[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.
____________________