University of Utah Research Park Act

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.

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.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Asian American Scholars Forum from which I quoted be entered into the Record.

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.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

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.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

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. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

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).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and have the right to close.

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.

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. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

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

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

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.

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

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. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and supporting this very technical amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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. 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.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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. 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. 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.