Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

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.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

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

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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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.

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