This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a floor statement or debate entry. It mentions legislation such as Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1501) to amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities as a covered project, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 9436) to amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 to extend the time period for which certain regulations concerning the North Atlantic right whale are effective; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1490) providing for the condemnation and denouncement of socialism in all its forms, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4795) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that Act, to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that Act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel, and for other purposes; and relating to consideration of motions to suspend the rules., committees such as Committee on Education and Workforce, members such as Tim Walberg.
Issued
September 3, 2026
house side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
3
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
1
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Committees
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official House Record PDFReturn to issue contextMr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the bill (H.R. 4795) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that Act, to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that Act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1499, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-39 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4795
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Protect Economic and
Academic Freedom Act of 2026”.
SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
PARTICIPATING IN CERTAIN NONEXPRESSIVE
COMMERCIAL BOYCOTTS.
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 not engage in a
nonexpressive commercial boycott of a major strategic partner
of the United States.
“(B) For purposes of this paragraph:
“(i) The term `major strategic partner' means, with
respect to the United States—
“(I) a country described in section 4 of Public Law 113-
296; or
“(II) an entity licensed or regulated by, or organized
under the laws of, such a country.
“(ii) The term `nonexpressive commercial boycott of a
major strategic partner'—
“(I) means a commercial action (including engaging in
refusals to deal and terminating business activities) that—
“(aa) is intended to limit commercial relations with a
major strategic partner; and
“(bb) is not based on a valid business reason; and
“(II) does not include actions described in regulations
issued to provide for the exceptions described in section
1773(a)(2) of the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C.
4842(a)(2)).”.
SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR TITLE VI FUNDS.
Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1121 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new sections:
“SEC. 639. INSTITUTIONAL CERTIFICATIONS.
“(a) Annual Requirement for Institutional Eligibility.—
Not later than July 31 of each calendar year beginning on or
after the date of enactment of the Protect Economic and
Academic Freedom Act of 2026, an institution of higher
education participating or applying to participate in any
program under this title shall submit to the Secretary the
certification required under subsection (b). An institution
that does not submit such certification by July 31 of a
calendar year shall be ineligible to receive any funds under
this title in the first fiscal year that begins after such
July 31, including any funds under this title that would
otherwise have been available to the institution in such
fiscal year for a grant awarded during a previous fiscal
year.
“(b) Certification.—An institution shall certify to the
Secretary that, for the period beginning on the date of such
certification and ending on July 31 of the following year,
the institution will—
“(1) permit students and faculty of the certifying
institution to participate in academic programs, including
conferences, teaching exchanges, cultural exchanges, study
abroad programs, joint research, and other collaborative
educational activities, in a major strategic partner (as
defined in section 487(a)(30)) of the United States in the
same manner, and under the same terms and conditions, as
students and faculty of the institution are permitted to
participate in academic programs in other foreign countries;
and
“(2) permit students and faculty of postsecondary
educational institutions in such a major strategic partner to
participate in academic programs offered by the certifying
institution, including conferences, teaching exchanges,
cultural exchanges, study abroad programs, joint research,
and other collaborative educational activities, in the same
manner, and under the same terms and conditions, as students
and faculty of other foreign postsecondary educational
institutions that are not in such a major strategic partner.
“SEC. 639A. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
“It is the sense of Congress that limitations on
cooperative efforts by institutions of higher education,
consortia of such institutions, or partnerships between
nonprofit educational organizations and institutions of
higher education with a major strategic partner (as defined
in section 487(a)(30)) of the United States do not serve the
security, stability, and economic vitality of the United
States.”.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
General Leave
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4795.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4795, Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act.
across American campuses. These campaigns have pressured colleges and universities to cut financial, commercial, and academic ties with Israeli companies and institutions. That can mean restricting study abroad opportunities, research partnerships, academic exchanges, conferences, and other programs involving Israel.
alarming rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses. It is no coincidence that some of the largest supporters of these campaigns have applauded the October 7 attacks and continue to use anti-Semitic language.
demonizes Israel. It rejects the truth that Israel is a close friend and strategic
partner of the United States. Our universities should not use taxpayer- funded Federal programs to discriminate against Israeli students, faculty, institutions, or businesses simply because they are Israeli.
H.R. 4795 would prohibit participating institutions from engaging in boycotts of Israel that are not based on legitimate business reasons. It would also require colleges and universities to treat academic opportunities involving Israel the same as those involving other countries, ensuring Israeli students and faculty have the same access to academic programs and opportunities as their peers from around the world.
This is about fairness. It is about justice. It is about protecting academic freedom. It is about accountability for Federal taxpayer dollars.
education. American taxpayers should not be funding institutions that utilize Federal programs while simultaneously pursuing discriminatory boycotts or unequal academic treatment based solely on ties to Israel.
H.R. 4795 passed the committee with bipartisan support, 24-9. That vote reflects what should be an important bipartisan consensus. Our institutions of higher education should be welcoming places for scholarship and exchange, not hotbeds of anti-Semitism and discrimination.
{time} 0920
I hope the floor vote reflects this principle.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4795 and send a clear message that academic and economic freedom must be protected on our campuses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, we find ourselves here, again, purportedly to address anti-Semitism in American higher education. While we should be able to agree that there is no place in higher education for anti- Semitism, the fact is my colleagues on the other side have been curiously quiet, or selectively quiet, about addressing anti-Semitism when it actually does occur.
both sides when a bunch of White supremacists and their Unite the Right rally marched on the University of Virginia's campus chanting: “Jews will not replace us.”
regarding chapters of the College Republicans openly promoted their hated of Jewish people among other groups.
President to stop firing lawyers at the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education, the agency responsible for investigating claims of anti-Semitism in education.
how this administration is dismissing Title VI disparate impact analysis, the very tool necessary to address practices and policies that may appear facially neutral but, in fact, discriminate against protected classes under the law.
many investigations into anti-Semitism on college campuses, led by the Department of Justice's Anti-Semitism Task Force, were based not on fact patterns or legal analysis but political priorities.
Economic and Academic Freedom Act, which would amend the Higher Education Act by imposing new conditions on colleges and universities that receive higher education funding. Under the bill, institutions receiving Title IV Federal student aid would be legally required to certify that they are not engaged in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel.
I will begin with an important distinction: there is a difference between actions, or views of students, or even recognized student organizations and the official policy of the colleges and universities they attend.
does not mean that their university has adopted those views, such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, movement. We have yet to see a single college or university in the United States adopt the BDS movement or institutional boycott policies contemplated in the bill.
education policy boycotting Israel. Nonetheless, this would create new Federal requirements intended to prevent institutions from adopting such policies in the future.
consider how these Federal requirements would operate in practice, the potential of negative effect on institutions receiving Federal funds, and whether the bill is misusing the power that we have from the Constitution's Spending Clause to illegally sanction First Amendment- protected speech, particularly those of students.
the floor, but they weren't, so I will be opposing the bill. For these reasons, I ask Members to vote “no,” and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the sponsor of this good legislation and necessary legislation.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 4795, bipartisan legislation to combat anti-Semitic, discriminatory commercial and academic boycotts of Israel.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walberg for yielding me time, and I thank him for advancing this critical bill out of committee.
Gottheimer of New Jersey, for his tireless work on this bipartisan achievement.
legislation, the American Jewish Committee and the Combat Antisemitism Movement, for their steadfast support.
Mr. Speaker, for decades now, the State of Israel, Israelis, and the people of Jewish faith have been internationally subjected to deplorable boycotts of their identity, their livelihoods, and their vitality.
design and discriminatory in their effect, and after October 7, universities have become the epicenters of these campaigns.
Barghouti, emphasis mine: “The ending of Israeli control in the territories is but the first stage of the road to fulfilling the vision of the dismantling of Israel.”
You heard that correctly, “the dismantling of Israel,” as stated by the founder of this deplorable movement.
measure to reckon with this fact: the very founder of the BDS movement wants to dismantle the Jewish state. That is why the American Jewish Committee has characterized BDS leadership as seeking nothing less than the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.
understand that this bill represents the House's opportunity to stop this anti-Semitic, discriminatory, and inhuman campaign from being fueled by American taxpayers and stop it in its tracks.
taxpayer funds, represent concrete discrimination against the people's national origin. They are discriminating against people of the Jewish faith. They result in discrimination against and marginalizing of Israeli students. No matter how you slice it, these anti-Semitic boycotts should have no place in higher education and deserve zero intersection with the Federal Government.
Now, let me speak to the chief argument from opponents of this bill: that these boycotts are illusionary, nonevents, or they haven't yet been actualized by administrators, so there is no
reason to address possible taxpayer funding.
These boycotts are manifest. They are coordinated. They are real. They marginalize Jewish students. They harm Israel, Israelis, and Jewish students economically.
administrative level, reached an agreement to address divestment from companies that profit from the “occupation of Palestinian territories.” You can read this commitment to boycott and divest from Israel online as we speak.
Congress revealed that faculty members and Northwestern's provost— administrators, mind you—were openly willing to appease encampment organizers in their efforts to demand that the university boycott Sabra hummus. These demands were only rejected after Congress threw its full weight and investigative power against such appeasements.
trying. During the 2023-2024 academic year, at least 86 BDS resolutions were considered across graduate, undergraduate, and professional student organizations and faculty unions.
Academic boycotts have a record of taxpayer support. Keep in mind, they can be stealthily executed at the programmatic level and can be accomplished without the expressed support from university administrators.
In 2013, the American Studies Association, the largest academic—
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
{time} 0930
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in 2013, the American Studies Association, the largest academic group in the United States, adopted a policy endorsing an academic boycott of Israel. In 2014, six taxpayer-supported NRC directors signed a letter endorsing an academic boycott of Israel. These academic boycotts contravene the purposes of the title VI funding they received.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but now is not the time for talk. The facts are evident. Now is the time for action. This Congress needs to codify this preventive measure to protect students and taxpayers from this disgusting discrimination.
their work on this bipartisan legislation. I urge the Chamber to draw a line in the sand against these harmful campaigns against the State of Israel, Israelis, and our Jewish students at home.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an attack on free speech and academic freedom, all in the name of defending a genocidal apartheid state.
funding, deporting international students, and pressuring universities to shut down their Black and African-American studies departments, Congress is voting today to force universities to pledge their loyalty to what? To a foreign government.
That is right. Support the Israeli Government and their war crimes or lose Federal student aid.
change, from the civil rights movement to today. Academic boycotts had helped bring down the apartheid state in South Africa, as well as abolish segregation right here at home.
boycotts and the divestment movements on campuses are led by Jewish students who were yelling: Not in our name.
Do you know what this is about? I will show you. This is about protecting an image like this from Israel's National Security Minister this week. This is what he put up on social media, showing the fate that he has planned for the Palestinian people.
What is this? This is an image of Palestinians walking into a gas chamber. This is what students are boycotting.
speaking out against ethnic cleansing, genocide, and bombings of hospitals, schools, and refugee camps.
working-class students who depend on Federal student aid to get an education. A vote for this bill is a betrayal of those promising young students, denying them the right to an education. Why? Because they want to save lives, no matter their faith or ethnicity.
and public education in our country. We all see it, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. First, it is a ban on boycotting an apartheid government state, and then it is going to be a ban on divesting from fossil fuels, or maybe teachers will be banned based on what teachers are teaching now.
for students. They are doing what is right in our history, and I am not going to wait a decade for people to apologize for it, because they are trying to save lives. It is their constitutional right to be able to boycott and run campaigns that are peaceful and saying: Enough is enough. Not with our dime, and not in our name.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the vice chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4795, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act.
not slowing down. Across the United States and our institutions of higher learning, we have seen a concerted and coordinated effort to isolate Jewish students and faculty.
Committee has done to combat the spread of this vile ideology, and American taxpayers' dollars should not go to subsidize universities that are actively singling out one of our closest allies to discriminate against them.
This isn't an issue over protests or slogans. In too many instances, this hatred has become a form of institutional discrimination supported by our colleges and universities. When that line is crossed, Congress has every right to intervene and demand that if you receive Federal dollars, there are basic standards that must be met.
I am grateful for Dr. Foxx and her leadership in this space, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote “yes” on this measure.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bad idea. It tramples on the rights of Americans in order to protect a foreign government from the consequences of its own actions.
Let me give you some context. The West Bank is currently experiencing the worst year of settler violence ever recorded. Israeli settlers have committed violence, terrorism, and many other things against Palestinians, with the goal of driving them out of the lands they have lived in for generations. It is an ethnic cleansing. They have assaulted and killed Palestinian Americans and laid siege to their homes.
in many cases, has actively supported it, protecting the criminals and not the victims.
Israeli settlements, a violation of international law and a crime against the Palestinians who live there.
Americans see this. The world sees this. Yet, what is the priority of our House of Representatives right now? It is not to stop the violence, not to stop the displacement, and not to protect the children. The priority of this House today is a bill that threatens to take Federal student aid away from American citizens and to protect this activity in these settlements.
or even just about Israel. The bill's language is written to include Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. It is in defense of an illegal act by a foreign government, and the victims will be American students.
a company in South Carolina, California, or Idaho, it would face no consequences under American law. Make the same decision about Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, and this bill strips American students of their Pell grants and American veterans of their hard- earned benefits. This bill holds American students' education hostage to protect a foreign government.
Constitution. In the landmark decision NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the Supreme Court held that a politically motivated boycott is protected expression under the First Amendment. This isn't an obscure case. It is the reason the sponsors of the bill wrote the word “nonexpressive” into the text.
Yet, every example that the sponsors point to is plainly political. A boycott is a political act. It is protected under the First Amendment, and you don't have to even agree with the boycott to support an American's right to engage in it.
support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and I urge every Member of this body today to take that oath seriously and vote against this bill.
{time} 0940
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from J Street, which says in part: “This means infringing on constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their opposition to activities that further annexation sets a dangerous precedent.”
From J Street, Aug. 31, 2026
J Street Statement Opposing H.R. 4795
Washington, DC—J Street opposes the Protect Economic and
Academic Freedom Act of 2025 (H.R. 4795), which would
condition federal funding on a university's choices regarding
investments, procurement, partnerships, and other
institutional activities in Israel and the West Bank.
While we oppose the Global BDS Movement and strongly
support academic engagement between American and Israeli
institutions, we believe this legislation takes the wrong
approach to these issues.
Specifically, the legislation would penalize any
institution that chooses to engage in a nonexpressive
commercial boycott against Israel and “an entity licensed or
regulated by, or organized under the laws of,” Israel, which
would include Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
This means infringing on constitutionally protected free
speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and
thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain
boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli
settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the
State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the
Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their
opposition to activities that further annexation sets a
dangerous precedent.
Furthermore, this bill does not keep American Jewish
students on campus safe, nor does it address the lived
experience of antisemitism that American Jewish students
encounter. Instead, by changing US code to to exceptionalize
the treatment of Israel at American universities, this bill
runs the risk of inflaming antisemitism.
J Street believes the most effective way to counter
antisemitism on college campuses is through open debate,
education, and renewed efforts to achieve a peaceful
resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—not through
punitive legislation aimed to curb the freedom to boycott.
We urge Members of Congress to vote against this bill and
instead cosponsor the Antisemitism Response and Prevention
Act (H.R. 6806). This bill would implement a whole-of-
government approach to fighting antisemitism by funding the
Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education and
mandating the designation of a Title VI coordinator on every
college campus in order to provide students with additional
resources in hopes of preventing antisemitism and other hate
on campus.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a statement from the American Federation of Teachers which says in part: “The AFT has long fought for academic freedom, the safety and dignity of all students and educators, and policies that keep higher education accessible. H.R. 4795 undermines those goals rather than advancing them.”
AFT, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, September 1, 2026.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.875 million members
of the AFT who work in education, healthcare and public
services, I am writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 4795, the
Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, when it
comes before the House. Conditioning federal student aid—
which millions of low-and middle-income students depend on to
afford college—on an institution's compliance with a vague
and sweeping prohibition on “nonexpressive commercial
boycotts” will not have the desired effect. All it will do
is hurt students.
The AFT has historically taken a position against the
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement for several
reasons. First, it undermines the Israelis and Palestinians
who are on the ground working in favor of coexistence. It
also could end critical relationships with universities,
nongovernmental organizations, businesses and unions that
foster Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and stop any
assistance from going to the very people who are pushing back
against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his
government's response.
At the core of our union's values—and, I would argue, of
American values—is the commitment to fighting hate and
discrimination while protecting our nation's first freedoms:
free speech, peaceful protest and association, and due
process. AFT members work every day to model this balance in
our schools and communities, striving to create welcoming and
safe environments for all students and educators—free from
antisemitism, Islamophobia and hate of every kind—while
ensuring that people can speak, organize and protest
peacefully.
H.R. 4795, however, does not advance that goal, nor does it
accurately represent what is going on at most campuses.
Assuming the definition is directed at the BDS movement,
ending student aid will not in and of itself protect any
students or staff—Jewish, Muslim or LGBTQIA+ or any other
minorities—from discrimination and harassment. That requires
vigorous enforcement of existing civil rights laws and
meaningful campus-climate initiatives—not financial
penalties that have no direct connection to whether an
institution has discriminated against or harassed members of
its community.
Moreover, tying federal financial aid to an institution's
position on a foreign-policy issue risks sweeping in a broad
range of protected institutional and academic decisions that
have nothing to do with antisemitism. Instead, the bill will
simply infringe on the First Amendment and free speech.
Most significantly, the bill punishes students, not
institutions. Cutting off federal aid because of decisions
made by college and university administrators—which
individual students have no control over—is the wrong way to
advance any policy goal. Those who can least afford it could
be forced to leave college or forgo higher education
altogether.
I write not only as AFT president, but as a lawyer, civics
teacher and deeply engaged Jew—as someone married to a rabbi
and who has experienced antisemitism firsthand. I understand
the challenge of striking the right balance, and I know it
must be approached with care. I have no doubt that Congress
can and should take affirmative steps to combat antisemitism
without undermining the civil rights and liberties of others
or putting students' access to higher education at risk. But
H.R. 4795 doesn't accomplish this.
The AFT has long fought for academic freedom, the safety
and dignity of all students and educators, and policies that
keep higher education accessible. H.R. 4795 undermines those
goals rather than advancing them. We urge you to vote no.
Sincerely,
Randi Weingarten,
President, AFT.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I will close by returning to the central point: that we must distinguish between student or faculty expression in university policy.
not the same thing as the university administration adopting BDS as policy. A faculty member expressing a political opinion is not the same thing as the institution imposing a boycott.
university adopting BDS in the way the bill suggests. Furthermore, we know the bill is intended to target the BDS movement. Yet it is not clear whether a school that even joined the BDS movement would be covered by the text of the bill.
The bill implicates “nonexpressive boycotts” as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro) just pointed out. If it is expressive, it is protected by the First Amendment. BDS by its very nature is designed to express disapproval of the actions of the State of Israel. If a college or university came out and publicly said it was joining BDS, most people would agree that that announcement and any activity that flowed from it would clearly be expressive, and therefore, out of the scope of the bill.
First Amendment, and therefore, the First Amendment would protect the funding from being removed. But, again, no college or university has embraced the BDS movement anyway.
do so by punishing protected speech or conflating students' views with university policies.
For those reasons I urge a “no” vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about a simple principle: Our colleges and universities should not discriminate against Israel, Israeli institutions, or Israeli students; and Federal taxpayer dollars should never support institutions that engage in such discrimination.
conduct research, collaborate, and exchange ideas without boycotts closing doors based on nationality.
H.R. 4795 protects that principle. It ensures that colleges participating in Federal higher education programs do not engage in certain unjustified commercial boycotts of Israel and that academic opportunities involving Israel are treated fairly and equally.
faculty are facing an alarming rise in anti-Semitism on American campuses.
without fear of discrimination or hostility and where academic partnerships are evaluated on their merits, not on campaigns that target one country.
The United States has a strong and enduring partnership with Israel. Our colleges and universities should not be undermining that relationship while asking American taxpayers to support their institution.
H.R. 4795 passed our committee with bipartisan support. Now it is time for the full House to stand for academic freedom, equal treatment, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Roll No. 295
YEAS—237
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Auchincloss
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Castor (FL)
Cisneros
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Costa
Courtney
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Downing
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Frankel, Lois
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Gallagher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gillen
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzalez, V.
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Landsman
Langworthy
Latimer
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lee (NV)
Letlow
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Mannion
Mast
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Moskowitz
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norcross
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Patronis
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Riley (NY)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Sherman
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Soto
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Strong
Stutzman
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thanedar
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Titus
Torres (NY)
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Vargas
Vindman
Wagner
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS—169
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Blair
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castro (TX)
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Friedman
Frost
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Goodlander
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Mejia
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Pappas
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Scott (VA)
Sewell
Simon
Sorensen
Stansbury
Stanton
Subramanyam
Sykes
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vasquez
Veasey
Wahab
Walkinshaw
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING—27
Bell
Ciscomani
Cleaver
Donalds
Dunn (FL)
Garamendi
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gottheimer
Houlahan
Kaptur
Loudermilk
McCaul
McDowell
Miller (IL)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Min
Moulton
Obernolte
Ogles
Schakowsky
Smith (WA)
Spartz
Strickland
Velazquez
Wilson (SC)
{time} 1024
Mr. VEASEY changed his vote from “yea” to “nay.”
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed her vote from “nay” to “yea.”
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. I was unable to make the vote due to a funeral. I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 295, H.R. 4795.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call Vote No. 295 on H.R. 4795 I mistakenly recorded my vote as NAY when I should have voted YEA.