Expressing that compelled political litmus tests used by public institutions to require individuals to identify with specific ideological views are directly at odds with the principles of academic freedom and free speech and in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

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

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

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. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

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

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.

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,

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

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. Chair, could you advise how much time remains on this side?

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

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. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

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. 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. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. 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.

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

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. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams), the bill's sponsor.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the bill's sponsor.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

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. 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.

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

and Expression, and Young America's Foundation supporting this bill.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

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

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.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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

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. 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.

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. Chair, I will go back to the Eighth Circuit where it determined at the University of Iowa, that

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.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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. 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.

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.

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.