McCollum Vote on H.R. 1048 DETERRENT Act and amendments 5 and 6

Ms. Speaker, I voted in opposition to H.R. 1048 because, if enacted as written, it would place burdensome, duplicative, and potentially harmful requirements upon our nation’s institutions of higher education, without significantly improving our national security.

My colleague Congresswoman Tlaib offered two amendments to this legislation that raised her concerns with how we identify countries and investments of concern. We discussed these valid and serious issues, but I could not support the amendments as written because one failed to protect due process and the other omitted definitions.

I voted against amendment number 5 from Rep. Tlaib of Michigan because the identification of foreign countries of concern should not be based solely on alleged violations or warrants. Due process is important, and the way this amendment was drafted would impose restrictions on a nation based upon allegations, not convictions. 

I voted present for amendment number 6 from Rep. Tlaib of Michigan because I share my colleague’s serious concerns about entities who facilitate state violence and violations of international law and human rights. However, this amendment would authorize the Secretary of State to make those determinations without the definitions necessary to make Congressional intent clear. I worry that, absent those definitions, this authority could be used in a politically punitive manner by the administration. But I hope in the future we can revisit this effort to address the serious issue of international human rights violations.

My district has many institutions of higher education, and it is important to my constituents that I take seriously the impacts of legislation on college and university students in my district, and the institutions serving them. The DETERRENT Act does contain some proposals that have my support and the support of our higher education community, like making reporting requirements annual and better aligning definitions like “countries of concern” across federal agencies.

However, in the name of increasing oversight of foreign influence, this bill would actually make oversight less effective and create confusion and security vulnerabilities. It would require the Department of Education to vet contracts between institutions and foreign entities for security risks. With the Trump administration attempting to eliminate the Department of Education, it is unclear how the Department would take on these extra responsibilities. 

I voted against this legislation because it creates more problems than solutions.

Thank you, and I yield back.