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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. 1048.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1048.

Foreign nations, including our biggest adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party, contribute billions of dollars to American universities. The lack of transparency around foreign relationships should concern every American as we see stolen research, anti-Semitic propaganda, and academic censorship. None of these things belong inside our borders let alone on our college campuses.

By establishing footholds in American schools, bad actors gain access to valuable research and intellectual property that can be used to bolster their own military and undermine our Nation's best interests.

Under the Higher Education Act, schools are required to report foreign gifts and funding. Unfortunately, loose legislative language, the Biden-Harris administration's inaction, and colleges' refusal to adhere to the law have resulted in billions of foreign funds infiltrating our country undetected. Last year, a congressional investigation of two research universities uncovered nearly $40 million in unreported research contracts with the Chinese Communist Party. That is $40 million in unreported funds at just two universities.

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Without transparency, we have no idea the true amount or impact of foreign funds at our institutions.

This is why we need the DETERRENT Act. It closes these loopholes and has more strict reporting requirements for foreign funding and contracts. It also will hold institutions accountable by imposing fines, such as the loss of student aid funding for schools that continually fail to comply.

This bipartisan bill is a commonsense solution to an irrefutable problem, which is why it passed last Congress with bipartisan support. We should be loud and clear: No American university should be helping the hidden agendas of the Chinese Communist Party or other nations continue to threaten U.S. national security.

I thank Mr. Baumgartner for introducing this vital piece of legislation. I would also like to highlight that the DETERRENT Act includes bills from my committee colleagues Representative Harris, Representative Owens, and Representative Messmer.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the DETERRENT Act. Doing so will help defend against our adversaries while also holding our institutions to a higher standard. Take foreign money first, ask questions later is not the way to go.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concerns of my colleague, but my committee has worked very closely with the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to combat malign influence at our universities.

One type of malign influence is very different than what we are talking about here. The influence is known as transnational repression, which is efforts by the CCP to exert influence over dissidents, dissidents that could be coming here to gain a great education at our universities but are discouraged by the CCP. This legislation would encourage students seeking an education here and be able to push back against the malign influence of the CCP.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris), a cosponsor of this bill with portions of his bill in this bill, as well.

Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Baumgartner for his work on this bill.

Mr. Chair, each year adversarial nations like China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia attempt to buy the ability to influence our next generation through donations and contracts with American colleges and universities.

The DETERRENT Act will shine light on these shady backroom deals and get malign foreign influence out of our schools. The legislation will strengthen the thresholds of reporting foreign gifts and contracts.

According to The Wall Street Journal, in the last 12 years, U.S. schools had nearly 3,000 contracts with China valued at no less than $2.32 billion. That raises an important question: Why would a country that certainly doesn't have the best interests of American students in mind pay such enormous sums to American universities?

This bill will get to the bottom of it.

The DETERRENT Act includes language from my own legislation, the No Contracts With Foreign Adversaries Act, which requires a college or university to be transparent about the reason they might want to contract with one of the four countries currently designated by our government as a ``country of concern.''

It is true that there could be an academic purpose for a partnership with a country like China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia, but these partnerships cannot come at the expense of our national security, research integrity, or our future generations.

Students, parents, and taxpayers have a right to know the financial ties of these universities.

The DETERRENT Act strengthens current law by raising the reporting standards and providing a real enforcement mechanism if schools try to hide their dealings with foreign countries.

I urge all of my colleagues to stand and support the DETERRENT Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messmer), an upstanding, proud member of this committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the vice chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee as well as the chairman of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), the subcommittee chair of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know my good friend and colleague's concern is sincere about faculty involvement in reporting in institutions, of course, that know how to keep records of sports donors, boosters, and alumni who are contributing various things. I think this is even more important.

My colleague argued that requiring researchers to disclose foreign gifts and contracts would be invasive and unnecessary. I first remind my colleague that this requirement applies to specific researchers involved in government contracts who are at specific high research institutions. These are faculty working in crucial and sensitive research, areas our adversaries have targeted time and time again.

This is not just an abstract problem. Just in the last 2 years, prominent research faculty at Harvard, Stanford, the University of Maryland, and the University of Delaware were found to not have disclosed foreign funding from Chinese sources, just to name a few examples. Reporting in-kind support specifically for a researcher's grant is critical, but deterrent provisions also cover other ways our adversaries can influence faculty.

Democrats also continue to falsely claim that the DETERRENT Act would require reporting for everyday activities like doughnuts or coffee. The DETERRENT Act holds faculty to the same standard for monetary gifts as Members of Congress. A gift of a $5,000 purse from a foreign source rightfully needs to be scrutinized and publicized.

Regarding privacy concerns, I do want to point out that these individuals are often happy to voluntarily publish their own names, their email addresses, and their donors when it comes to their own published works. Many universities have open directories on their websites. However, the DETERRENT Act does have a commonsense privacy protection included.

The American public deserves transparency, and I urge critics of the bill to ask why relationships, including those with our worst enemies and our adversaries, should continue to lie in the shadows.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues who have come to speak today on such an important matter regarding not just higher education but national security.

International collaboration is not inherently bad, but foreign nations have been able to operate in the dark for far too long. When foreign adversaries give to universities, it is not out of the goodness of their hearts. It is because they want something in return. Sometimes that is extremely negative.

Each dollar that is accepted comes with strings attached, and that can influence student behavior or gain access to research. The DETERRENT Act is a crucial step toward transparency and protecting American education and students from malicious foreign influence. The current system has allowed our Nation's students to become targets for our adversaries, and that is unacceptable.

We must pass this bill.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is essentially the same amendment that my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Scott, offered last Congress on the floor as well as this Congress during committee markup.

Sadly, the same serious problems remain, I believe. Instead of taking the threats of foreign influence seriously, this amendment 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 be unreported. Bad actors will seek any possible way to avoid transparency about their attempts to harm America through their influence over American postsecondary education. 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 law such as in the CHIPS Act and the Presidential Memorandum on United States Government-Supported Research and Development National Security Policy.

Shockingly, this amendment includes no differences for America's biggest enemies, countries of concern and entities of concern. In my Democratic colleagues' minds, it appears that gifts from Russia, China, and Iran are the exact same gifts as those from England.

I remind everyone here that 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 ANS also has terrible carve-outs that provide gaping loopholes for cunning adversaries. The amendment allows gifts and contracts to be rendered anonymous, with no foreign source identification, and also exempts all clinical trials. These loopholes will make it easier for foreign sources to conceal their relationships, rendering disclosures all but useless. Simple transparency is the best way to ensure partnerships are as good as institutions claim.

Finally, the Democratic proposal ensures schools have no financial risk for failing to disclose foreign funds. Under this proposal, years of flouting section 117 simply allow schools to go right back to their same financial state before accepting the gift in the first place.

It is time to take foreign influence seriously. I stand against this amendment. It is time we hold institutions accountable for accepting foreign donations and keeping them from the public. The bipartisan support we have for this bill shows the seriousness of this problem. This amendment shows that some Democrats are still willing to turn a blind eye to attempts by hostile regimes to influence students and faculty on our college campuses.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The DETERRENT Act conforms section 117 with other existing regulations, which is why the bill's definitions of countries of concern come from existing law. The four countries on the countries of concern list are rightfully in statute as unique threats to the United States. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran represent countries that are actively hostile to the U.S. and are serious security threats. The DETERRENT Act ensures that any relationship with these countries is extremely cautious and proactively transparent.

In contrast, this amendment attempts to use the illegitimate International Criminal Court to determine what countries are threats to the United States. The people of the United States in majority do not support that. As President Trump has stated, the ICC has baselessly asserted jurisdiction over the United States--and our citizens agree-- and its allies like Israel and further abused its power by issuing frivolous arrest warrants.

There is no reason to use the ICC to define what countries are actively seeking to harm the United States. We can do that. I oppose this amendment that targets Israel and hurts American interests, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, again, this amendment is designed, I believe, to target Israel at a time when it is desperately seeking to defend its citizens against terrorists.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, the DETERRENT Act ensures section 117 is aligned with existing statute. The four countries on the countries of concern list are rightfully in statute as unique threats to the United States. That is our concern. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran represent countries that are actively hostile to the U.S. and are serious security threats.

Endowment investments in companies controlled by our adversaries could result in dangerous support for our enemies. This is why the DETERRENT Act requires institutions to disclose any such investments of concern. It is important for our wealthiest institutions to be transparent with the public about this danger.

In contrast, this amendment attempts to use the illegitimate International Criminal Court to determine what countries are threats to the United States and targets endowment investments into those threats.

The ICC has baselessly asserted jurisdiction over the United States and its allies like Israel and further abused its power by issuing frivolous arrest warrants. There is no reason to use the ICC to define what countries are actively seeking to harm the United States and what endowment investments should be transparent.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment that targets Israel and hurts American interests.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern and the passion of my colleague from Michigan. I concur that I and sponsors and cosponsors of this bill believe in First Amendment liberties and freedom of expression.

This bill is about specific concerns, not all of the countries of the world. I am not sure if my colleague was here during the debate to hear the actual statistics of the dollars that have been invested by malign actors, countries of concern, in this country that don't compare with any other that was in the list that my colleague read.

Again, this amendment on this bill, outside of the specifics of the bill, is designed to attack Israel for daring to defend itself from terrorists, which they did. This amendment has no place in the bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALBERG. 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. Thompson of Pennsylvania) having assumed the chair, Mr. Amodei, Acting 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. 1048) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen disclosure requirements relating to foreign gifts and contracts, to prohibit contracts between institutions of higher education and certain foreign entities and countries of concern, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source