[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 201 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6166-H6184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1345
 DEFENDING EDUCATION TRANSPARENCY AND ENDING ROGUE REGIMES ENGAGING IN 
                       NEFARIOUS TRANSACTIONS ACT


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 906 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5933.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Moylan) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1346


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5933) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 
additional information in disclosures of foreign gifts and contracts 
from foreign sources, restrict contracts with certain foreign entities 
and foreign countries of concern, require certain staff and faculty to 
report foreign gifts and contracts, and require disclosure of certain 
foreign investments within endowments, with Mr. Moylan in the chair.

[[Page H6167]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their 
respective designees.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the DETERRENT Act, H.R. 5933. 
The Republican transparency and accountability agenda is on the march, 
and the Committee on Education and the Workforce has set its sights on 
postsecondary education.
  We delivered the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, a bill 
to ensure Title IX funding doesn't go to athletic programs which 
disadvantage young women.
  Just yesterday, we conducted oversight of anti-Semitism on campus 
during a contentious hearing with Ivy League presidents.
  Now, we are considering the DETERRENT Act, a bill that restores 
transparency and accountability in foreign donations to American 
universities.
  The DETERRENT Act strengthens section 117 of the Higher Education 
Act, which was intended to protect American universities from nefarious 
foreign donations.
  Unfortunately, many schools failed to report these foreign gifts and 
funding, leaving foreign actors with a stranglehold on U.S. academic 
institutions.
  A 2019 Senate report found that up to 70 percent of universities fail 
to comply with the law, and outside experts uncovered nearly $13 
billion in previously undisclosed foreign funds.
  Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Without transparency, 
we have no idea the true amount of foreign funds at our universities.
  This legislation safeguards our national security in five key ways. 
First, this bill lowers the minimum foreign gift reporting threshold to 
$50,000 from its current $250,000. For countries of concern, every 
penny must be reported.
  Second, the bill closes loopholes that allow foreign entities to hide 
the true origin or purpose of their gifts.
  Every disclosure must include the intended purposes, dates, and 
person at the institution responsible for accepting the gift.
  Third, the DETERRENT Act requires that research faculty at our 
largest research universities disclose foreign gifts and contracts 
publicly so the American people can see if academic work is 
compromised.
  Fourth, it reveals foreign investments by the endowments of our 
largest private universities.
  Finally, it sets real, meaningful penalties for universities that 
fail to comply. Foreign influence is not something our schools should 
take lightly.
  I am proud of my Republican colleague, Representative Michelle Steel, 
for introducing this fantastic piece of legislation, and the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce is proud to deliver yet another win for 
transparency, for accountability, and for the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5933, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue 
Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions, or DETERRENT Act, is before 
us today.
  Historically, collaborations with global partners--and careful 
Federal investments in research--have enabled our colleges and 
universities to make bold, forward-thinking strides in health, science, 
and technology for people around the world.
  Additionally, institutions have collaborated with the U.S. Government 
to enhance our research by attracting and retaining researchers and 
scholars from across the world.
  These partnerships help drive intellectual and campus diversity, 
strengthen inner workings of our economy, and give us an undeniable 
competitive edge.
  Institutions, however, must be transparent about the resources they 
receive from foreign entities, particularly as the Federal Government 
invests nearly $30 billion annually in our higher education research 
and development efforts.

  Some colleges and universities, unfortunately, have not complied with 
all of their responsibilities in those disclosures. Regrettably, H.R. 
5933 does nothing to meaningfully protect research security at colleges 
and universities.
  For example, colleges must report any gift from a representative of a 
``country of concern'' no matter the value--even a cup of coffee.
  The faculty's information is then shared in a publicly searchable 
database, regardless of whether the action was nefarious or not.
  This is excessive and burdensome--to say nothing about the potential 
discriminatory effect--and would disincentivize universities from 
conducting critical research using collaborative partners from around 
the world.
  It would force them to deviate from established compliance and 
reporting guidelines under section 117 of the Higher Education Act.
  Schools are already grappling with recruiting and retaining students 
and scholars. If passed, H.R. 5933 will stall decades of innovative 
progress and jeopardize global research initiatives.
  Students and faculties are already calling on Congress to improve our 
higher education system and address discrimination on campus.
  However, certain provisions of this bill would only exacerbate the 
ongoing culture wars that have consumed our colleagues in Congress.
  For example, the legislation singles out partnerships with certain 
countries, targeting researchers based solely on their nationality.
  As I have said before, we can achieve accountability and compliance 
without contributing to anti-Asian, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic 
animosity.
  I have offered a thoughtful alternative to improve section 117 
compliance and support institutions as they evaluate and implement 
their research integrity and foreign influence policies, and that 
alternative will be offered during the amendment process.
  This amendment builds on the Chips and Science Act and the 
Presidential Memorandum on government-supported research and 
development national security policy guidelines.
  Specifically, it aligns reporting requirements with those of Federal 
agencies and requires the Secretary of Education to go through 
negotiated rulemaking to address key implementation aspects of section 
117.
  We must take targeted and thoughtful steps to protect our research 
and development initiatives without jeopardizing our global 
partnerships that will benefit us all.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Steel).
  Mrs. STEEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman, Dr. Foxx, for yielding 
time.
  Actually, this has nothing to do with an anti-Asian bill. This is my 
bill, and we want to protect our children from this propaganda.
  Yesterday, before the Committee on Education and the Workforce and 
the entire world, leaders of three of our Nation's most prestigious 
universities failed to demonstrate the most basic levels of humanity 
when discussing anti-Semitism on campus.
  Make no mistake: Their lack of moral clarity shows exactly what 
happens when we permit hostile foreign actors like Qatar, Iran, and 
Communist China to buy influence on our college campuses.
  When they give money without return, actually, there is no such thing 
as a free lunch. That is why today I am offering a legislative solution 
to crack down on this crisis in our higher education system. That is 
why I rise today to urge support and passage of the DETERRENT Act.
  Justice Brandeis once said: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As we 
saw yesterday, our college campuses are infected.
  The DETERRENT Act brings desperately needed sunlight by strengthening 
transparency and disclosure requirements under section 117 of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965.

[[Page H6168]]

  While the previous administration reinvigorated the use of this tool, 
the current administration has repeatedly downplayed the threat of 
foreign actors and failed to take meaningful steps to protect our 
students, research, and national security. If the President will not 
act, Congress must.
  The DETERRENT Act has three pillars to strengthen section 117. The 
first pillar brings much-needed transparency.
  Foreign adversaries look for any loophole to hide their intentions. 
This is especially true for states that pose the greatest threats to 
our Nation, like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.
  The DETERRENT Act eliminates these loopholes by lowering the foreign 
gifts reporting threshold from $250,000 to $50,000 for all foreign 
donors and eliminating the threshold entirely for those from countries 
of concern.
  The bill also requires the disclosures include detailed information 
about the foreign source, the intent of the gift, and the complete text 
of any contracts with the concerned entities.
  The second pillar of my bill establishes accountability. For too 
long, schools have adopted a take the money first, ask questions later 
approach to billions of dollars of foreign funds.
  As reporting and congressional oversight revealed in the case of UC 
Berkeley in my home State of California, these problematic 
relationships are often discovered years after the fact when the damage 
has already been done.
  Requiring timely transparency for institutions receiving foreign 
funds means ensuring the penalties for nonreporting are more than a 
slap on the wrist.

                              {time}  1400

  The DETERRENT Act institutes a progressive fine schedule, culminating 
in the loss of title IV funding for noncompliant universities. The bill 
also sets up an institutional point of contact so institutions cannot 
use the faceless bureaucracy to claim ignorance of unreported foreign 
funds on their campuses.
  The third and final pillar of the DETERRENT Act is clarity. The 
DETERRENT Act streamlines the bureaucratic reporting process and aligns 
section 117 with other laws. It shifts the reporting schedule from a 
biannual to an annual basis, using reporting thresholds from existing 
law to avoid confusion.
  It improves communication between the Department of Education and 
institutions by mandating a point of contact on section 117 for 
institutions to utilize at the Department. It also requires periodic 
meetings between the Department and institutions to discuss 
improvements to online reporting.
  Section 117 has not been updated in more than 30 years. These reforms 
are long overdue.
  The DETERRENT Act is a commonsense bill that adds transparency, 
accountability, and clarity to section 117. That is why it passed the 
Education and the Workforce Committee in a bipartisan vote.
  Let's protect our students from this propaganda. Mr. Chair, I urge 
every Member of this body to vote ``yes'' on the DETERRENT Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will quote from a letter we received from the Asian 
American Scholar Forum in terms of the effect this bill would have on 
Asian-American researchers. It is a long letter, but I will read one 
paragraph.
  ``The DETERRENT Act would further chill participation in research by 
signaling to researchers and institutions that scientific collaboration 
is discouraged and effectively deter economic institutions and scholars 
from engaging with Chinese-American and immigrant colleagues and peers 
out of fear of punishment or heightened scrutiny. The DETERRENT Act's 
definition of a `foreign source' includes not just individuals overseas 
but those with lawful immigration status in the United States who are 
not U.S. citizens or nationals. As a practical matter, the DETERRENT 
Act would force scholars and researchers to scrutinize the immigration 
status of potential collaborators and would deter them from 
collaboration with individuals who may be perceived to be immigrants. 
Moreover, many scholars would not have access to private information, 
such as the immigration status of their peers, making this practically 
a difficult or impossible requirement for faculty, scholars, and 
researchers to meet. Additionally, the reporting requirement for 
contracts of no monetary value as it pertains to foreign entities and 
countries of concern as defined by the DETERRENT Act would 
significantly chill even normal, everyday communications, as it may be 
perceived as an agreement.''
  This would obviously have a chilling effect, and that is one of the 
reasons we are opposing the DETERRENT Act.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I support the DETERRENT Act, and I 
urge all Members to vote for this bill.
  Education is a battleground for influence, and it seems that foreign 
countries understand this better than some Members of this Congress.
  On our watch, the Federal Government doles out billions in taxpayer 
dollars to fund expensive degrees that empower an anti-American agenda 
while these woke universities secretly collect checks from hostile 
nations and watch their endowments grow and grow.
  The DETERRENT Act would strengthen existing law, requiring colleges 
to publicly report gifts and contracts with foreign countries. Under 
the DETERRENT Act, this information would be publicly available on a 
searchable database because taxpayers, parents, and students deserve to 
see who is buying the opportunity to influence the next generation of 
Americans.
  The DETERRENT Act would further expose disturbing data that has 
recently come to light. At least 200 American colleges declined to 
report a total of $13 billion in contributions from authoritarian 
countries like Qatar, China, and Saudi Arabia.
  For some reason, the Biden administration has halted many of the 
existing investigations of reporting violations and has declined to 
enforce current law. Why would that be? Could it have something to do 
with the $14 million donated to the Penn Biden Center from unnamed 
contributors in China?
  The Biden administration minimizes it, and universities try to hide 
it, but the American people are suffering the effects of foreign 
influence.
  Just yesterday, in the Education and the Workforce Committee, the 
presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT defended the influence Hamas has 
on our campuses and students across this country. The number one donor 
of these undisclosed funds, Qatar, is a country that says Israel alone 
is responsible for the attacks by Hamas and even houses an office for 
the Hamas leader in its capital city.
  International partnerships can be beneficial for universities but 
should not come at the cost of our national security, intellectual 
property, academic freedom, or perpetuation of our American values.
  Mr. Chair, I support passage of the DETERRENT Act to ensure greater 
transparency regarding who is funding our colleges and universities, 
and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the 
letter from the Asian American Scholars Forum from which I quoted be 
entered into the Record.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's request will be covered under general 
leave.

                                 Asian American Scholar Forum,

                                                 November 7, 2023.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: Asian 
     American Scholar Forum (AASF) respectfully submits this 
     letter to provide feedback on H.R. 5933, the Defending 
     Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in 
     Nefarious Transactions (DETERRENT) Act. We write to express 
     our concerns in opposition of the DETERRENT Act, which will 
     have a chilling effect on Asian American and Asian immigrant 
     researchers and all scholars from participating in U.S. 
     scientific innovation, and will chill open science and 
     innovation more broadly.
       AASF is a national non-profit, non-partisan organization 
     that works to promote

[[Page H6169]]

     academic belonging, openness, freedom, and equality for all. 
     AASF accomplishes this through education and research, 
     advocacy, and building up leaders within the Asian American 
     scientific and academic community. AASF is one of the leading 
     Asian American national civil rights organizations on science 
     and research security policy as it relates to the Asian 
     American community including profiling concerns. Our 
     membership includes the National Academy of Engineering, the 
     National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of 
     Science, and the American Academy of Arts & Sciences members 
     as well as past and current university presidents, provost, 
     vice provosts, deans, associate deans, and past and current 
     department chairs. AASF is a member of the National Council 
     for Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA). Founded in 1996, NCAPA 
     is a coalition of 47 national Asian American, Native 
     Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) organizations serving 
     to represent the interests of the greater AANHPI communities 
     and to provide a national voice for Asian American and 
     National Hawaiian Pacific Islander issues.
       In January 2021, the Trump Administration issued NSPM-33, 
     which directed federal agencies and academic institutions to 
     protect U.S. government-supported research and development 
     ``[w]hile maintaining an open environment to foster research 
     discoveries and innovation.'' In January 2022, the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued guidance to 
     implement NSPM-33. In addition to protecting ``security and 
     openness,'' the guidance seeks ``to be clear so that well-
     intentioned researchers can easily and properly comply'' and 
     ``to clarify and simplify how researchers disclose 
     information to the federal government.'' The guidance 
     cautioned that ``if our policies to address [research 
     security challenges] significantly diminish our superpower of 
     attracting global scientific talent--or if they fuel 
     xenophobia against Asian Americans--we will have done more 
     damage to ourselves than any competitor or adversary could. 
     So we need a thoughtful and effective approach.'' Further, 
     OSTP noted that ``is important to avoid undue, vague, and 
     implicit pressures on researchers, as this could create a 
     chilling atmosphere that would only constrain and damage the 
     U.S. scientific enterprise.'' in light of the White House's 
     NSPM-33 and the current process within federal agencies and 
     academic institutions to harmonize and create new 
     requirements and policies, we are concerned with the addition 
     of the DETERRENT Act in its entirety. Moreover, we have 
     several key concerns with problematic sections that would 
     result in significant negative impact to the Asian American 
     and scholar community.


  New reporting requirements under the DETERRENT Act will hinder the 
  implementation of NSPM-33, creating confusing and additional undue 
           burdens on academic institutions and researchers.

       As indicated by the NSPM-33 guidance, transparency and 
     clarity of any federal requirements with disclosure of 
     information is critical not only for compliance, but also for 
     safeguarding our national security. Currently, academic 
     institutions and federal agencies are working to implement 
     the reporting and disclosure requirements under NSPM-33. With 
     this implementation process underway, any new reporting 
     requirements will create confusion and additional burdens on 
     academic institutions and researchers. Transparency and 
     clarity of process will help everyone--from researchers, 
     academic institutions, and the governments--and promote 
     effective collection of information. Any new disclosure 
     requirements at this time will be counterproductive to that 
     process.
       Additionally, it is critical to ensure that federal 
     agencies and academic institutions follow the NSPM-33 
     mandatory anti-discriminatory provision, engage with the 
     directly impacted Asian American and scholar community, and 
     that due processes are in place both within federal agencies 
     and academic institutions to protect the rights of Asian 
     Americans, particularly those of Chinese descent who have 
     been subjected to heightened scrutiny as U.S.-China tensions 
     worsen.


   The DETERRENT Act will chill Asian Americans and immigrants from 
 participating in American society and research, thereby resulting in 
     civil rights concerns and harm U.S. leadership in science and 
                              technology.

       The DETERRENT Act will worsen the existing chilling effect 
     on Asian American and immigrant communities, hurting their 
     ability to participate in American society and contribute to 
     our country through their leadership and research. The Asian 
     American community has a long history of being targeted and 
     scapegoated as national security threats based on our race, 
     ethnicity, religion, or ancestry, such as the Chinese 
     Exclusion Act of 1882 and the incarceration of Japanese 
     Americans during World War II. More recently, federal agency 
     programs such as the Justice Department's now-defunct ``China 
     Initiative,'' raised concerns about racial bias and profiling 
     of Asian Americans, particularly scientists, researchers, and 
     scholars of Chinese descent. While there are legitimate 
     concerns about the activities of the People's Republic of 
     China (PRC) government, the increasing pressure on federal 
     agencies to scrutinize scientists, researchers, and scholars, 
     along with rising xenophobic and anti-China rhetoric from 
     U.S. government officials, have further fueled anti-Asian 
     sentiments at home and instigated a new wave of fear, 
     profiling, and violent targeting of our communities.
       The Asian American and immigrant community are currently 
     living in a climate of fear. A survey conducted between 
     December 2021 and March 2022 of 1300+ faculty members 
     nationwide found that although an overwhelming majority of 
     the survey respondents (89 percent) would like to contribute 
     to the U.S. leadership in science and technology, many feel 
     unsafe (72 percent) and fearful of conducting research (42 
     percent) in the U.S., especially engineering and computing 
     science faculty, life science faculty, federal grant 
     awardees, and senior faculty. Around 61 percent of the survey 
     respondents feel pressure to leave the U.S., especially 
     junior faculty and federal grant awardees. Moreover, nearly 
     half of respondents (45 percent) intend to avoid federal 
     grant applications, especially engineering and computing 
     science faculty and senior faculty due to fear.
       This chilling effect is especially felt among Chinese-
     origin American faculty in the U.S., who fear potential 
     federal investigation and prosecution stemming from the China 
     Initiative. This has been exemplified by the recent 
     significant rise over the last few years of Chinese-origin 
     scientists returning to China, despite an overwhelming 
     majority of them wanting to contribute to U.S. leadership in 
     science and technology. This is extremely concerning 
     considering that U.S. leadership in science and technology 
     and national defense have benefited significantly from 
     immigrants by attracting the best and brightest scientists 
     and engineers from around the world, yet U.S. policies and 
     rhetoric push these researchers out of the country despite 
     their desire to contribute. Around 46 percent of PhD 
     students in science and technology fields in 2020 were 
     from abroad. Chinese students account for the largest of 
     this group (37 percent), with 87 percent of them having 
     stayed in the U.S., constituting a significant part of the 
     American science and technology labor force.
       These findings reveal the widespread fear of conducting 
     routine research and academic activities, along with the 
     significant risks of losing talent culminated in hesitancy to 
     remain in the U.S. The DETERRENT Act and its potential for 
     misguided heightened scrutiny towards Chinese Americans and 
     immigrants will exacerbate these fears, ultimately harming 
     research and hampering innovation in the U.S.


 The DETERRENT Act raises additional implementation concerns as it is 
not workable, raises privacy and security concerns, and is unreasonably 
                                punitive

       The DETERRENT Act would further chill participation in 
     research by signaling to researchers and institutions that 
     scientific collaboration is discouraged, and effectively 
     deter academic institutions and scholars from engaging with 
     Chinese American and immigrant colleagues and peers out of 
     fear of punishment or heightened scrutiny. The DETERRENT 
     Act's definition of a ``foreign source'' includes not just 
     individuals overseas but those with lawful immigration status 
     in the United States who are not U.S. citizens or nationals. 
     As a practical matter, the DETERRENT Act would force scholars 
     and researchers to scrutinize the immigration status of 
     potential collaborators and would deter them from 
     collaboration with individuals who may be perceived to be 
     immigrants. Moreover, many scholars would not have access to 
     private information such as the immigration status of their 
     peers, making this practically a difficult or impossible 
     requirement for faculty, scholars, and researchers to meet. 
     Additionally, the reporting requirement for contracts of no 
     monetary value as it pertains to foreign entities and 
     countries of concern as defined by the DETERRENT Act would 
     significantly chill even normal, everyday communications, as 
     it may be perceived as an agreement.
       Second, the public disclosure requirements in the DETERRENT 
     Act raises serious concerns of privacy, especially as it 
     pertains to Section 117b, which would require academic 
     institutions to publicly post on its website the information 
     researchers and faculty report under this provision, 
     including their name. This will not only further chill 
     scientific participation, but may also expose researchers to 
     be targeted by foreign adversaries.
       Moreover, the requirement under Section 117a for the 
     Department of Education to share information reported with 
     national security and intelligence agencies both pursuant to 
     the DETERRENT Act and retroactively, raises serious concerns 
     about how the shared information will be used and protected 
     by the receiving agencies. The Chinese American and 
     immigration communities have already experienced years of 
     heightened scrutiny and concerns of racially biased 
     surveillance and prosecution. We need further privacy and 
     surveillance protections, rather than further encroachment 
     into their rights and privacy.
       Third, we are very concerned with how low the new threshold 
     is for the reporting for gifts and contracts dropping from 
     $250,000 to $50,000, as this would significantly increase 
     academic institution's reporting burden.
       Furthermore, the harsh penalty provisions are punitive and 
     would not only harm scientific research and innovation, but 
     education and scholarship more broadly. Section 117d of the 
     DETERRENT Act ties violations under the act to student aid 
     funding, impacting students at the academic institution who

[[Page H6170]]

     are not connected with any reporting requirement at issue. 
     Section 117 as it stands today allows the Secretary of 
     Education to investigate and bring a civil action to compel 
     compliance with the reporting requirements, as well as to 
     recover costs for enforcement. The DETERRENT Act's punitive 
     and arbitrary penalties are unnecessary and call into 
     question the purpose of this legislation.
       We encourage the committee to consider our concerns raised 
     above. Additionally, we encourage you to engage in further 
     discussion with AASF to include the perspective of the Asian 
     American scholar community and help foster a climate of trust 
     with the Asian American and immigrant communities.
           Sincerely,

                                        Gisela Perez Kusakawa,

                                               Executive Director,
                                     Asian American Scholar Forum.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bean).
  Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chair Foxx for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a problem. Today, America's education system is 
being purchased and manipulated by foreign nations. Since 2013, we know 
about $12 billion has flooded in from foreign sources to U.S. colleges, 
and outside experts say billions more in foreign funds could have been 
underreported.
  Foreign nations are pumping money into our higher education systems, 
and these nations are not our friends. This means our enemies are 
funding our colleges and universities.
  Make no mistake, every dollar that flows into our classrooms comes 
with strings attached. By accepting these foreign funds, our colleges 
and universities are importing toxic hatred straight from the dogma of 
our Nation's enemies into our classrooms.
  The results speak for themselves, as we saw in Chair Foxx's committee 
hearing yesterday: rampant anti-Semitism, censorship, and disdain for 
our U.S. Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and our American way of 
life.
  This is what happens when our institutions of higher learning accept 
the Trojan horse of foreign funding. This blatant attempt to inject 
foreign ideologies into our schools undermines the fundamental purpose 
of American education.
  It goes without saying that we should be teaching American values in 
American schools.
  As a proud cosponsor of Representative Steel's bill, H.R. 5933, the 
DETERRENT Act, I look forward today to supporting this timely 
legislation, which will provide much-needed transparency in foreign 
funding to schools and reporting requirements.
  As we say in Florida, let the sunshine in. Mr. Chairman, let me be 
clear: America's institutions of higher learning are not for sale.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chair, I proudly rise today in support of 
Congresswoman Steel's DETERRENT Act.
  The world is on fire, and evil is spreading globally. We cannot 
permit American colleges and universities to be compromised. Our 
adversaries are determined to subvert our national interests, and 
today's modern battleground now includes American college campuses.
  When American higher ed administrators accept financial incentives 
and gifts from adversarial regimes, it sends a clear message that 
influence on campus is for sale and that American universities are open 
for business.
  Simply put, this is profit over patriotism. I will go a step further 
and call it anti-American.
  It is important to understand that when our universities receive 
millions from countries that are antithetical to American values, there 
are strings attached.
  Under section 117 of the Higher Education Act, colleges and 
universities must disclose any foreign funding to an institution 
exceeding $250,000. Yet, in 2019, a Senate report found that 70 percent 
of colleges chose to evade, hide, and cheat to avoid compliance with 
this law. Only 30 percent of administrators overseeing our educational 
institutions deemed it important to follow the law put in place by 
Congress with oversight authority.
  This is incredibly concerning, and it must come to an end.
  I am proud that my bill, the Reporting on Investments in Foreign 
Adversaries Act, the RIFA Act, was included in Congresswoman Steel's 
landmark legislation. This is the latest step to hold private industry 
accountable for their financial partnerships with foreign countries and 
entities hostile to the United States.
  There is a disturbing lack of accountability for private institutions 
with endowments funded by foreign countries. Many of these countries 
seek nefarious influence within American universities, which undermines 
our national security.
  By bribing American academic institutions with billions of dollars, 
our adversaries corrode the minds of American students with anti-
American and pro-Marxist propaganda. This poses a threat to our 
national security, research and development efforts, intellectual 
property, and academic freedom as a whole.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chair, the manipulation of our children on American 
soil paid for by the American taxpayer is unacceptable.

  For the sake of our Republic and the millions of taxpaying Americans, 
we demand a higher standard, full transparency, and more accountability 
for college administrators who are complicit. We cannot be satisfied 
with anything less.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
DETERRENT Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chair, despite my colleagues' claims, the DETERRENT Act would 
only burden colleges and universities and jeopardize global 
partnerships while doing nothing to help them comply with existing 
compliance and reporting guidelines.
  House Democrats tried several times to ensure that the legislation 
included attainable, commonsense provisions for these institutions. For 
example, in committee, I offered an amendment to build on the Chips and 
Science Act and the ``Presidential Memorandum on United States 
Government-Supported Research and Development National Security 
Guidelines,'' aligning reporting requirements precisely to those 
Federal agencies that are already reporting with the Department of 
Education and requiring the Department of Education to go through 
negotiated rulemaking to conform those reporting requirements. 
Unfortunately, the Republican majority did not agree to it.
  Mr. Chairman, Democrats are committed to helping institutions comply 
with the law, but we must always strike a balance between enforcing the 
law and fostering safe campuses for students, scholars, and faculty.
  Regrettably, the legislation before us does nothing to achieve that 
goal. It would only drive deeper wedges into higher education systems 
at the expense of students, faculty, and our country's global 
innovative efforts.
  Mr. Chair, as I indicated, in that letter from the Asian American 
Scholar Forum, they said: ``As a practical matter, the DETERRENT Act 
would force scholars and researchers to scrutinize the immigration 
status of potential collaborators and would deter them from 
collaboration with individuals who may be perceived to be immigrants,'' 
and the zero limit on monetary value for gifts ``would significantly 
chill even normal, everyday communications.''
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5933, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As we all know, public confidence in American universities is in a 
free fall. According to Gallup, it has dropped almost 3 percentage 
points a year, on average, over the last 8 years.
  The crisis of confidence is multifaceted: part tuition cost, sinking 
return on investment, and soaring debt. To each of the issues plaguing 
modern universities, the answer is restoring the principles of 
transparency and accountability.
  Yes, passing this legislation would send a strong message to our 
foreign

[[Page H6171]]

adversaries, but more importantly, it will send a strong message to our 
constituents: We are good stewards of your votes.
  While I know we cannot restore public trust in the university system 
overnight, requiring a basic level of transparency in foreign donations 
and accountability from universities is a great first step.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the DETERRENT Act, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, printed in the bill, shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an 
original bill for purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule 
and shall be considered read.

                               H.R. 5933

       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 ``Defending Education 
     Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious 
     Transactions Act'' or the ``DETERRENT Act''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURES OF FOREIGN GIFTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011f) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 117. DISCLOSURES OF FOREIGN GIFTS.

       ``(a) Disclosure Reports.--
       ``(1) Aggregate gifts and contract disclosures.--An 
     institution shall file a disclosure report in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(1) with the Secretary on July 31 of the 
     calendar year immediately following any calendar year in 
     which--
       ``(A) the institution receives a gift from, or enters into 
     a contract with, a foreign source (other than a foreign 
     country of concern or foreign entity of concern)--
       ``(i) the value of which is $50,000 or more, considered 
     alone or in combination with all other gifts from, or 
     contracts with, that foreign source within the calendar year; 
     or
       ``(ii) the value of which is undetermined; or
       ``(B) the institution receives a gift from a foreign 
     country of concern or foreign entity of concern, or, upon 
     receiving a waiver under section 117A to enter into a 
     contract with such a country or entity, enters into such 
     contract, without regard to the value of such gift or 
     contract.
       ``(2) Foreign source ownership or control disclosures.--In 
     the case of an institution that is substantially controlled 
     (as described in section 668.174(c)(3) of title 34, Code of 
     Federal Regulations) (or successor regulations)) by a foreign 
     source, the institution shall file a disclosure report in 
     accordance with subsection (b)(2) with the Secretary on July 
     31 of each year.
       ``(3) Treatment of affiliated entities.--For purposes of 
     this section, any gift to, or contract with, an affiliated 
     entity of an institution shall be considered a gift to or 
     contract with, respectively, such institution.
       ``(b) Contents of Report.--
       ``(1) Gifts and contracts.--Each report to the Secretary 
     required under subsection (a)(1) shall contain the following:
       ``(A) With respect to a gift received from, or a contract 
     entered into with, any foreign source--
       ``(i) the terms of such gift or contract, including--

       ``(I) the name of the individual, department, or benefactor 
     at the institution receiving the gift or carrying out the 
     contract;
       ``(II) the intended purpose of such gift or contract, as 
     provided to the institution by such foreign source, or if no 
     such purpose is provided by such foreign source, the intended 
     use of such gift or contract, as provided by the institution; 
     and
       ``(III) in the case of a restricted or conditional gift or 
     contract, a description of the restrictions or conditions of 
     such gift or contract;

       ``(ii) with respect to a gift--

       ``(I) the total fair market dollar amount or dollar value 
     of the gift, as of the date of submission of such report; and
       ``(II) the date on which the institution received such 
     gift;

       ``(iii) with respect to a contract--

       ``(I) the date on which such contract commences;
       ``(II) as applicable, the date on which such contract 
     terminates; and
       ``(III) an assurance that the institution will--

       ``(aa) maintain an unredacted copy of the contract until 
     the latest of--
       ``(AA) the date that is 4 years after the date on which the 
     contract commences;
       ``(BB) the date on which the contract terminates; or
       ``(CC) the last day of any period that applicable State law 
     requires a copy of such contract to be maintained; and
       ``(bb) upon request of the Secretary during an 
     investigation under subsection (f)(1), produce such an 
     unredacted copy of the contract; and
       ``(iv) an assurance that in a case in which information is 
     required to be disclosed under this section with respect to a 
     gift or contract that is not in English, such information is 
     translated into English in compliance with the requirements 
     of subsection (c)(1).
       ``(B) With respect to a gift received from, or a contract 
     entered into with, a foreign source that is a foreign 
     government (other than the government of a foreign country of 
     concern)--
       ``(i) the name of such foreign government;
       ``(ii) the department, agency, office, or division of such 
     foreign government that approved such gift or contract, as 
     applicable; and
       ``(iii) the physical mailing address of such department, 
     agency, office, or division.
       ``(C) With respect to a gift received from, or contract 
     entered into with, a foreign source (other than a foreign 
     government subject to the requirements of subparagraph (B))--
       ``(i) the legal name of the foreign source, or, if such 
     name is not available, a statement certified by the 
     compliance officer in accordance with subsection (f)(2) that 
     the institution has reasonably attempted to obtain such name;
       ``(ii) in the case of a foreign source that is a natural 
     person, the country of citizenship of such person, or, if 
     such country is not known, the principal country of residence 
     of such person;
       ``(iii) in the case of a foreign source that is a legal 
     entity, the country in which such entity is incorporated, or 
     if such information is not available, the principal place of 
     business of such entity; and
       ``(iv) the physical mailing address of such foreign source, 
     or if such address is not available, a statement certified by 
     the compliance officer in accordance with subsection (f)(2) 
     that the institution has reasonably attempted to obtain such 
     address.
       ``(D) With respect to a contract entered into with a 
     foreign source that is a foreign country of concern or a 
     foreign entity of concern--
       ``(i) a complete and unredacted text of the original 
     contract, and if such original contract is not in English, a 
     translated copy of the text into English;
       ``(ii) a copy of the waiver received under section 117A for 
     such contract; and
       ``(iii) the statement submitted by the institution for 
     purposes of receiving such a waiver under section 117A(b)(1).
       ``(2) Foreign source ownership or control.--Each report to 
     the Secretary required under subsection (a)(2) shall 
     contain--
       ``(A) the legal name and address of the foreign source that 
     owns or controls the institution;
       ``(B) the date on which the foreign source assumed 
     ownership or control; and
       ``(C) any changes in program or structure resulting from 
     the change in ownership or control.
       ``(c)  Translation Requirements.--Any information required 
     to be disclosed under this section with respect to a gift or 
     contract that is not in English shall be translated, for 
     purposes of such disclosure, by a person that is not an 
     affiliated entity or agent of the foreign source involved 
     with such gift or contract.
       ``(d) Public Inspection.--
       ``(1) Database requirement.--Beginning not later than 60 
     days before the July 31 immediately following the date of the 
     enactment of the DETERRENT Act, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish and maintain a searchable database on a 
     website of the Department, under which all reports submitted 
     under this section (including any report submitted under this 
     section before the date of the enactment of the DETERRENT 
     Act)--
       ``(i) are made publicly available (in electronic and 
     downloadable format), including any information provided in 
     such reports (other than the information prohibited from 
     being publicly disclosed pursuant to paragraph (2));
       ``(ii) can be individually identified and compared; and
       ``(iii) are searchable and sortable by--

       ``(I) the date the institution filed such report;
       ``(II) the date on which the institution received the gift, 
     or entered into the contract, which is the subject of the 
     report;
       ``(III) the attributable country of such gift or contract; 
     and
       ``(IV) the name of the foreign source (other than a foreign 
     source that is a natural person);

       ``(B) not later than 30 days after receipt of a disclosure 
     report under this section, include such report in such 
     database;
       ``(C) indicate, as part of the public record of a report 
     included in such database, whether the report is with respect 
     to a gift received from, or a contract entered into with--
       ``(i) a foreign source that is a foreign government; or
       ``(ii) a foreign source that is not a foreign government; 
     and
       ``(D) with respect to a disclosure report that does not 
     include the name or address of a foreign source, indicate, as 
     part of the public record of such report included in such 
     database, that such report did not include such information.
       ``(2) Name and address of foreign source.--The Secretary 
     shall not disclose the name or address of a foreign source 
     that is a natural person (other than the attributable country 
     of such foreign source) included in a disclosure report--
       ``(A) as part of the public record of such disclosure 
     report described in paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) in response to a request under section 552 of title 
     5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Freedom of 
     Information Act'), pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of such 
     section.
       ``(e) Interagency Information Sharing.--Not later than 30 
     days after receiving a disclosure report from an institution 
     in compliance with this section, the Secretary shall transmit 
     an unredacted copy of such report (that includes the name and 
     address of a foreign source disclosed in such report) to the 
     Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director 
     of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Energy, the 
     Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Director 
     of the National Institutes of Health.

[[Page H6172]]

       ``(f) Compliance Officer.--Any institution that is required 
     to file a disclosure report under subsection (a) shall 
     designate, before the filing deadline for such report, and 
     maintain a compliance officer, who shall--
       ``(1) be a current employee or legally authorized agent of 
     such institution; and
       ``(2) be responsible, on behalf of the institution, for 
     personally certifying accurate compliance with the foreign 
     gift reporting requirement under this section.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Affiliated entity.--The term `affiliated entity', 
     when used with respect to an institution, means an entity or 
     organization that operates primarily for the benefit of, or 
     under the auspices of, such institution, including a 
     foundation of the institution or a related entity (such as 
     any educational, cultural, or language entity).
       ``(2) Attributable country.--The term `attributable 
     country' means--
       ``(A) the country of citizenship of a foreign source who is 
     a natural person, or, if such country is unknown, the 
     principal residence (as applicable) of such foreign source; 
     or
       ``(B) the country of incorporation of a foreign source that 
     is a legal entity, or, if such country is unknown, the 
     principal place of business (as applicable) of such foreign 
     source.
       ``(3) Contract.--The term `contract'--
       ``(A) means--
       ``(i) any agreement for the acquisition by purchase, lease, 
     or barter of property or services by the foreign source;
       ``(ii) any affiliation, agreement, or similar transaction 
     with a foreign source that involves the use or exchange of an 
     institution's name, likeness, time, services, or resources; 
     and
       ``(iii) any agreement for the acquisition by purchase, 
     lease, or barter, of property or services from a foreign 
     source (other than an arms-length agreement for such 
     acquisition from a foreign source that is not a foreign 
     country of concern or a foreign entity of concern); and
       ``(B) does not include an agreement made between an 
     institution and a foreign source regarding any payment of one 
     or more elements of a student's cost of attendance (as such 
     term is defined in section 472), unless such an agreement is 
     made for more than 15 students or is made under a restricted 
     or conditional contract.
       ``(4) Foreign source.--The term `foreign source' means--
       ``(A) a foreign government, including an agency of a 
     foreign government;
       ``(B) a legal entity, governmental or otherwise, created 
     under the laws of a foreign state or states;
       ``(C) a legal entity, governmental or otherwise, 
     substantially controlled (as described in section 
     668.174(c)(3) of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations) (or 
     successor regulations)) by a foreign source;
       ``(D) a natural person who is not a citizen or a national 
     of the United States or a trust territory or protectorate 
     thereof; and
       ``(E) an agent of a foreign source, including--
       ``(i) a subsidiary or affiliate of a foreign legal entity, 
     acting on behalf of a foreign source;
       ``(ii) a person that operates primarily for the benefit of, 
     or under the auspices of, a foreign source, including a 
     foundation or a related entity (such as any educational, 
     cultural, or language entity); and
       ``(iii) a person who is an agent of a foreign principal (as 
     such term is defined in section 1 of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611).
       ``(5) Gift.--The term `gift'--
       ``(A) means any gift of money, property, resources, staff, 
     or services; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) any payment of one or more elements of a student's 
     cost of attendance (as such term is defined in section 472) 
     to an institution by, or scholarship from, a foreign source 
     who is a natural person, acting in their individual capacity 
     and not as an agent for, at the request or direction of, or 
     on behalf of, any person or entity (except the student), made 
     for not more than 15 students, and that is not made under a 
     restricted or conditional contract with such foreign source; 
     or
       ``(ii) assignment or license of registered industrial and 
     intellectual property rights, such as patents, utility 
     models, trademarks, or copyrights, or technical assistance, 
     that are not identified as being associated with a national 
     security risk or concern by the Federal Research Security 
     Council as described under section 7902 of title 31, United 
     States Code; or
       ``(iii) decorations (as such term is defined in section 
     7342(a) of title 5, United States Code).
       ``(6) Restricted or conditional gift or contract.--The term 
     `restricted or conditional gift or contract' means any 
     endowment, gift, grant, contract, award, present, or property 
     of any kind which includes provisions regarding--
       ``(A) the employment, assignment, or termination of 
     faculty;
       ``(B) the establishment of departments, centers, 
     institutes, instructional programs, research or lecture 
     programs, or new faculty positions;
       ``(C) the selection, admission, or education of students;
       ``(D) the award of grants, loans, scholarships, 
     fellowships, or other forms of financial aid restricted to 
     students of a specified country, religion, sex, ethnic 
     origin, or political opinion; or
       ``(E) any other restriction on the use of a gift or 
     contract.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Contracts With Certain Foreign Entities 
     and Countries.--Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 117 the following:

     ``SEC. 117A. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH CERTAIN FOREIGN 
                   ENTITIES AND COUNTRIES.

       ``(a) In General.--An institution shall not enter into a 
     contract with a foreign country of concern or a foreign 
     entity of concern.
       ``(b) Waivers.--
       ``(1) Submission.--
       ``(A) First waiver requests.--
       ``(i) In general.--An institution that desires to enter 
     into a contract with a foreign entity of concern or a foreign 
     country of concern may submit to the Secretary, not later 
     than 120 days before the institution enters into such a 
     contract, a request to waive the prohibition under subsection 
     (a) with respect to such contract.
       ``(ii) Contents of waiver request.--A waiver request 
     submitted by an institution under clause (i) shall include--

       ``(I) the complete and unredacted text of the proposed 
     contract for which the waiver is being requested, and if such 
     original contract is not in English, a translated copy of the 
     text into English (in a manner that complies with section 
     117(c)); and
       ``(II) a statement that--

       ``(aa) is signed by the point of contact of the institution 
     described in section 117(h); and
       ``(bb) includes information that demonstrates that such 
     contract is for the benefit of the institution's mission and 
     students and will promote the security, stability, and 
     economic vitality of the United States.
       ``(B) Renewal waiver requests.--
       ``(i) In general.--An institution that has entered into a 
     contract pursuant to a waiver issued under this section, the 
     term of which is longer than the 1-year waiver period and the 
     terms and conditions of which remain the same as the proposed 
     contract submitted as part of the request for such waiver may 
     submit, not later than 120 days before the expiration of such 
     waiver period, a request for a renewal of such waiver for an 
     additional 1-year period (which shall include any information 
     requested by the Secretary).
       ``(ii) Termination.--If the institution fails to submit a 
     request under clause (i) or is not granted a renewal under 
     such clause, such institution shall terminate such contract 
     on the last day of the original 1-year waiver period.
       ``(2) Waiver issuance.--The Secretary--
       ``(A) not later than 60 days before an institution enters 
     into a contract pursuant to a waiver request under paragraph 
     (1)(A), or before a contract described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) 
     is renewed pursuant to a renewal request under such 
     paragraph, shall notify the institution--
       ``(i) if the waiver or renewal will be issued by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(ii) in a case in which the waiver or renewal will be 
     issued, the date on which the 1-year waiver period starts; 
     and
       ``(B) may only issue a waiver under this section to an 
     institution if the Secretary determines, in consultation with 
     the heads of each agency and department listed in section 
     117(e), that the contract for which the waiver is being 
     requested is for the benefit of the institution's mission and 
     students and will promote the security, stability, and 
     economic vitality of the United States.
       ``(3) Disclosure.--Not less than 2 weeks prior to issuing a 
     waiver under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall notify the--
       ``(A) the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions of the Senate,
     of the intent to issue the waiver, including a justification 
     for the waiver.
       ``(4) Application of waivers.--A waiver issued under this 
     section to an institution with respect to a contract shall 
     only--
       ``(A) waive the prohibition under subsection (a) for a 1-
     year period; and
       ``(B) apply to the terms and conditions of the proposed 
     contract submitted as part of the request for such waiver.
       ``(c) Designation During Contract Term.--In the case of an 
     institution that enters into a contract with a foreign source 
     that is not a foreign country of concern or a foreign entity 
     of concern but which, during the term of such contract, is 
     designated as a foreign country of concern or foreign entity 
     of concern, such institution shall terminate such contract 
     not later than 60 days after the Secretary notifies the 
     institution of such designation.
       ``(d) Contracts Prior to Date of Enactment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an institution that has 
     entered into a contract with a foreign country of concern or 
     foreign entity of concern prior to the date of the enactment 
     of the DETERRENT Act--
       ``(A) the institution shall immediately submit to the 
     Secretary a waiver request in accordance with subsection 
     (b)(1)(A)(ii); and
       ``(B) the Secretary shall, upon receipt of the request 
     submitted under paragraph (1), immediately issue a waiver to 
     the institution for a period beginning on the date on which 
     the waiver is issued and ending on the sooner of--
       ``(i) the date that is 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of the DETERRENT Act; or
       ``(ii) the date on which the contract terminates.
       ``(2) Renewal.--An institution that has entered into a 
     contract described in paragraph (1), the term of which is 
     longer than the waiver period described in subparagraph (B) 
     of such paragraph and the terms and conditions of which 
     remain the same as the contract submitted as part of the 
     request required under subparagraph (A) of such paragraph, 
     may submit a request for renewal of the waiver issued under 
     such paragraph in accordance with subsection (b)(1)(B).
       ``(e) Contract Defined.--The term `contract' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 117(g).''.
       (c) Interagency Information Sharing.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Education shall transmit to the heads of each 
     agency and department listed in section 117(e) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended by this Act--

[[Page H6173]]

       (1) any report received by the Department of Education 
     under section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1011f) prior to the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) any report, document, or other record generated by the 
     Department of Education in the course of an investigation--
       (A) of an institution with respect to the compliance of 
     such institution with such section; and
       (B) initiated prior to the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 3. POLICY REGARDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FROM FOREIGN 
                   GIFTS AND CONTRACTS.

       The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), 
     as amended by section 2 of this Act, is further amended by 
     inserting after section 117A the following:

     ``SEC. 117B. INSTITUTIONAL POLICY REGARDING FOREIGN GIFTS AND 
                   CONTRACTS TO FACULTY AND STAFF.

       ``(a) Requirement to Maintain Policy and Database.--
     Beginning not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the DETERRENT Act, each institution described in 
     subsection (b) shall maintain--
       ``(1) a policy requiring covered individuals employed at 
     the institution to disclose in a report to such institution 
     on July 31 of each calendar year that begins after the year 
     in which such enactment date occurs--
       ``(A) any gift received from a foreign source in the 
     previous calendar year, the value of which is greater than 
     the minimal value (as such term is defined in section 7342(a) 
     of title 5, United States Code) or is of undetermined value, 
     and including the date on which the gift was received;
       ``(B) any contract entered into with a foreign source in 
     the previous calendar year, the value of which is $5,000 or 
     more, considered alone or in combination with all other 
     contracts with that foreign source within the calendar year, 
     and including the date on which such contract commences and, 
     as applicable, the date on which such contract terminates;
       ``(C) any contract with a foreign source in force during 
     the previous calendar year that has an undetermined monetary 
     value, and including the date on which such contract 
     commences and, as applicable, the date on which such contract 
     terminates; and
       ``(D) any contract entered into with a foreign country of 
     concern or foreign entity of concern in the previous calendar 
     year, the value of which is $0 or more, and including the 
     beginning and ending dates of such contract and the full text 
     of such contract and any addenda;
       ``(2) a publicly available and searchable database (in 
     electronic and downloadable format), on a website of the 
     institution, of the information required to be disclosed 
     under paragraph (1) that--
       ``(A) makes available the information disclosed under 
     paragraph (1) beginning on the date that is 30 days after 
     receipt of the report under such paragraph containing such 
     information and until the latest of--
       ``(i) the date that is 4 years after the date on which--

       ``(I) a gift referred to in paragraph (1)(A) is received; 
     or
       ``(II) a contract referred to in subparagraph (B), (C) or 
     (D) of paragraph (1) begins; or

       ``(ii) the date on which a contract referred to in 
     subparagraph (B), (C) or (D) of paragraph (1) terminates; and
       ``(B) is searchable and sortable by--
       ``(i) the date received (if a gift) or the date commenced 
     (if a contract);
       ``(ii) the attributable country with respect to which 
     information is being disclosed;
       ``(iii) name of the individual making the disclosure; and
       ``(iv) the name of the foreign source (other than a foreign 
     source who is a natural person);
       ``(3) a plan effectively to identify and manage potential 
     information gathering by foreign sources through espionage 
     targeting covered individuals that may arise from gifts 
     received from, or contracts entered into with, a foreign 
     source, including through the use of--
       ``(A) periodic communications;
       ``(B) accurate reporting under paragraph (2) of the 
     information required to be disclosed under paragraph (1); and
       ``(C) enforcement of the policy described in paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Institutions.--An institution shall be subject to the 
     requirements of this section if such institution--
       ``(1) is an eligible institution for the purposes of any 
     program authorized under title IV; and
       ``(2)(A) received more than $50,000,000 in Federal funds in 
     any of the previous five calendar years to support (in whole 
     or in part) research and development (as determined by the 
     institution and measured by the Higher Education Research and 
     Development Survey of the National Center for Science and 
     Engineering Statistics); or
       ``(B) receives funds under title VI.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the terms `foreign source' and `gift' have the 
     meanings given such terms in section 117(g);
       ``(2) the term `contract'--
       ``(A) means any--
       ``(i) agreement for the acquisition, by purchase, lease, or 
     barter, of property or services by a foreign source;
       ``(ii) affiliation, agreement, or similar transaction with 
     a foreign source involving the use or exchange of the name, 
     likeness, time, services, or resources of covered individuals 
     employed at an institution described in subsection (b); or
       ``(iii) purchase, lease, or barter of property or services 
     from a foreign source that is a foreign country of concern or 
     a foreign entity of concern; and
       ``(B) does not include any fair-market, arms-length 
     agreement made by covered individuals for the acquisition, by 
     purchase, lease, or barter of property or services from a 
     foreign source other than such a foreign source that is a 
     foreign country of concern or a foreign entity of concern;
       ``(3) the term `covered individual'--
       ``(A) has the meaning given such term in section 223(d) of 
     the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (42 U.S.C. 6605); and
       ``(B) shall be interpreted in accordance with the Guidance 
     for Implementing National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 
     (NSPM-33) on National Security Strategy for United States 
     Government-supported Research and Development published by 
     the Subcommittee on Research Security and the Joint Committee 
     on the Research Environment in January 2022; and
       ``(4) the term `professional staff' means professional 
     employees, as defined in section 3 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203).''.

     SEC. 4. INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE REPORT.

       The Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), 
     as amended by section 3 of this Act, is further amended by 
     inserting after section 117B the following:

     ``SEC. 117C. INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE REPORT.

       ``(a) Investment Disclosure Report.--A specified 
     institution shall file a disclosure report in accordance with 
     subsection (b) with the Secretary on July 31 immediately 
     following any calendar year in which the specified 
     institution purchases, sells, or holds (directly or 
     indirectly through any chain of ownership) one or more 
     investments of concern.
       ``(b) Contents of Report.--Each report to the Secretary 
     required by subsection (a) with respect to any calendar year 
     shall contain the following:
       ``(1) A list of the investments of concern purchased, sold, 
     or held during such calendar year.
       ``(2) The aggregate fair market value of all investments of 
     concern held as of the close of such calendar year.
       ``(3) The combined value of all investments of concern sold 
     over the course of such calendar year, as measured by the 
     fair market value of such investments at the time of the 
     sale.
       ``(4) The combined value of all capital gains from such 
     sales of investments of concern.
       ``(c) Inclusion of Certain Pooled Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--An investment of concern acquired 
     through a regulated investment company, exchange traded fund, 
     or any other pooled investment shall be treated as acquired 
     through a chain of ownership referred to in subsection (a), 
     unless such pooled investment is certified by the Secretary 
     as not holding any listed investments in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Certifications of pooled funds.--The Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall 
     establish procedures under which certain regulated investment 
     companies, exchange traded funds, and other pooled 
     investments--
       ``(A) shall be reported in accordance with the requirements 
     under subsection (b); and
       ``(B) may be certified by the Secretary as not holding any 
     listed investments.
       ``(d) Treatment of Related Organizations.--For purposes of 
     this section, assets held by any related organization (as 
     defined in section 4968(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986) with respect to a specified institution shall be 
     treated as held by such specified institution, except that--
       ``(1) such assets shall not be taken into account with 
     respect to more than 1 specified institution; and
       ``(2) unless such organization is controlled by such 
     institution or is described in section 509(a)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to such 
     institution, assets which are not intended or available for 
     the use or benefit of such specified institution shall not be 
     taken into account.
       ``(e) Valuation of Debt.--For purposes of this section, the 
     fair market value of any debt shall be the principal amount 
     of such debt.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary, after consultation with 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, may issue such regulations or 
     other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry 
     out the purposes of this section, including regulations or 
     other guidance providing for the proper application of this 
     section with respect to certain regulated investment 
     companies, exchange traded funds, and pooled investments.
       ``(g) Compliance Officer.--Any specified institution that 
     is required to submit a report under subsection (a) shall 
     designate, before the submission of such report, and maintain 
     a compliance officer, who shall--
       ``(1) be a current employee or legally authorized agent of 
     such institution;
       ``(2) be responsible, on behalf of the institution, for 
     personally certifying accurate compliance with the reporting 
     requirements under this section; and
       ``(3) certify the institution has, for purposes of filing 
     such report under subsection (a), followed an established 
     institutional policy and conducted good faith efforts and 
     reasonable due diligence to determine the accuracy and 
     valuations of the assets reported.
       ``(h) Database Requirement.--Beginning not later than 60 
     days before the July 31 immediately following the date of the 
     enactment of the DETERRENT Act, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) establish and maintain a searchable database on a 
     website of the Department, under which all reports submitted 
     under this section--
       ``(A) are made publicly available (in electronic and 
     downloadable format), including any information provided in 
     such reports;
       ``(B) can be individually identified and compared; and
       ``(C) are searchable and sortable; and
       ``(2) not later than 30 days after receipt of a disclosure 
     report under this section, include such report in such 
     database.

[[Page H6174]]

       ``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Investment of concern.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `investment of concern' means 
     any specified interest with respect to any of the following:
       ``(i) A foreign country of concern.
       ``(ii) A foreign entity of concern.
       ``(B) Specified interest.--The term `specified interest' 
     means, with respect to any entity--
       ``(i) stock or any other equity or profits interest of such 
     entity;
       ``(ii) debt issued by such entity; and
       ``(iii) any contract or derivative with respect to any 
     property described in clause (i) or (ii).
       ``(2) Specified institution.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `specified institution', as 
     determined with respect to any calendar year, means an 
     institution if--
       ``(i) such institution is not a public institution; and
       ``(ii) the aggregate fair market value of--

       ``(I) the assets held by such institution at the end of 
     such calendar year (other than those assets which are used 
     directly in carrying out the institution's exempt purpose) is 
     in excess of $6,000,000,000; or
       ``(II) the investments of concern held by such institution 
     at the end of such calendar year is in excess of $250,000,000

       ``(B) References to certain terms.--For the purpose of 
     applying the definition under subparagraph (A), the terms 
     `aggregate fair market value' and `assets which are used 
     directly in carrying out the institution's exempt purpose' 
     shall be applied in the same manner as such terms are applied 
     for the purposes of section 4968(b)(1)(D) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.''.

     SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Enforcement and Other General Provisions.--The Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 4 of this Act, is further amended by inserting after 
     section 117C the following:

     ``SEC. 117D. ENFORCEMENT; SINGLE POINT-OF-CONTACT.

       ``(a) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Investigation.--The Secretary (acting through the 
     General Counsel of the Department) shall conduct 
     investigations of possible violations of sections 117, 117A, 
     117B, and 117C by institutions.
       ``(2) Civil action.--Whenever it appears that an 
     institution has knowingly or willfully failed to comply with 
     a requirement of any of the sections listed in paragraph (1) 
     (including any rule or regulation promulgated under any such 
     section) based on such an investigation, a civil action shall 
     be brought by the Attorney General, at the request of the 
     Secretary, in an appropriate district court of the United 
     States, or the appropriate United States court of any 
     territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States, to request such court to compel compliance 
     with the requirement of the section that has been violated.
       ``(3) Costs and other fines.--An institution that is 
     compelled to comply with a requirement of a section listed in 
     paragraph (1) pursuant to paragraph (2) shall--
       ``(A) pay to the Treasury of the United States the full 
     costs to the United States of obtaining compliance with the 
     requirement of such section, including all associated costs 
     of investigation and enforcement; and
       ``(B) be subject to the applicable fines described in 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(4) Fines for violations.--The Secretary shall impose a 
     fine on an institution that knowingly or willfully fails to 
     comply with a requirement of a section listed in paragraph 
     (1) as follows:
       ``(A) Section 117.--
       ``(i) First-time violations.--In the case of an institution 
     that knowingly or willfully fails to comply with a 
     requirement of section 117 with respect to a calendar year, 
     and that has not previously knowingly or willfully failed to 
     comply with such a requirement, the Secretary shall impose a 
     fine on the institution for such violation as follows:

       ``(I) In the case of an institution that knowingly or 
     willfully fails to comply with a reporting requirement under 
     subsection (a)(1) of section 117, such fine shall be in an 
     amount that is--

       ``(aa) not less than $50,000 but not more than the monetary 
     value of the gift from, or contract with, the foreign source; 
     or
       ``(bb) in the case of a gift or contract of no value or of 
     indeterminable value, not less than 1 percent, and not more 
     than 10 percent of the total amount of Federal funds received 
     by the institution under this Act for the most recent fiscal 
     year.

       ``(II) In the case of an institution that knowingly or 
     willfully fails to comply with the reporting requirement 
     under subsection (a)(2) of section 117, such fine shall be in 
     an amount that is not less than 10 percent of the total 
     amount of Federal funds received by the institution under 
     this Act for the most recent fiscal year.

       ``(ii) Subsequent violations.--In the case of an 
     institution that has been fined pursuant to clause (i) with 
     respect to a calendar year, and that knowingly or willfully 
     fails to comply with a requirement of section 117 with 
     respect to any additional calendar year, the Secretary shall 
     impose a fine on the institution with respect to any such 
     additional calendar year as follows:

       ``(I) In the case of an institution that knowingly or 
     willfully fails to comply with a reporting requirement under 
     subsection (a)(1) of section 117 with respect to an 
     additional calendar year, such fine shall be in an amount 
     that is--

       ``(aa) not less than $100,000 but not more than twice the 
     monetary value of the gift from, or contract with, the 
     foreign source; or
       ``(bb) in the case of a gift or contract of no value or of 
     indeterminable value, not less than 1 percent, but not more 
     than 10 percent, of the total amount of Federal funds 
     received by the institution under this Act for the most 
     recent fiscal year.

       ``(II) In the case of an institution that knowingly or 
     willfully fails to comply with a reporting requirement under 
     subsection (a)(2) of section 117 with respect to an 
     additional calendar year, such fine shall be in an amount 
     that is not less than 20 percent of the total amount of 
     Federal funds received by the institution under this Act for 
     the most recent fiscal year.

       ``(B) Section 117a.--
       ``(i) First-time violations.--In the case of an institution 
     that knowingly or willfully fails to comply with a 
     requirement of section 117A for the first time, the Secretary 
     shall impose a fine on the institution in an amount that is 
     not less than 5 percent, but not more than 10 percent, of the 
     total amount of Federal funds received by the institution 
     under this Act for the most recent fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Subsequent violations.--In the case of an 
     institution that has been fined pursuant to clause (i), the 
     Secretary shall impose a fine on the institution for each 
     subsequent time the institution knowingly or willfully fails 
     to comply with a requirement of section 117A in an amount 
     that is not less than 20 percent of the total amount of 
     Federal funds received by the institution under this Act for 
     the most recent fiscal year.
       ``(C) Section 117b.--
       ``(i) First-time violations.--In the case of an institution 
     that knowingly or willfully fails to comply with a 
     requirement of section 117B with respect to a calendar year, 
     and that has not previously knowingly or willfully failed to 
     comply with such a requirement, the Secretary shall impose a 
     fine on the institution of not less than $250,000, but not 
     more than the total amount of gifts or contracts reported by 
     such institution in the database required under section 
     117B(a)(2).
       ``(ii) Subsequent violations.--In the case of an 
     institution that has been fined pursuant to clause (i) with 
     respect to a calendar year, and that knowingly or willfully 
     fails to comply with a requirement of section 117B with 
     respect to any additional calendar year, the Secretary shall 
     impose a fine on the institution with respect to any such 
     additional calendar year in an amount that is not less than 
     $500,000, but not more than twice the total amount of gifts 
     or contracts reported by such institution in the database 
     required under section 117B(a)(2).
       ``(D) Section 117c.--
       ``(i) First-time violations.--In the case of a specified 
     institution that knowingly or willfully fails to comply with 
     a requirement of section 117C with respect to a calendar 
     year, and that has not previously knowingly or willfully 
     failed to comply with such a requirement, the Secretary shall 
     impose a fine on the institution in an amount that is not 
     less than 50 percent and not more than 100 percent of the sum 
     of--

       ``(I) the aggregate fair market value of all investments of 
     concern held by such institution as of the close of such 
     calendar year; and
       ``(II) the combined value of all investments of concern 
     sold over the course of such calendar year, as measured by 
     the fair market value of such investments at the time of the 
     sale.

       ``(ii) Subsequent violations.--In the case of a specified 
     institution that has been fined pursuant to clause (i) with 
     respect to a calendar year, and that knowingly or willfully 
     fails to comply with a requirement of section 117C with 
     respect to any additional calendar year, the Secretary shall 
     impose a fine on the institution with respect to any such 
     additional calendar year in an amount that is not less than 
     100 percent and not more than 200 percent of the sum of--

       ``(I) the aggregate fair market value of all investments of 
     concern held by such institution as of the close of such 
     additional calendar year; and
       ``(II) the combined value of all investments of concern 
     sold over the course of such additional calendar year, as 
     measured by the fair market value of such investments at the 
     time of the sale.

       ``(b) Single Point-of-contact at the Department.--The 
     Secretary shall maintain a single point-of-contact at the 
     Department to--
       ``(1) receive and respond to inquiries and requests for 
     technical assistance from institutions regarding compliance 
     with the requirements of sections 117, 117A, 117B, and 117C;
       ``(2) coordinate and implement technical improvements to 
     the database described in section 117(d)(1), including--
       ``(A) improving upload functionality by allowing for batch 
     reporting, including by allowing institutions to upload one 
     file with all required information into the database;
       ``(B) publishing and maintaining a database users guide 
     annually, including information on how to edit an entry and 
     how to report errors;
       ``(C) creating a standing user group (to which chapter 10 
     of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply) to discuss 
     possible database improvements, which group shall--
       ``(i) include at least--

       ``(I) 3 members representing public institutions with high 
     or very high levels of research activity (as defined by the 
     National Center for Education Statistics);
       ``(II) 2 members representing private, nonprofit 
     institutions with high or very high levels of research 
     activity (as so defined);
       ``(III) 2 members representing proprietary institutions of 
     higher education (as defined in section 102(b)); and
       ``(IV) 2 members representing area career and technical 
     education schools (as defined in subparagraph (C) or (D) of 
     section 3(3) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302(3)); and

       ``(ii) meet at least twice a year with officials from the 
     Department to discuss possible database improvements;

[[Page H6175]]

       ``(D) publishing, on a publicly available website, 
     recommended database improvements following each meeting 
     described in subparagraph (C)(ii); and
       ``(E) responding, on a publicly available website, to each 
     recommendation published under subparagraph (D) as to whether 
     or not the Department will implement the recommendation, 
     including the rationale for either approving or rejecting the 
     recommendation;
       ``(3) provide, every 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     the DETERRENT Act, status updates on any pending or completed 
     investigations and civil actions under subsection (a)(1) to--
       ``(A) the authorizing committees; and
       ``(B) any institution that is the subject of such 
     investigation or action;
       ``(4) maintain, on a publicly accessible website--
       ``(A) a full comprehensive list of all foreign countries of 
     concern and foreign entities of concern; and
       ``(B) the date on which the last update was made to such 
     list; and
       ``(5) not later than 7 days after making an update to the 
     list maintained in paragraph (4)(A), notify each institution 
     required to comply with the sections listed in paragraph (1) 
     of such update.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of sections 117, 117A, 
     117B, 117C, and this section:
       ``(1) Foreign country of concern.--The term `foreign 
     country of concern' includes the following:
       ``(A) A country that is a covered nation (as defined in 
     section 4872(d) of title 10, United States Code).
       ``(B) Any country that the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the 
     Director of National Intelligence, determines to be engaged 
     in conduct that is detrimental to the national security or 
     foreign policy of the United States.
       ``(2) Foreign entity of concern.--The term `foreign entity 
     of concern' has the meaning given such term in section 
     10612(a) of the Research and Development, Competition, and 
     Innovation Act (42 U.S.C. 19221(a)) and includes a foreign 
     entity that is identified on the list published under section 
     1286(c)(8)(A) of the John S. McCain National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (10 U.S.C. 22 4001 
     note; Public Law 115-232).
       ``(3) Institution.--The term `institution' means an 
     institution of higher education (as such term is defined in 
     section 102, other than an institution described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(c) of such section).''.
       (b) Program Participation Agreement.--Section 487(a) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(30)(A) An institution will comply with the requirements 
     of sections 117, 117A, 117B, and 117C.
       ``(B) An institution that, for 3 consecutive institutional 
     fiscal years, violates any requirement of any of the sections 
     listed in subparagraph (A), shall--
       ``(i) be ineligible to participate in the programs 
     authorized by this title for a period of not less than 2 
     institutional fiscal years; and
       ``(ii) in order to regain eligibility to participate in 
     such programs, demonstrate compliance with all requirements 
     of each such section for not less than 2 institutional fiscal 
     years after the institutional fiscal year in which such 
     institution became ineligible.''.
       (c) GAO Study.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States--
       (1) shall conduct a study to identify ways to improve 
     intergovernmental agency coordination regarding 
     implementation and enforcement of sections 117, 117A, 117B, 
     and 117C of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1011f), as amended or added by this Act, including increasing 
     information sharing, increasing compliance rates, and 
     establishing processes for enforcement; and
       (2) shall submit to the Congress, and make public, a report 
     containing the results of such study.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part B of House Report 118-298. Each such 
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-298.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, line 4, strike ``subsection (f)(1)'' and insert 
     ``section 117D(a)(1)''.
       Page 17, beginning on line 3, strike ``identified as'' and 
     all that follows through ``Code'' on line 7, and insert 
     ``associated with a category listed in the Commerce Control 
     List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the 
     Department of Commerce and set forth in Supplement No. 1 to 
     part 774 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations''.
        Page 19, beginning on line 12, strike ``point of contact 
     of the institution described in section 117(h)'' and insert 
     ``compliance officer of the institution designated in 
     accordance with section 117(f)''.
       Page 27, line 10, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 27, line 11, strike ``a plan effectively to identify'' 
     and insert ``an effective plan to identify''.
       Page 29, line 11, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 29, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 30, beginning on line 1, strike paragraph (4).
       Page 36, line 8, before the period insert the following: 
     ``and, whenever it appears that an institution has knowingly 
     or willfully failed to comply with a requirement of any of 
     such sections (including any rule or regulation promulgated 
     under any such section), shall request that the Attorney 
     General bring a civil action in accordance with paragraph 
     (2).''
       Page 49, beginning on line 1, strike subsection (c) and 
     insert the following:
       (c) GAO Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall initiate a study to identify ways to improve 
     intergovernmental agency coordination regarding 
     implementation and enforcement of sections 117, 117A, 117B, 
     and 117C of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1011f), as amended or added by this Act, including increasing 
     information sharing, increasing compliance rates, and 
     establishing processes for enforcement.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress, and make public, a report 
     containing the results of the study described in paragraph 
     (1).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, my amendment makes technical edits to the 
underlying bill while also clarifying certain language on gifts, 
enforcement, and the timeline for the subsequent Government 
Accountability Office study.
  The DETERRENT Act includes commonsense disclosure exemptions for 
industrial and intellectual property rights, except when they involve 
national security. My amendment clarifies the definition for 
intellectual property of national security concern by citing the 
existing Commerce Control List, which includes categories such as 
chemicals, avionics, and aerospace. If a transaction with foreign 
nations involves these sensitive industries, it should be disclosed.
  Chronic noncompliance of section 117 is the central motivation for 
this bill, so my amendment also includes language to ensure the 
Secretary follows the law and brings civil action against noncompliant 
entities. This means even a recalcitrant administration, like the Biden 
administration, would have to treat noncompliance with the seriousness 
it deserves.
  Lastly, my amendment adds language requested by the GAO to help it 
effectively measure the implementation and interagency coordination of 
provisions in the DETERRENT Act. Communication is key to combating 
malign foreign influence, and the GAO study will identify ways to 
improve that communication and coordination.
  Mr. Chair, with this amendment's simplistic nature, I hope for its 
easy passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this appears to be technical and 
clarifying. That is always a good thing, and I hope that we will adopt 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
supporting this very technical amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Carey

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-298.

[[Page H6176]]

  

  Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 26, line 10, insert ``(other than the name or any 
     other personally identifiable information of a covered 
     individual)'' after ``paragraph (1)''.
       Page 26, line 10, insert ``(other than the name or any 
     other personally identifiable information of a covered 
     individual)'' after ``paragraph (1)''.
       Page 27, beginning line 6, strike ``name of the individual 
     making the disclosure'' and insert ``the narrowest of the 
     department, school, or college of the institution, as 
     applicable, for which the individual making the disclosure 
     works''.
       Page 27, line 22, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 27, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(4) for purposes of investigations under section 
     117D(a)(1) or responses to requests under section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Freedom 
     of Information Act'), the names of the individuals making 
     disclosures under paragraph (1).''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Carey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of my amendment and the underlying bill, the 
DETERRENT Act.
  Foreign influence on our universities and colleges is a serious 
threat, and I am concerned foreign adversaries are targeting our 
Nation's students.
  The DETERRENT Act ensures that we have transparency, accountability, 
and clarity in how foreign actors are involved with our universities 
and colleges.
  My amendment will improve this important bill by revising a provision 
in the underlying legislation that creates a public, searchable 
database of staff or faculty who have disclosed gifts or contracts from 
foreign entities.
  While I support transparency and accountability for our university 
faculty and staff to ensure foreign entities do not have undue 
influence over university research, policies, or instruction practices, 
it is important we balance that with the need to protect the privacy of 
an individual faculty or staff member at our institutions of higher 
education.
  This commonsense amendment simply changes the underlying bill's 
public database by removing the personally identifiable information of 
faculty and staff who are listed in the database as a result of 
reporting gifts or contracts with foreign entities.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this 
amendment. I still have deep concerns about section 117 of the bill, 
because it places a target on the backs of researchers who work with 
foreign collaborators and would create a chilling effect for both 
international research and retention of international faculty and 
scholars, but this amendment would take the identifying information out 
and remove that target. I think that is a good direction.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Carey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Fallon

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-298.
  Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 44, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(E) Ineligibilty for waiver.----In the case of an 
     institution that has been fined pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A)(i), (B)(i) (C)(i), or (D)(i) with respect to a calendar 
     year, and that knowingly or willfully fails to comply with a 
     requirement of section 117, 117A, 117B, or 117C with respect 
     to any 2 additional calendar years, the Secretary shall 
     prohibit the institution from obtaining a waiver, or a 
     renewal of a waiver, under section 117A.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Fallon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
DETERRENT Act, a bill that will work toward preventing foreign 
influence within America's institutions, colleges, and universities by 
strengthening section 117 of the Higher Education Act.
  Section 117 requires colleges and universities to report contracts 
with and gifts from a foreign source that, alone or combined, are 
valued at $250,000 or more for per calendar year.
  My amendment will prohibit repeat-offending institutions from 
obtaining waivers that will allow them to accept donations or gifts 
from countries or entities of concern.
  Some countries and entities, like China, pose a particular concern to 
the United States, and as such, institutions are required under this 
act to obtain special waivers if they wish to accept donations, gifts, 
or contracts from them.
  My amendment simply adds that if an institution fails to comply with 
this act for 3 years, they are no longer eligible to receive these 
waivers. It is kind of a ``three strikes and you are out'' deal.
  Foreign funds can come with strings attached, as we all know, strings 
that undermine our own national security. Foreign countries can use 
investment in America's colleges and institutions to disseminate 
propaganda, steal secrets and research, and, unfortunately, so much 
more.
  This is why countries that raise more concern have more supervision 
over any of their donations or gifts, including waiver requirements.
  This is really a commonsense amendment. We are not stripping away 
waivers after the first mistake. We are not even stripping away waivers 
after the second mistake. If it is the third time, if you neglect this 
act, this is obviously purposeful and that is when we say, as I 
mentioned before, three strikes and you are out. You have proven, if 
you do that, that you lack the transparency and the trust that are 
required to have these waivers permitted.
  This amendment is not only about transparency and accountability, but 
it is also fundamentally about our national security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of our national security by 
supporting this amendment. I hope this is bipartisan.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, while I certainly want to ensure 
that institutions remain compliant with section 117, many compliance 
problems can be minimal or unintentional. Colleges and universities 
will obviously be held accountable for those problems and subsequent 
violations can be punished more severely, but a permanent ban seems 
very excessive as a mandatory penalty in all cases.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, I think I made my point clear. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Fallon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Fallon

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-298.
  Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, line 17, strike ``4'' and insert ``5''.
       Page 26, line 14, strike ``4'' and insert ``5''.


[[Page H6177]]


  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Fallon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer yet another amendment on 
the DETERRENT Act. It again deals with section 117, which requires 
colleges and universities to report contracts or gifts that total over 
$250,000 in a given year. It is, I think, very important because of the 
nefarious influence that some foreign governments might exert on our 
youngest and most talented minds.
  When Secretary DeVos, in 2019, initiated investigations into just 12 
universities to ensure compliance with section 117, the Department 
found that $6.5 billion of previously unreported foreign gifts and 
contracts were revealed. Despite this demonstrating a clear need for 
increased investigation and enforcement, the Biden administration's 
Department of Education refuses to open investigations under section 
117 to ensure institutions aren't hiding foreign investments.
  Think about that for a second: 12 institutions. $6.5 billion of gifts 
revealed, when they were essentially audited. That is scary. It is 
unbelievably frightening.
  The underlying bill does not require institutions to maintain certain 
information about foreign gifts and contracts, including unredacted 
versions, which would allow for future investigations, if needed.

                              {time}  1430

  However, my amendment would change the minimum length of time that 
they must maintain this information from 4 years to 5 years. It is a 
step in the right direction. It is really rather minor, 4 to 5 years. 
The yearlong extension, why this is relevant, is because if we had a 
potential change in the administrations--regardless that 
administrations last 4 years at a time--this would be protected with 5 
years.
  If we have a Department of Education that is uninterested or 
unwilling to investigate potential foreign influences in our 
institutions, this added extension of that 1 year could become very 
impactful.
  This should be, I think, in my humble opinion, a completely 
bipartisan and noncontroversial amendment. It can go both ways. If my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have concerns about a future 
Republican administration, this just adds that extra year of 
protection.
  This will also work toward restoring legislative branch relevance, as 
we see the executive branch continually year over year, regardless of 
what party is in power at the White House, eat away at our 
constitutional oversight, and, frankly, authority in powers.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment 
and in favor of the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is not an unreasonable 
requirement. To have the information that is stored for 4 years, an 
additional year is not unreasonable. Therefore, I do not oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, as chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific 
American Caucus, I rise in strong opposition to the DETERRENT Act.
  The DETERRENT Act would burden higher education institutions and 
Federal agencies by needlessly complicating existing research security 
measures. Further, the bill would impose unreasonably expansive 
reporting requirements on individual researchers. What is worse is that 
it would broadcast their personal information on public databases; 
therefore, casting a chilling effect disproportionately on the Asian-
American academic community.
  From the incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II to 
racial profiling of Chinese-American scientists under the failed China 
Initiative, countless Asian Americans have had their lives destroyed 
because our government falsely accused them of being spies. Already, 72 
percent of Asian-American academic researchers report feeling unsafe.
  Safeguarding national security can be done through commonsense 
reforms that Democrats have offered that don't come at the expense of 
U.S. scientific innovation, global collaboration, and the Asian-
American community. In fact, Congressman  Bobby Scott has submitted 
such an amendment that is a commonsense reform.
  Meanwhile, this bill, the DETERRENT Act, is a bill that I urge all my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on.
  Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, one of the other reasons why we should 
hopefully get overwhelming support for this amendment is this--let me 
give you a quick example.
  In the final year of President Trump's administration, universities 
reported $1.6 billion in foreign donations. In the entire first year of 
the Biden Presidency, that number magically plunged to $4.3 million.
  I doubt that the actual donations and gifts and such were reduced by 
37,200 percent. I think it is merely a case of if section 117 isn't 
going to be essentially audited, then these universities and other 
institutions don't feel compelled to follow Federal law. That is 
another reason why I think extending this from 4 to 5 years is 
critical.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Fallon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Molinaro

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-298.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 22, strike ``and''.
       Page 9, line 3, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 9, after line 3, insert the following new clause:
       ``(v) any affiliation of the foreign source to an 
     organization that is designated as a foreign terrorist 
     organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Molinaro) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, the DETERRENT Act is an important bill. 
It seeks to hold colleges, universities, and foreign actors accountable 
while providing the transparency necessary into any influence foreign 
countries are attempting to exert onto our Nation's students and 
academic institutions through new disclosure requirements. This bill 
could not be more timely.
  My amendment will clarify that ties to a designated terrorist 
organizations, such as Hamas, must be disclosed when receiving funds 
from a foreign group or individual.
  In light of the disgustingly callous and vile pro-Hamas demonstration 
seen on college campuses across the country, including, sadly, even in 
my own district, this amendment is more important than ever.
  Mr. Chair, I will remark that after comments made by college and 
university presidents in my colleague, Dr. Foxx from North Carolina's, 
committee hearing, those comments were so horribly dishonest, 
disturbing, and, quite frankly, dangerous.
  This amendment and the necessary exclamation point it sends is 
necessary.
  The public deserves to know the source of foreign money being poured 
into our universities, especially if these sources have any ties to 
terrorist groups and organizations like Hamas.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.

[[Page H6178]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this is an amendment that we should 
be able to accept. The problem is that it is hard to imagine how the 
college could actually comply with it.
  Any association with a terrorist organization obviously should be 
avoided. You are not dealing with the terrorist organization; you are 
dealing with an organization who then has an affiliation or some 
support from the organization. There is no way for the college to know.
  I would hope that we would not force the college into complying with 
something they would have no way to comply with.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, there is adequate capacity for colleges 
and universities across this country to identify the source of funds 
such as this.
  In fact, we know all too often that there are individuals even 
working within the Federal Government who have ties and have associated 
themselves with actions of Hamas. We have the technology to do so. And 
simply expecting that universities do their due diligence and then 
disclose to the American people, students, and supporters of those 
universities is certainly not a bar too great for them to meet.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time 
and have the right to close.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I will read the short amendment. 
It says: ``Any affiliation of the foreign source to an organization 
that is designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to 
section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.''
  It is hard to imagine how a college could always know exactly who has 
an affiliation with what.
  Mr. Chair, for that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Molinaro).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-298.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 22, strike ``$50,000'' and insert ``$1''.
       Page 38, beginning on line 3, strike ``not less than 
     $50,000 but''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is really rather simple. It is 
about transparency. It is about simply moving the reporting 
requirements. My amendment reduces the threshold for the value of gifts 
that must be reported from $50,000 to $1. It simply lowers the 
threshold. Mr. Chairman, this is about transparency.
  The underlying bill, which represents a solid and sorely needed first 
step, advertises much-needed transparency. If we are going to stop 
America's foreign adversaries from targeting our Nation's educational 
institutions and students, we need transparency at every level.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this lowers the threshold to $1. 
Any gift from any source, every gift or contract from any country--if 
you have some Canadian collaborators or somebody from Great Britain 
offering you coffee and donuts, you have to report it on a searchable 
database. I think that is an absurd amount of reporting that would have 
to be done.
  This would create backlogs at the Department of Education and take 
time away from the scrutiny of the reports that really need to be 
looked at.
  Mr. Chair, I hope we do not pass this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the Trump administration discovered $6.5 
billion in previously unreported foreign money to universities from 
adversarial countries.
  In response to the terrorist attack against Israel, I think it is 
important that we make it tougher. That we make it more clear who is 
trying to unduly influence our universities and our students--the 
future of America.
  Qatar, an anti-Semitic country, earlier this week accused Israel of 
committing genocide, has contributed $5 billion to U.S. universities. 
There are billions of dollars going unreported. Saudi Arabia has 
contributed $3 billion. This can't be allowed.
  We have foreign adversaries, adversaries of Israel, adversaries of 
the West, adversaries of America donating to universities, and we need 
to know. That is all we are asking.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I 
have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, our universities across America have 
opened the doors to working-class Americans and impoverished Americans 
to be able to access a better life and education.
  I speak to this amendment that indicates that any donation, as much 
as $1, has to be under this particular act.
  First of all, this is a blanket representation that our universities 
are taking moneys from terrorists. I am outraged to say that the 
University of Houston, University of Texas, Texas Southern University, 
and Prairie View A&M would be in the position of taking money from 
terrorists.
  If you pass this amendment, you implode the innocent persons who are 
giving donations and the work of our universities attempting to provide 
dollars to educate more Americans--more impoverished Americans who 
simply have families that cannot afford for them to go to school. This 
is an outrage.
  I want everybody to know that under this particular act, $1 has to be 
reported. That $1 may come from a grandmother or that $1 may come from 
a hardworking parent.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentlewoman from Texas.

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Generous and kindhearted people from the faith 
institutions that many of our universities come under, Mr. Chair, you 
are going to ask them to vet or to determine whether terrorists are 
involved.
  It is not the question of whether terrorists are involved. I want 
this Nation to be protected. We now realize that we are subject to a 
lot of terrorist potential because of the times we are in. I take it 
seriously. I am on the Homeland Security Committee.
  Nevertheless, this $1 is to make a mockery of the hard work of many 
folks at ``working-class'' universities and colleges, our community 
colleges, and 2-year colleges that themselves receive donations from 
people who are grateful that they allowed them to be a vocational nurse 
or welder and, because of that opportunity, they were able to make a 
living for themselves and their families.
  We must have rational and reasonable thinking here. I am grateful for 
America's hierarchy of education because so many people come here to be 
educated.
  Mr. Chair, let us vote this amendment down. Let us not do this and 
undermine the educational system of this Nation and the Constitution.

[[Page H6179]]

  

  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I think it is important to understand that we 
are in a new day. October 7 changed the world.
  Qatar, for example, has praised Hamas. They have literally praised 
the systematic rape of women and the torture and rape of little girls. 
Surely, my colleagues understand why reporting donations is so 
paramount.
  I can't stand by and pretend that this isn't going on. Qatar is 
trying to buy forgiveness--$500 million to Hamas. How many rapes did 
that pay for, Mr. Chairman? How much is enough to absolve their sins?
  I am appalled that anyone would be opposed to this. We need 
reporting. We need transparency. We are in a new day. The West is under 
attack.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I could go on about Al Jazeera, which is 
funded by Qatar, praising the torture. They were cutting off the 
genitals of men. They were cutting off the breasts of women. They were 
gang-raping women.
  Foreign contributions need to be found out, discovered, and 
disclosed. The only way to make sure that nothing is slipping through 
the cracks is to lower the threshold.
  There is no reason to oppose this amendment. If the universities are 
doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment. It is 
common sense, and it takes a stand against the atrocities that took 
place in Israel, the pay-fors, and the forgiveness that Qatar is trying 
to buy through our American universities.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee mentioned billions of 
dollars from countries, and he mentioned some countries of concern. 
Countries of concern already have to report zero-dollar and up gifts. 
This just adds all other countries.
  There is no need for the bill to go from the present law of $250,000 
and up reports down to $50,000 for countries that are not countries of 
concern down to $1 to scrutinize billion-dollar gifts from countries of 
concern.
  These reports are not free to comply with. The estimated costs of 
compliance are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars under the bill 
already.
  Mr. Chairman, if you were to explode the number of reports that would 
have to be made if this amendment is adopted, there is no telling what 
the costs will be to the colleges and universities.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that we defeat the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-298.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 15, line 18, strike ``and''.
       Page 16, line 7, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 16, after line 7, insert the following subparagraph:
       ``(F) an international organization (as such term is 
     defined in the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 
     U.S.C. 288)).''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking Chair Foxx 
for her hard work in an effort to try to right our country and the 
committee that she so artfully presides over.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply adds international organizations 
to the bill's definition of foreign source, including them in the 
bill's reporting requirements. It uses the definition found in 22 
U.S.C. 288, which reads, in part: ``a public international organization 
in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under 
the authority of any act of Congress authorizing such participation or 
making an appropriation for such participation.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, Americans are all too aware of the 
influence of international organizations such as the United Nations or 
the World Health Organization. As just one example, the World Health 
Organization was one of the so-called authorities trying to dismiss the 
lab leak theory, with the assistance of prominent academics and the 
Chinese Communist Party.
  Many of our adversaries, such as China and Iran, are active 
participants in these organizations, much to my dismay and to the 
dismay of many Americans.
  The fact that Iran was appointed to chair the United Nations's 2023 
Social Forum, a conference focusing on human rights, would be laughable 
if not for Iran's own very grave human rights abuses, which are 
serious, to say the least.
  I am concerned that should the excellent policies in this bill become 
law, our adversaries will instead attempt to funnel money to college 
campuses through international organizations. This amendment would 
address that possibility and shed even more light on these foreign 
gifts received by American colleges and universities.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add all 
international organizations as foreign sources that universities must 
report funding from under section 117. It would include the United 
Nations, UNESCO, the World Health Organization, and the World Trade 
Organization. These multinational organizations, many of which have 
significant participation by the United States, should not be deemed as 
necessarily national security threats.
  This amendment would expand the burdensome section 117 compliance 
without giving any clear reason of how it would protect national 
security.
  For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, my good friend and colleague talks about 
protecting national security and implies that somehow this amendment 
would imperil that. I don't understand how letting Americans know more 
about who is providing funds internationally to our universities in our 
country imperils our national security.
  We should know who is trying to attempt to influence not only what is 
happening on campuses but the very minds on those campuses, whether it 
is Confucius Institutes or an organization antithetical, maybe anti-
Semitic, from the Middle East that is sending endowments and funds to 
American universities to influence the minds of those who are 
participating in education at those universities. It is important not 
only for citizens to know but, quite honestly, for our Federal 
Government and the security agencies to know.
  Mr. Chair, I remind my good friend on the other side of the aisle 
that I had a bill some time ago to require this reporting, which is 
already required in many aspects and many respects, but universities, 
even with the requirement, don't keep the information and don't report 
any of it at this time.
  Isn't that a peril to national security?
  If we actually want to strengthen security in our country for our 
citizens, then I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6180]]

  

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman on the 
other side of the aisle, but, again, transparency is key. Universities 
have become, unfortunately, as we have seen in our public media on this 
very day and on these very days, hotspots for international insurgent 
activity in our country, things that are antithetical to our country 
and our way of life, things that we have never seen before, anti-
Semitic chants on American university grounds.
  If those things are being stoked, inflamed, encouraged, and paid for 
by international organizations at all, then Americans ought to know 
that.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
include in the Record a letter from the American Council on Education 
signed by 18 national higher education organizations.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's request will be covered under general 
leave.

                                               American Council on


                                          Education,

                                 Washington, DC, December 4, 2023.
     Hon. Mike Johnson,
     Speaker of the House,
     House of Representatives.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     House Minority Leader,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On 
     behalf of the American Council on Education and the 
     undersigned higher education associations, I write in strong 
     opposition to H.R. 5933, the ``Defending Education 
     Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious 
     Transactions (DETERREM)'' Act, which the House is scheduled 
     to consider on the floor this week. While we understand the 
     concern regarding foreign funding to U.S. institutions of 
     higher education is bipartisan, we believe the DETERRENT Act 
     is duplicative of existing interagency efforts, unnecessary, 
     and puts in place a problematic expansion of the data 
     collection by the U.S. Department of Education that will 
     broadly curtail important needed international research 
     collaboration and academic and cultural exchanges.
       Institutions of higher education share a strong interest 
     with the government in safeguarding the integrity of 
     government-funded research and protecting academic freedom 
     and free speech from foreign influence and/or interference. 
     Our community takes the reporting requirements regarding 
     foreign gifts and contracts under Section 117 of the Higher 
     Education Act very seriously. Indeed, our community has 
     worked tirelessly over the past several years to educate our 
     members regarding these reporting obligations, as well as 
     working with the national security agencies, research 
     agencies, and the Department of Education to clarify and 
     improve foreign gift and contract reporting. For example, our 
     associations and our institutions continue to work with 
     federal agencies to implement new reporting requirements 
     under NSPM-33, which is targeted at improving research 
     security and addressing concerns around federal funding. We 
     are also engaged in implementing new requirements under the 
     recently passed CHIPS and Science Act and ensuring compliance 
     with statutory requirements enacted in previous National 
     Defense Authorization Acts.
       Since 2018, when issues with foreign gift reporting were 
     raised by Congress and policymakers, there has been a 
     substantial increase in Section 117 reporting. In response to 
     questions before the House Education and the Workforce 
     Committee earlier this year, Secretary Cardona stated that 
     the Department has received over 34,000 filings in the past 
     two years and is on track to receive the most Section 117 
     reports of any administration. Just this month, ED announced 
     that the most recent reporting dataset shows nearly 5,000 
     additional foreign gifts and contracts with transactions 
     valued at nearly $4 billion since ED's last data release, as 
     of October 2023. This increase in Section 117 reporting 
     demonstrates that our institutions are committed to 
     transparency and the efforts to bring more attention to the 
     issue of foreign funding to our institutions.
       However, the new Sections 117A, 117B, 117C, and 117D 
     greatly expand Section 117 in a way that will be very 
     problematic for colleges and universities seeking to engage 
     in important and advantageous partnerships with foreign 
     countries and entities. We would also note that the recently 
     released 2023 annual report to Congress by the U.S.-China 
     Economic and Security Review Commission made several 
     recommendations regarding Section 117 but did not recommend 
     these overly expansive and problematic new reporting 
     requirements. Our concerns regarding each new provision are 
     listed below:
       Section ll7A ``Prohibition on Contracts with Certain 
     Foreign Entities and Countries'' would require institutions 
     to receive a waiver from the Department of Education before 
     beginning or continuing any contract with a country of 
     concern (currently the People's Republic of China, Russia, 
     North Korea, and Iran) or a foreign entity of concern. This 
     provision is particularly concerning because the definition 
     of a ``contract'' in the bill is incredibly broad and 
     therefore will likely capture not only all research 
     agreements, but also student exchange programs and other 
     joint cultural and education programs with Chinese 
     institutions.
       Our institutions currently abide by the regulations and 
     requirements maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce 
     and the U.S. Department of the Treasury regarding U.S. 
     partnerships, exports, and purchases from foreign entities 
     and foreign countries. In addition, federal research 
     agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Defense, National 
     Science Foundation, and National Institutes of Health all 
     have recently strengthened research security and foreign 
     partnership reporting requirements. There are no indications 
     that expanded Department of Education reviews are necessary, 
     and it is unlikely the Department of Education has the 
     expertise to carry out the review of contracts, many of which 
     will likely focus on scientific research. The Department 
     lacks the technical expertise to assess risks associated with 
     scientific research and critical and emerging technologies. 
     Additionally, in light of the extremely broad definition of a 
     contract in the legislation, this review will likely 
     overwhelm the Department, and we are concerned that very few 
     waiver requests would ultimately be granted. No other 
     industry or government entities, including states, localities 
     and other nonprofit organizations, must undertake this type 
     of review of agreement before they can enter into a 
     contract with a country or foreign entity.
       Section 117B ``Institutional Policy Regarding Foreign Gifts 
     and Contracts to Faculty and Staff'' would require 
     institutions of higher education (those with more than $50 
     million in federal research and development funding or any 
     institution receiving Title VI international education 
     funding) to develop a policy to compel research faculty and 
     staff to report foreign gifts and contracts over $480, as 
     well as creating and maintaining a searchable, public 
     database with that information. This requirement is 
     unnecessary given other existing federal statutory mandates 
     that require researchers to disclose all sources of foreign, 
     domestic, current, and pending support for their research to 
     federal research agencies as they apply for research awards 
     and contracts. To effectively implement this requirement, the 
     Office of Management and Budget recently approved common 
     disclosure forms to be used by all federal agencies.
       This provision also raises serious privacy concerns for 
     research faculty and staff, whose private financial 
     transactions of relatively small amounts will have to be made 
     public. Not only will this information be available to the 
     U.S. public, but it will also provide our foreign adversaries 
     with a roadmap for targeting our top-notch U.S. researchers.
       Section 117B will result in the collection of an ocean of 
     data, much of it trivial and inconsequential, and do little 
     to address the fundamental concerns regarding research 
     security and foreign influence. In addition, this could 
     inadvertently undermine the U.S. economic competitiveness and 
     national security objectives these bills are intended to 
     enhance (i.e., faculty will be discouraged from working with 
     foreign partners because their personal financial information 
     will be made public).
       Section 117C would create new ``Investment Disclosure 
     Reports'' for certain institutions of higher education 
     (private institutions with endowments over $6 billion or with 
     ``investments of concern'' above $250 million). Those 
     institutions would need to report those investments with a 
     country of concern or a foreign entity of concern, on an 
     annual basis, to the U.S. Department of Education. Those 
     investments would then be made public on a searchable 
     database. As written, this would likely capture a small 
     number of private institutions of higher education and does 
     not serve to achieve any significant national interests, 
     especially given that all U.S. institutions of higher 
     education already comply with Treasury rules regulating their 
     investments, including the recent Executive Order 14105 
     regarding outbound investments in certain sensitive 
     technologies in countries of concern. It is also unclear how 
     this will address issues of national security beyond existing 
     federal requirements.
       Section 117D would establish new fines regarding compliance 
     with Section 117 and the new subsections of Section 117. The 
     legislation would put into statute the tie between Section 
     117 and an institution's Program Participation Agreement 
     (PPA), which governs an institution's ability to access Title 
     IV federal student aid. For the past several years, the 
     Department of Education has tied PPAs to Section 117 
     compliance. However, this legislation goes further by 
     creating additional fines for each new reporting requirement, 
     and in some cases tying those fines to an institution's Title 
     IV funding. As you know, those funds are awarded to the 
     students who then choose to use that funding at institutions 
     of higher education. By tying the new proposed fines to a 
     school's Title IV funding, this would punish students for 
     compliance issues at institutions, specifically compliance 
     with foreign gift reporting, which is not likely impacting 
     individual students. We do not believe these additional fines 
     are necessary, given that Section 117 is already tied to an 
     institution's PPA.
       We appreciate that the DETERRENT Act would make Section 117 
     an annual report, rather than the current biannual 
     requirements, in order to better align it with the new 
     National Science Foundation foreign

[[Page H6181]]

     gift reporting requirement. We also appreciate that the 
     legislation would exempt tuition and certain outgoing 
     contracts from our institutions used to purchase goods from 
     foreign companies. Exempting tuition is especially important 
     since the DETERRENT Act would lower the reporting threshold 
     from $250,000 to $50,000 for some gifts and contracts but $0 
     for certain countries of concern and foreign entities of 
     concern.
       Congress should examine the research security provisions in 
     the CHIPS and Science Act, recent National Defense 
     Authorization Acts, and NSPM-33 that are currently being 
     implemented and not simply add duplicative and confusing 
     regulations. A recent survey from the Council on Governmental 
     Relations found that over the past four years, universities 
     have spent considerable funds to comply with expanding 
     federal requirements to address inappropriate foreign 
     influence on research. The survey found: ``The projected year 
     one average total cost per institution for compliance with 
     the Disclosure Requirements, regardless of institutional 
     size, is significant and concerning. The figure ranges from 
     an average of over $100,000 for smaller institutions to over 
     $400,000 for mid-size and large institutions. Although some 
     of these expenses are onetime costs, a sizeable portion will 
     be annual recurring compliance costs. Overall, the cost 
     impact to research institutions in year one is expected to 
     exceed $50 million. Further, all research institutions will 
     experience significant cost burden and administrative stress, 
     and smaller research institutions with less developed 
     compliance infrastructure may be disproportionately 
     affected.'' The DETERRENT Act would greatly increase these 
     costs to our institutions, while also duplicating reporting 
     requirements and provisions already being implemented.
       We also urge Congress to examine the language included in 
     the 2021 Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act 
     (USICA) (S. 1260) and 2022 House-passed America COMPETES Act 
     (H.R. 4521), which proposed bipartisan fixes and improvements 
     to Section 117. We urge Congress to reexamine that language, 
     incorporated as an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     offered by Education and the Workforce Ranking Member Bobby 
     Scott to the House Rules Committee, and work together in a 
     bipartisan manner to improve Section 117 in a way that 
     addresses national security concerns while also protecting 
     the important work at our U.S. institutions of higher 
     education.
       We understand that Congress and policymakers are concerned 
     with research security, as well as foreign malign influence, 
     at our institutions. However, the DETERRENT Act is the wrong 
     action to take to address these issues and we urge you to 
     vote against the legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ted Mitchell,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of: American Association of Collegiate Registrars 
     and Admissions Officers, American Association of Community 
     Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and 
     Universities, American Council on Education, APPA, 
     ``Leadership in Educational Facilities'', Association of 
     American Universities, Association of Catholic Colleges and 
     Universities, Association of Governing Boards of Universities 
     and Colleges, Association of Jesuit Colleges and 
     Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant 
     Universities, Association of Research Libraries, Council for 
     Advancement and Support of Education, Council of Graduate 
     Schools, EDUCAUSE, NAFSA: Association of International 
     Educators, National Association of College and University 
     Business Officers, National Association of Diversity Officers 
     in Higher Education, National Association of Independent 
     Colleges and Universities.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, part of the letter reads: 
``While we understand the concern regarding foreign funding to U.S. 
institutions in higher education is bipartisan, we believe the 
DETERRENT Act is duplicative of existing interagency efforts, 
unnecessary, and puts in place a problematic expansion of the data 
collection by the U.S. Department of Education that will broadly 
curtail important needed international research collaboration and 
academic and cultural exchanges.''
  Mr. Chairman, I think that applies to this amendment, too.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope Members vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in 
part B of House Report 118-298.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 1 and all that follows and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``DETERRENT Act of 2023''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURES OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND CONTRACTS.

       Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1011f) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 117. DISCLOSURES OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND CONTRACTS.

       ``(a) Disclosure Reports.--
       ``(1) Aggregate gift and contract disclosures.--An 
     institution shall file a disclosure report described in 
     subsection (b) with the Secretary not later than July 31 of 
     the calendar year immediately following any calendar year in 
     which--
       ``(A) the institution receives a gift from, or enters into 
     a contract with, a foreign source, the value of which is 
     $100,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all 
     other gifts from, or contracts with, that foreign source 
     within the calendar year; or
       ``(B) the institution receives a gift from, or enters into 
     a contract with, a foreign source, the value of which totals 
     $250,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all 
     other gifts from, or contracts with, that foreign source over 
     the previous 3 calendar years.
       ``(2) Foreign source ownership or control disclosures.--In 
     the case of an institution that is substantially owned or 
     controlled (as described in section 668.174(c)(3) of title 
     34, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations)) 
     by a foreign source, the institution shall file a disclosure 
     report described in subsection (b) with the Secretary not 
     later than July 31 of every year.
       ``(b) Contents of Report.--Each report to the Secretary 
     required under subsection (a) shall contain the following:
       ``(1)(A) In the case of gifts or contracts described in 
     subsection (a)(1)--
       ``(i) for gifts received from, or contracts entered into 
     with, a foreign government, the aggregate amount of such 
     gifts and contracts received from or entered into with such 
     foreign government;
       ``(ii) for gifts received from, or contracts entered into 
     with, a foreign source other than a foreign government, the 
     aggregate dollar amount of such gifts and contracts 
     attributable to a particular country and the legal or formal 
     name of the foreign source; and
       ``(iii) the intended purpose of such gift or contract, as 
     provided to the institution by such foreign source, or if no 
     such purpose is provided by such purpose is provided by such 
     source, the intended use of such gift or contract, as 
     provided by the institution.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the country to which 
     a gift is attributable is--
       ``(i) the country of citizenship or, if unknown, the 
     principal residence, for a foreign source who is a natural 
     person; or
       ``(ii) the country of incorporation or, if unknown, the 
     principal place of business, for a foreign source that is a 
     legal entity.
       ``(2) In the case of an institution required to file a 
     report under subsection (a)(2)--
       ``(A) for gifts received from, or contracts entered into 
     with, a foreign source, without regard to the value of such 
     gift or contract, the information described in paragraph 
     (1)(A);
       ``(B) the identity of the foreign source that owns or 
     controls the institution;
       ``(C) the date on which the foreign source assumed 
     ownership or control; and
       ``(D) any changes in program or structure resulting from 
     such ownership or control.
       ``(3) An assurance that the institution will maintain a 
     true copy of each gift or contract agreement subject to the 
     disclosure requirements under this section, until the latest 
     of--
       ``(A) the date that is 4 years after the date of the 
     agreement;
       ``(B) the date on which the agreement terminates; or
       ``(C) the last day of any period of which applicable State 
     public record law requires a true copy of such agreement to 
     be maintained.
       ``(4) An assurance that the institution will--
       ``(A) produce true copies of gift and contract agreements 
     subject to the disclosure requirements under this section 
     upon request of the Secretary during a compliance audit or 
     other institutional investigation; and
       ``(B) ensure that all contracts from the foreign source are 
     translated into English, as applicable.
       ``(c) Additional Disclosures for Restricted and Conditional 
     Gifts and Contracts.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), 
     whenever any institution receives a restricted or conditional 
     gift or contract from a foreign source, the institution shall 
     disclose the following to the Secretary, translated into 
     English:
       ``(1) For such gifts received from, or contracts entered 
     into with, a foreign source other than a foreign government, 
     the amount, the date, and a description of such conditions or 
     restrictions. The report shall also disclose the country of 
     citizenship, or if unknown, the principal residence for a 
     foreign source which is a natural person, and the country of 
     incorporation, or if unknown, the principal place of business 
     for a foreign source which is a legal entity.
       ``(2) For gifts received from, or contracts entered into 
     with, a foreign government, the amount, the date, a 
     description of such conditions or restrictions, and the name 
     of the foreign government.
       ``(d) Database Requirement.--Beginning not later than 30 
     days before the July 31 immediately following the date of 
     enactment of

[[Page H6182]]

     the DETERRENT Act of 2023, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) establish and maintain a searchable database on a 
     website of the Department, under which each report submitted 
     under this section--
       ``(A) is, not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     submission of such report, made publicly available (in 
     electronic and downloadable format);
       ``(B) can be identified and compared to other such reports; 
     and
       ``(C) is searchable and sortable by--
       ``(i) the date the institution filed such report;
       ``(ii) the date on which the institution received the gift, 
     or entered into the contract, which is the subject of the 
     report; and
       ``(iii) the attributable country of such gift or contract 
     as described in subsection (b)(1)(B); and
       ``(2) indicate, as part of the public record of a report 
     included in such database, whether the report was submitted 
     by the institution with respect to a gift received from, or a 
     contract entered into with--
       ``(A) a foreign source that is a foreign government; or
       ``(B) a foreign source that is not a foreign government.
       ``(e) Relation to Other Reporting Requirements.--
       ``(1) State requirements.--If an institution that is 
     required to file a disclosure report under subsection (a) is 
     in a State that has enacted requirements for public 
     disclosure of gifts from. or contracts with, a foreign source 
     that includes all information required under this section for 
     the same or an equivalent time period, the institution may 
     file with the Secretary a copy of the disclosure report filed 
     with the State in lieu of the report required under such 
     subsection. The State in which the institution is located 
     shall provide the Secretary such assurances as the Secretary 
     may require to establish that the institution has met the 
     requirements for public disclosure under State law if the 
     State report is filed.
       ``(2) Use of other federal reports.--If an institution 
     receives a gift from, or enters into a contract with, a 
     foreign source, where any other department, agency, or bureau 
     of the executive branch requires a report containing all the 
     information required under this section for the same or an 
     equivalent time period, a copy of the report may be filed 
     with the Secretary in lieu of a report required under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(f) Modification of Reports.--The Secretary shall 
     incorporate a process permitting institutions to revise and 
     update previously filed disclosure reports under this section 
     to ensure accuracy, compliance, and ability to cure.
       ``(g) Sanctions for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--As a sanction for noncompliance with the 
     requirements under this section, the Secretary may impose a 
     fine on an institution that in any year knowingly or 
     willfully violates this section, that is--
       ``(A) in the case of a failure to disclose a gift or 
     contract with a foreign source as required under this 
     section, or to comply with the requirements of subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(4) pursuant to the assurances 
     made under such subsection, in an amount that is not less 
     than $250 but not more than 50 percent of the amount of the 
     gift or contract with the foreign source; or
       ``(B) in the case of any violation of the requirements of 
     subsection (a)(2), in an amount that is not more than 25 
     percent of the total amount of funding received by the 
     institution under this Act (other than funds received under 
     title IV of this Act).
       ``(2) Repeated failures.--
       ``(A) Knowing and willful failures.--In addition to a fine 
     for a violation in any year under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may impose a fine on an institution that knowingly 
     or willfully violates this section for 3 consecutive years, 
     that is--
       ``(i) in the case of a failure to disclose a gift or 
     contract with a foreign source as required under this section 
     or to comply with the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of subsection (b)(4) pursuant to the assurances made 
     under such subsection, in an amount that is not less than 
     $100,000 but not more than the amount of the gift or contract 
     with the foreign source; or
       ``(ii) in the case of any violation of the requirements of 
     subsection (a)(2), in an amount that is not more than 25 
     percent of the total amount of funding received by the 
     institution under this Act (other than funds received under 
     title IV of this Act).
       ``(B) Administrative failures.--The Secretary may impose a 
     fine on an institution that fails to comply with the 
     requirements of this section due to administrative errors for 
     3 consecutive years, in an amount that is not less than $250 
     but not more than 50 percent of the amount of the gift or 
     contract with the foreign source.
       ``(C) Compliance plan requirement.--If an institution fails 
     to file a disclosure report for a receipt of a gift from or 
     contract with a foreign source for 2 consecutive years, the 
     Secretary may require the institution to submit a compliance 
     plan.
       ``(h) Compliance Officer.--Any institution that is required 
     to report a gift or contract under this section shall 
     designate and maintain a compliance officer who--
       ``(1) shall be a current employee (including such an 
     employee with another job title or duties other than the 
     duties described in paragraph (2)) or legally authorized 
     agent of such institution; and
       ``(2) shall be responsible, on behalf of the institution, 
     for compliance with the foreign gift reporting requirement 
     under this section.
       ``(i) Single Point of Contact.--The Secretary shall appoint 
     and maintain a single point of contact to--
       ``(1) receive and respond to inquiries and requests for 
     technical assistance from institutions of higher education 
     regarding compliance with the requirements of this section; 
     and
       ``(2) coordinate and implement technical improvements to 
     the database described in subsection (d), including--
       ``(A) improving upload functionality by allowing for batch 
     reporting, including by allowing institutions to upload to 
     the database one file with all required information;
       ``(B) publishing and maintaining, on an annual basis, a 
     database user guide that includes information on how to edit 
     an entry and how to report errors;
       ``(C) creating a user group (to which chapter 10 of title 
     5, United States Code, shall not apply) to discuss possible 
     database improvements, which shall--
       ``(i) include at least--

       ``(I) 3 members representing public institutions with high 
     or very high levels of research activity (as defined by the 
     National Center for Education Statistics);
       ``(II) 2 members representing private, nonprofit 
     institutions with high or very high levels of research 
     activity (as so defined);
       ``(III) 2 members representing proprietary institutions of 
     higher education (as defined in section 102(b)); and
       ``(IV) 2 members representing area career and technical 
     education schools (as defined in subparagraph (C) or (D) of 
     section 3(3) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302(3)); and

       ``(ii) meet at least twice a year with officials from the 
     Department to discuss possible database improvements; and
       ``(D) publishing, on a publicly available website--
       ``(i) following each meeting described in subparagraph 
     (C)(ii), recommended database improvements; and
       ``(ii) with respect to each recommended improvement 
     described in clause (i)--

       ``(I) the decision of the Department as to whether such 
     recommended improvement will be implemented; and
       ``(II) the rationale for such decision.

       ``(j) Treatment of Certain Payments and Gifts.--
       ``(1) Exclusions.--The following shall not be considered a 
     gift from, or contract with, a foreign source under this 
     section:
       ``(A) Any payment of one or more elements of a student's 
     cost of attendance (as defined in section 472) to an 
     institution by, or scholarship from, a foreign source who is 
     a natural person, acting in their individual capacity and not 
     as an agent for, at the request or direction of, or on behalf 
     of, any person or entity (except the student), made on behalf 
     of students that is not made under contract with such foreign 
     source, except for the agreement between the institution and 
     such student covering one or more elements of such student's 
     cost of attendance.
       ``(B) Assignment or license of registered industrial and 
     intellectual property rights, such as patents, utility 
     models, trademarks, or copy-rights, or technical assistance, 
     that are not identified as being associated with a national 
     security risk or concern.
       ``(C) Any payment from a foreign source that is solely for 
     the purpose of conducting one or more clinical trials.
       ``(2) Inclusions.--Any gift to, or contract with, an entity 
     or organization, such as a research foundation, that operates 
     substantially for the benefit or under the auspices of an 
     institution shall be considered a gift to, or contract with, 
     such institution.
       ``(k) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `clinical trial' means a research study in 
     which one or more human subjects are prospectively assigned 
     to one or more interventions to evaluate the effects of those 
     interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioral 
     outcomes;
       ``(2) the term `contract'--
       ``(A) means any--
       ``(i) agreement for the acquisition by purchase, lease, or 
     barter of property or services by the foreign source, for the 
     direct benefit or use of either of the parties, except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B); or
       ``(ii) affiliation, agreement, or similar transaction with 
     a foreign source that is based on the use or exchange of an 
     institution's name, likeness, time, services, or resources, 
     except as provided in subparagraph (B); and
       ``(B) does not include any agreement made by an institution 
     located in the United States for the acquisition, by 
     purchase, lease, or barter, of property or services from a 
     foreign source;
       ``(3) the term `foreign source' means--
       ``(A) a foreign government, including an agency of a 
     foreign government;
       ``(B) a legal entity, governmental or otherwise, created 
     under the laws of a foreign state or states;
       ``(C) an individual who is not a citizen or a national of 
     the United States or a trust territory or protectorate 
     thereof; and
       ``(D) an agent, including a subsidiary or affiliate of a 
     foreign legal entity, acting on behalf of a foreign source;
       ``(4) the term `gift'--
       ``(A) means any gift of money, property, resources, staff, 
     or services; and

[[Page H6183]]

       ``(B) does not include anything described in section 
     487(e)(2)(B)(ii);
       ``(5) the term `institution' means an institution of higher 
     education, as defined in section 102, or, if a multicampus 
     institution, any single campus of such institution, in any 
     State; and
       ``(6) the term `restricted or conditional gift or contract' 
     means any endowment, gift, grant, contract, award, present, 
     or property of any kind that includes provisions regarding--
       ``(A) the employment, assignment, or termination of 
     faculty;
       ``(B) the establishment of departments, centers, 
     institutes, instructional programs, research or lecture 
     programs, or faculty positions;
       ``(C) the selection or admission of students; or
       ``(D) the award of grants, loans, scholarships, 
     fellowships, or other forms of financial aid restricted to 
     students of a specified country, religion, sex, ethnic 
     origin, or political opinion.''.

     SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall begin 
     the negotiated rulemaking process under section 492 of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1098a) to carry out 
     the amendment made by section 2.
       (b) Issues.--Regulations issued pursuant to subsection (a) 
     to carry out the amendment made by section 2 shall, at a 
     minimum, address the following issues:
       (1) Instructions on reporting structured gifts and 
     contracts.
       (2) The inclusion in institutional reports of gifts 
     received from, and contracts entered into with, foreign 
     sources by entities and organizations, such as research 
     foundations, that operate substantially for the benefit or 
     under the auspices of the institution.
       (3) Procedures to protect confidential or proprietary 
     information included in gifts and contracts.
       (4) The alignment of such regulations with the reporting 
     and disclosure of foreign gifts or contracts required by 
     Federal agencies other than the Department of Education, 
     including with respect to--
       (A) the CHIPS Act of 2022 (Division A of Public Law 117-
     167; 15 U.S.C. 4651 note);
       (B) the Research and Development, Competition, and 
     Innovation Act (Division B of Public Law 117-167; 42 U.S.C. 
     18901 note); and
       (C) any guidance released by the White House Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy, including the Guidance for 
     Implementing National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 
     (NSPM-33) on National Security Strategy for United States 
     Government-supported Research and Development published by 
     the Subcommittee on Research Security and the Joint Committee 
     on the Research Environment in January 2022.
       (5) The treatment of foreign gifts or contracts involving 
     research or technologies identified as being associated with 
     a national security risk or concern.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by section 2 shall 
     take effect on the date on which the regulations issued under 
     subsection (a) take effect.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this 
Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5933.
  My Democratic colleagues and I remain committed to ensuring 
institutions have sufficient resources to safeguard their work from 
undue foreign influence. Nevertheless, while I appreciate the 
majority's interest in addressing this important issue, I fear that 
their proposal is far too extreme and does not actually promote 
institutional compliance.
  Specifically, with such harsh fines and limited opportunities for 
institutions to seek guidance, I am concerned that these changes to 
section 117 of the Higher Education Act will discourage institutions 
from collaborating with international entities that are essential in 
solving important global issues.
  It is also very concerning to see language that targets individual 
faculty members for their collaboration with foreign entities. We have 
seen, in cases such as the wrongfully accused MIT faculty member, that 
this sort of targeting can easily lead to harmful consequences rooted 
in xenophobia for innocent scholars. We must always strive to strike a 
balance between enforcing the law and fostering safe campuses for 
students, scholars, and faculty.
  Through its overlapping and overly burdensome requirements, harsh 
penalties, and duplicities to current foreign influence requirements 
across Federal agencies, the DETERRENT Act takes a sledgehammer to a 
problem that needs to be addressed with a scalpel.
  The Democratic substitute makes a thoughtful approach to section 117 
compliance to support institutions as they evaluate and implement their 
research integrity and foreign influence policies.
  In addition to requiring the filing of annual reports for gifts and 
contracts from foreign entities, our bill would create a robust 
database at the Department of Education to hold these reports. It 
establishes commonsense sanctions for noncompliance that allow for room 
to help institutions that need support scaling up their compliance 
work. Moreover, it establishes a single point of contact at the 
Department to coordinate section 117 compliance.
  It also builds on the work being done through the implementation of 
the Chips and Science Act and the ``Presidential Memorandum on United 
States Government-Supported Research and Development National Security 
Guidelines'' by aligning important requirements to those of other 
Federal agencies and requiring the Secretary of Education to go through 
negotiated rulemaking to address key implementation aspects of section 
117.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute, 
rather than the underlying bill, to enhance institutions' real ability 
to protect against foreign influence.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute from Mr. Scott.
  Instead of taking the threat of foreign influence seriously, this 
amendment is a mere slap on the wrist for campuses and includes gaping 
disclosure loopholes. This is insufficient to protect our students and 
institutions from our worst adversaries.
  The amendment first makes it easier for foreign sources to be 
undetected, doubling the threshold for contracts to $100,000 and 
allowing gifts under $250,000 over a 3-year span to go unreported.
  Bad actors will seek any possible way to avoid transparency about 
their attempts to harm America through their influence over American 
postsecondary education, and a strict threshold is essential to stop 
that from happening.
  The annual thresholds in the DETERRENT Act are simple and align with 
other requirements in existing Federal law.
  Shockingly, this amendment includes no differences for America's 
biggest enemies: countries of concern and entities of concern. In my 
colleagues' minds, gifts from Russia and Iran are the same as gifts 
from England.
  I find it alarming that my colleagues are trying to make it easier 
for countries of concern to find ways to influence our universities.
  The DETERRENT Act uses a tailored list of countries and individuals, 
pulled from existing law, that have a proven track record of being 
security threats and actively working against the United States.
  The Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute also has 
terrible carve-outs that provide gaping loopholes for cunning 
adversaries. The amendment prevents disclosure of the names of foreign 
sources and who at the institution is responsible for receiving the 
gift.
  These loopholes will make it easier for foreign sources to conceal 
their relationships and schools to feign ignorance, rendering 
disclosures all but useless.
  Finally, the Democrats provide no real incentive for schools to 
comply. Their fines for violations go as low as $250. After three 
consecutive years of violations, the Democrats' fine only goes up to 
the full amount of the gift.
  This is a laughable drop in the bucket compared to the billions in 
foreign contributions. Money talks, and institutions need to know 
section 117 cannot be ignored. We have already seen institutions fail 
to disclose billions in the past, and this paltry fine has no real 
consequences.
  Mr. Chair, it is time to take foreign influence seriously. I stand 
against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining.

[[Page H6184]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, it should be made very clear that there 
is not one American, not one Member of Congress, not one Democratic 
Member of Congress, as well, joined with colleagues who reasonably 
understand our mutual commitment to the national security of this 
Nation, who wants any interference in the important research that is 
being done by universities across America.
  They are the hope of the world. There are brilliant students who come 
with complete innocence here to the United States to create global 
research that will help not only this country but the world.
  I want that to continue. I want the bad actors to be wiped out. 
Clearly, as my friends have now moved from China to the Mideast, I 
abhor Hamas. They are terrorists, but I am yet to find a dollar from 
them to any legitimate institution here in the United States.
  What I will say is that we have a system in place. It builds on the 
Chips and Science Act and the Presidential memorandum on government-
supported research.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, we already have a process to weed out and 
stop it. I can't imagine stopping research at the Yales and Harvards 
and Princetons, but I also can't imagine stopping it from the ordinary 
universities across America.
  Let us support the present legislation and the U.S. Department of 
Education and stop blaming our educational institutions and calling 
them terrorists.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chair, in the committee chair's remarks, she mentioned that there 
is a difference between countries of concern and other countries. I 
remind her that we just passed an amendment that essentially eliminated 
that difference. A recorded vote was requested, and perhaps she could 
join me in trying to defeat that amendment to the bill.
  This amendment in the nature of a substitute significantly increases 
the gifts and contracts that need to be reported compared to present 
law. It takes a more moderate approach to national security than the 
underlying bill, which I think is an extreme approach.

  It will be very difficult for colleges to comply with. For that 
reason, I hope that we adopt the Democratic amendment in the nature of 
a substitute and, if not, defeat the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, my friend from Virginia and I have been doing 
really very well in working in a bipartisan manner recently, and I hate 
for things to come between us, but his amendment in the nature of a 
substitute really does do a lot of damage to the underlying bill.
  There is no enforcement mechanism. There is no difference for malign 
actors. We have evidence to show that these foreign gifts are having an 
impact on the number of anti-Semitic demonstrations on the campuses. We 
know that foreigners are doing a lot to undermine our beliefs and 
values in this country.
  We need to be aware of where money is coming from, from other 
countries and particularly from those countries that we know want to 
destroy us.
  Mr. Chair, I have to very strongly oppose the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Perry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moylan, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5933) to amend 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require additional information in 
disclosures of foreign gifts and contracts from foreign sources, 
restrict contracts with certain foreign entities and foreign countries 
of concern, require certain staff and faculty to report foreign gifts 
and contracts, and require disclosure of certain foreign investments 
within endowments, had come to no resolution thereon.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 5933.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________