College study found that anti- Semitism was particularly pervasive on college campuses, with 54 percent of Jewish students on 55 campuses having reported that they experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism during the 2013-2014 academic year.

In 2021, the Louis Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law conducted a survey of Jewish fraternity and sorority students, finding that most have felt unsafe at some point while on campus and in virtual campus settings. These fears are justified. The catalog of anti-Semitic harassment in America's top institutions of higher learning is there for everybody to see. Those incidents have increased sharply following the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel perpetrated by Hamas and its allied groups.

In late October 2023, at Cooper Union in New York, visibly Jewish students were forced to shelter inside a library as pro-Palestinian protesters tried to gain entry, banging on doors and windows, with the purpose of terrifying them.

On October 26, 2023, anti-Israel protesters assaulted multiple Jewish students at Tulane University in New Orleans.

On November 3, 2023, a Harvard law student and other anti-Israel protesters physically and verbally attacked a first-year Israeli student at the Harvard Business School while he pleaded with them to stop.

From October 7 until mid-January of 2024, the Department of Education has launched 51 investigations into complaints alleging discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry in K-12 schools and colleges and universities.

From January 16, 2024, until today, the Department has launched over 45 investigations into schools and colleges. These investigations overwhelmingly concern anti-Semitic conduct in these schools.

In fact, on April 23, 2024, the Education Department launched an investigation into Columbia University, and we all know what is happening there right now. Hundreds of anti-Israel protesters have occupied Columbia University's west lawn and erected dozens of tents, disrupting campus life and creating a hostile environment for Columbia's Jewish students. Hundreds of pro-Hamas students were arrested for trespassing after repeated warnings to vacate the area, only to be released and returned to Columbia.

A rabbi at Columbia's Orthodox Union Jewish Learning Initiative has advised Jewish students to leave campus because the university has shown that it cannot keep them safe.

Columbia revoked the campus access of a Jewish professor who has been critical of school administrators because the university said it couldn't ensure his safety.

Speaker Johnson, Chairwoman Foxx, and Republican members of the New York delegation went to Columbia University last week and, while addressing the campus, were greeted by anti-Israel chants of: ``From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.''

What that calls for actually is the eradication of the Jewish people. We all know that expression is abhorrent in our society and, yet, it is going on, it seems now, hourly on our college campuses.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The surge in the ancient bigotry of anti-Semitism over the years, especially since October 7, must not continue. It is long past time that Congress act to protect Jewish Americans from the scourge of anti-Semitism on campuses around our country.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act expresses the sense of Congress that discrimination against Jews may violate title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it is based on race, color, or national origin, which can include discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.

The bill requires the Department of Education to take into account the 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Act's definition of anti- Semitism as part of its assessment of whether anti-Semitic discrimination has occurred. The IHRA definition provides a consistent framework for the Department of Education schools, colleges, and universities to apply to police anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.

The IHRA's definition is widely accepted and a vital tool for identifying and addressing discriminatory conduct that is motivated by anti-Semitism. It has been adopted by at least 31 States. This bill is exactly the type of legislation needed to protect Jewish Americans from harassment and attacks for simply being who they are.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the gentleman turn on his television and watch what is going on right now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot fight anti-Semitism if you cannot define it. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance offers us a clear and widely accepted definition rooted in the tragedy of the ages. After that horrific crime against humanity, the civilized nations of the world took a sacred oath: Never again.

To support that oath, these united nations restored the Jewish state to its historic homelands. That state is now under attack at home and abroad, and with this act, America stands with our Jewish brethren at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I respond to my colleague from New York and his misguided remarks.

In 2018, the gentleman was a cosponsor of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which adopted the very definition that he just objected to. As a cosponsor of H.R. 5924, the definition that would be adopted is: ``Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti- Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.''

He was a cosponsor of that bill.

H.R. 6090, which I introduced, which has 59 cosponsors, adopts the IHRA working definition and its contemporary examples. The definition is: ``Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.''

It is the same definition, and, yet, now, somehow he is opposed to it.

Fundamentally, some of my colleagues on the left are allowing electoral politics to get in the way of doing what is right.

The gentleman from New York is a graduate of Columbia University, and yet couldn't muster the courage to take the subway north to stop by and call out the anti-Semitism that is running rampant at Columbia University. It is exactly why this bill is necessary today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, and I thank my colleague, Congressman Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey, for his courage in leading on this issue.

In every generation, the Jewish people have been scapegoated, harassed, evicted from their homeland, and murdered. Many of us remember the Holocaust as the most recent large-scale instance of this, but it was hardly the first in the Jewish people's long history of persecution.

Prior to October 7, it may have seemed like we were making progress

in fighting anti-Semitism, especially in the United States. A prime example: Jewish students weren't afraid to attend classes on their college campuses.

And yet today, we hear calls for intifada ring out on school grounds. We see Jewish students being physically prevented from going to class, rioters chanting ``death to Israel'' and ``death to America,'' and so much more.

In the U.S., Jews account for only 2.4 percent of the population, and globally they make up 0.2 percent of the world's population. The Jewish people need our support now. They need action now. They need to know they have a place in our country now.

They cannot fight anti-Semitism alone, and they shouldn't have to either.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act requires the Department of Education to use the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism and its contemporary examples when enforcing title VI violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Codifying a single definition of anti-Semitism will help the Department of Education and school administrators, who have been feckless, clearly identify instances of anti-Semitism and protect the safety of all students, including Jewish students.

Now, some opponents may try to make the argument that this imposes restrictions on our constitutional right to free speech. It is not true.

First of all, a constitutional protection is in the bill. It clearly states: ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.''

Additionally, speech is already protected under the Civil Rights Act, but when the speech turns into harassment or other prohibited action and the action is motivated by anti-Semitism, that is when it becomes illegal conduct.

Right now, without a clear definition of anti-Semitism, the Department of Education and college administrators are having trouble discerning whether conduct is anti-Semitic or not, whether the activity we are seeing crosses the line to anti-Semitic harassment.

Other opponents to the bill say they would rather see a different bill tackling this.

That is no reason, and no ``political cover'' to vote against another helpful measure.

I ask my colleagues who would prefer other solutions to consider the good it will do for the Jewish students and, yes, keep pushing for more change in the future. We need to hold these institutions accountable.

My bill has bipartisan support: 59 cosponsors, dozens of Jewish advocacy groups, including the ADL, the AJC, and Agudath Israel. It is absurd to oppose this on the grounds that it somehow limits free speech.

Calling for death to Jews is not protected speech. It is anti- Semitic, and the fact that we have some of the highest-ranking Jewish officials in America refusing to defend the Jewish community because of politics is a disgrace, it is shameful, and it is pathetic.

Anyone who votes against this bill because they would rather put political expediency and electoral politics ahead of anything else has no business being a Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, never again is now, and we must act. That is our responsibility.

I would remind everyone, when you cosponsor a bill that accomplishes the same thing, nothing has changed, and yet now we need to backtrack all because of politics.

Sure. I think any legislation that we can bring forward to combat anti-Semitism is critical, and I think Ms. Manning and Mr. Smith have done a great job working to bring a piece of legislation forward. I have introduced a number. This is but one of them.

I think the objective is to clearly define anti-Semitism and force accountability on these administrators and make sure the Department of Education has the teeth to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R. 6090-- Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023.

In light of recent events across the globe and here in the United States, where anti-Semitic attacks and hate crimes have risen, this bipartisan bill is an attempt to codify the definition of ``antisemitism''

Specifically, this bill would require the Department of Education to take the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism into account when determining if an action or practice that violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was motivated by antisemitic intent.

The IHRA defines antisemitism as the following:

``Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.''

In its list of examples of anti-Semitic conduct, the IHRA includes ``[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,'' and ``[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.''

While there is both support and opposition for this bill it is important to highlight the issues and concerns.

Namely, there is a concern that this bill will undermine free speech by codifying a singular definition of antisemitism.

Notably, however, the bill language provides a provision to explicitly protect against infringement of the First Amendment.

Additionally, while the Department of Education already utilizes this definition of ``antisemitism'' in its enforcement of Title VI civil rights claims, there is a concern that forcing the Department of Education to ``consider'' a particular definition of antisemitism does nothing to protect houses of worship, check antisemitic threats, or otherwise keep students safe on campus.

Rather, improving civil rights enforcement should be the real key to fighting antisemitism.

In May 2023, the Biden Administration created a ``U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism,'' a cornerstone of which is increasing enforcement actions by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

Since the October 7 attacks on Israel, OCR has seen a dramatic rise in discrimination claims.

President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding to OCR, but funding remained level for FY 2024.

Last year, House Republicans pushed to cut funds for federal civil rights enforcement on college campuses by 25 percent.

Ultimately, however, House Republicans refused to increase OCR's funding.

Instead, they have fought adequately funding OCR to meet the surge in antisemitism complaints because, in the political hierarchy governing their culture war priorities, undermining LGBTQ civil rights is more important than protecting Jewish students from discrimination.

I think we can all agree that the recent rise in antisemitism in the U.S. is a real problem, yet sadly House Republicans mostly ignored it.

Thus, it is important to highlight that any support for this bill should also include corresponding support for the agency tasked with investigating claims of harassment and hate.

Supporting such a measure while stripping away the tools to effectively carry out its duties is short-sided.

In particularly, as we celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month this May, I must reiterate my condemnation to the rise of antisemitism--and call on my fellow elected officials,

faith leaders, and civil society leaders to continue to condemn and combat antisemitism, and to identify and educate others on the contributions of the Jewish American community.

And so, as we celebrate the Jewish American community's contributions this month, we too must honor their resilience in the face of a long and painful history of persecution.

Indeed, as stated by President Biden in his Proclamation on Jewish American Heritage Month, 2024--we must all ``remember that the power lies within each of us to rise together against hate, to see each other as fellow human beings, and to ensure that the Jewish community is afforded the safety, security, and dignity they deserve as they continue to shine their light in America and around the world.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, to ensure that we are standing up to the Jew hatred that is spreading like wildfire on campuses across our country. I am proud to lead this legislation with my friend and fellow Problem Solvers Caucus member, Congressman Mike Lawler from New York.

As we are voting today in real time, our country's universities are experiencing a tidal wave of anti-Semitism. Protesters have targeted Jewish students, haranguing them with awful Jew-hating insults and cheering on Hamas, a barbaric, foreign terrorist organization that murdered Americans on October 7 and still hold five living Americans hostage, including my constituent, Edan Alexander. I met with hostage families just this morning.

I saw these protests up close, like many Americans did, at Columbia earlier this month. I have heard the sickening Jew-hating, anti-Semitic comments comparing Zionists to Nazis, promising a redux of October 7 a thousand times over, and calling for ``resistance by any means necessary'' and intifada revolution. Intifada is used to call for a violent uprising against Israel and Jewish people.

These protests embolden Hamas, America's enemy and Iranian-backed terrorist. In fact, they have put out a statement lauding professors as the leaders of the future. That is what our enemies said about the pro- Hamas protesters at these universities.

Let me clear up any confusion since I am a huge champion myself of free speech. This bill protects the First Amendment. It allows criticism of Israel. I ensured that. It was critical to me. It doesn't allow calls for the destruction or elimination of the Jewish state, but it certainly allows criticism of Israel.

Even more, it reminds us that our universities have a title VI obligation to stamp out harassment on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot stand idly by as protesters call for the death of Jews on college campuses and across the country. This bill will require the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance or IHRA definition of anti-Semitism when carrying out title VI investigations.

IHRA's anti-Semitism definition is the most widely recognized in the world. It is used by 36 countries. It condemns traditional hatred and the ugly, modern anti-Semitism that we are seeing on college campuses.

There shouldn't be anything controversial about this bill. As was mentioned when it was first introduced in 2018, 50 Democrats and Republicans cosponsored this legislation, including Members who are still in this body.

Right now, the Department of Education has 137 active title VI investigations, some of which have been open for years.

Mr. Speaker, the bill will give investigators a clear framework to evaluate anti-Semitism and finally hold harassers accountable.

Don't just take my word for it. Thirty of our Nation's leading Jewish groups back this bill. Under the last three administrations, the State Department has used the IHRA definition to monitor anti-Semitism worldwide. This bill takes a commonsense step to formalize the IHRA definition for our education systems. Again, three administrations accepted this definition of anti-Semitism.

When I was at Columbia University last week, I told the administrators that we need deeds, not words to protect Jewish students.

Mr. Speaker, I am making the same ask of my colleagues. This bill is a critical step we can take to stand against hate. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting this legislation and stand strong against anti-Semitism with no excuses, no claims of commas that they don't like. Standing strong today against hate and anti-Semitism is what our country should stand for.