Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FOXX. 5933.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source