Overview
Title
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of higher education from receiving gifts from certain countries, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 9793 is a rule that says colleges in the U.S. can't get gifts from certain countries like China, Russia, and North Korea to keep them safe, and they must tell a special office if someone from those countries tries to give them a gift.
Summary AI
H.R. 9793 aims to change the Higher Education Act of 1965 to stop American colleges and universities from accepting gifts from certain foreign countries. The bill outlines that schools cannot receive gifts from countries that support terrorist organizations, as determined by the Secretary of State, or from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. Schools must report any gift offers from these countries to the Secretary of Education to continue receiving federal education funds.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed bill, officially titled the "No Foreign Gifts Act of 2024," seeks to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965. The primary objective of this legislation is to prohibit U.S. institutions of higher education from receiving gifts from certain countries. Specifically, it targets countries that have provided material support to foreign terrorist organizations and explicitly includes China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Institutions that receive federal funds must report any offers of gifts from these countries to the Secretary of Education to maintain their funding eligibility.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill raises several significant issues. Firstly, it explicitly bans gifts from certain countries without providing a detailed rationale or criteria for the selection of these countries, which could be perceived as politically motivated. Additionally, the term "material support" is referenced from another legal code without being directly clarified in the bill, potentially leading to confusion and enforcement difficulties.
Another issue is the requirement for institutions to report not only accepted gifts but also mere offers, which could result in a heavy administrative workload and may lead to inefficient bureaucracy. Furthermore, the lack of any specified penalties for non-compliance in reporting offers may undermine the effectiveness of this requirement. Finally, the legislation does not include a mechanism for updating the list of prohibited countries, potentially leading to outdated regulations as international relations evolve.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The bill could have a significant impact on higher education institutions and their ability to engage with international entities. By restricting gifts from certain countries, the legislation may limit the financial resources available to institutions, potentially affecting their operations and academic collaborations. This could, in turn, influence the scope of educational programs and opportunities offered to students.
For the broader public, the bill underscores a heightened focus on national security concerns and the influence of foreign entities within U.S. education. However, it may contribute to a more insular educational environment, potentially reducing exposure to diverse global perspectives that are critical for a comprehensive education.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Higher Education Institutions: The primary stakeholders affected by this bill will be the institutions themselves. They may face increased administrative burdens due to the requirement to report gift offers, potentially diverting resources away from educational priorities. Additionally, they may have to reconsider or curtail international partnerships and funding opportunities, particularly those involving countries listed in the bill.
International Relations: The bill could strain diplomatic ties with the countries explicitly named, particularly if perceived as unfairly targeting them without clear justification. This may impact bilateral relations and collaborations beyond the higher education sector.
Students and Faculty: Restrictions on gifts could lead to downsized or canceled programs that rely on international funding or partnerships. This might limit opportunities for students and faculty members to participate in international research collaborations or exchange programs.
Policy Makers and Government Agencies: The bill's enforcement could demand additional oversight and resources from government agencies to monitor compliance and investigate potential violations.
In summary, while the bill aims to safeguard national security and reduce foreign influence in higher education, it raises several concerns regarding its rationale, enforcement, and impact on various stakeholders. The broader implications suggest a need for careful consideration of both the intended and unintended consequences within the educational and international landscape.
Issues
The section on 'Prohibition on gifts from certain countries' in Section 2 may be controversial because it explicitly excludes countries like China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran without detailing the rationale. This could be perceived as biased or politically motivated, impacting international relations and drawing criticism from these countries.
The term 'material support' in Section 2 is defined based on another legal code (section 2339A(b) of title 18, United States Code) but might be ambiguous without providing the context within the bill itself. This can create legal uncertainties and difficulties in enforcement.
In Section 2, the legislation requires institutions to report offers of gifts from certain countries, not just accepted gifts. This could impose a significant administrative burden on institutions, with potential reports on trivial or harmless offers, potentially leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies.
The lack of a clearly defined penalty for institutions that fail to report offers of gifts from prohibited countries in Section 117A may reduce compliance and the overall effectiveness of this reporting requirement.
The bill does not specify any process for updating the list of prohibited countries in Section 117A. As international relations fluctuate over time, the static nature of this list could lead to outdated provisions that may not align with current geopolitical realities.
The term 'gift' is not clearly defined in Section 117A. This absence of definition could lead to varied interpretations and complications in determining what constitutes a gift under this provision, potentially resulting in inconsistent application of the law across different institutions.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states the short title, which is the name by which the act will be known and cited: the “No Foreign Gifts Act of 2024”.
2. Prohibition on gifts from certain countries Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Institutions of higher education that receive federal funds are prohibited from accepting gifts from countries that support foreign terrorist organizations or from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. They must report any offers of gifts from these countries to the Secretary to remain eligible for federal funds.
117A. Prohibition on gifts from certain countries Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Institutions of higher education that receive funds from a certain Act are prohibited from accepting gifts from countries that support terrorism or from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. To remain eligible for these funds, they must report any offers of such gifts to the Secretary.