Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source