UNITED STATES RESEARCH PROTECTION ACT

On 2025-03-24, Representative Brian Babin (R-TX-36) delivered a floor speech titled "UNITED STATES RESEARCH PROTECTION ACT" in the House. The speech addressed taxes and also covered foreign policy, China. It referenced legislation: HR1318.

UNITED STATES RESEARCH PROTECTION ACT

Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 53 (Monday, March 24, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 53 (Monday, March 24, 2025)] [House] [Pages H1201-H1202] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] UNITED STATES RESEARCH PROTECTION ACT Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1318) to amend the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act to clarify the definition of foreign country for purposes of malign foreign talent recruitment restriction, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 1318 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``United States Research Protection Act''. SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF FOREIGN COUNTRY FOR PURPOSES OF MALIGN FOREIGN TALENT RECRUITMENT RESTRICTION. Paragraph (4) of section 10638 of title VI of division B of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (Public Law 117-167; 42 U.S.C. 19237) is amended-- (1) by inserting ``of concern'' after ``foreign country'' each place such term appears; (2) by striking ``means--'' and all that follows through ``any program, position, or activity'' and inserting ``means any program, position, or activity''; (3) by striking subparagraph (B); (4) by redesignating clauses (i) through (ix) as subparagraphs (A) through (I), respectively, and moving such subparagraphs, as so redesignated, two ems to the left; (5) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), as so redesignated, by striking ``directly provided'' and inserting ``whether directly or indirectly provided''; and (6) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated, by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin) and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. General Leave Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1318, the bill now under consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of H.R. 1318, the United States Research Protection Act, sponsored by my colleagues, Representatives Kennedy and Stevens. This legislation passed the House in the 118th Congress, and I am pleased that we are taking it up again today. America's leadership in science and technology is built on the foundation of Federal investments and basic research. These investments enhance our national security, strengthen our economy, and improve the lives of our citizens. Our unique research ecosystem, which combines Federal, academic, and private R&D efforts, drives America's advancement in science and technology. However, for this system to work, we need a degree of open science that facilitates collaboration and transparency. The challenge is ensuring this openness does not compromise our research security. While the U.S. has significantly profited from this system, other countries--friends and foes--also benefit from U.S. investments. The theft of our basic research poses a significant risk to our global competitiveness. It takes our cutting-edge innovations and puts them to work for our adversaries, undermining our economy and hindering our ability to stay at the forefront of discovery. A 2023 survey by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found 224 reported instances of Chinese espionage directed at the United States since 2000. After conducting oversight of recently enacted research security requirements, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee was informed that complicated and confusing language in the CHIPS and Science Act was preventing the academic community from fully securing taxpayer-funded research. H.R. 1318 will update and clarify the definition of a malign foreign talent recruitment program to assist universities and agencies in protecting our national investments. This bill is a simple bipartisan solution to protect our tax dollars and the research that they fund from foreign espionage. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Kennedy and Stevens for their work on this critical legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1318, and I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1318, alongside Congressman Kennedy of Utah, the United States Research Protection Act. I certainly thank Mr. Kennedy for his bipartisan leadership on this exciting and important topic and, frankly, an essential topic. In the 117th Congress, we got the CHIPS and Science Act done. It included a lot of provisions focused on improving research security. This landmark law also included a prohibition on Federal researchers' participation in foreign talent recruitment programs sponsored by adversaries of the United States seeking to undermine our Nation's competitiveness. This is a serious and very real topic. By installing safeguards and creating informed practices for our agencies, institutions, and researchers to implement, the CHIPS and Science Act is continuing the innovation ecosystem necessary to win into the mid-21st century. From my vantage point of serving on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, I certainly understand the risks. Many of us who are delving into these topics have really glommed on to the risks posed to our research enterprise from adversaries like China and Russia. The committees that are enabling us to operate in a bipartisan way have also explored the methods used to circumvent the safeguards that our country has put into place, including going through third-party countries. This is why we want to ensure our research institutions have the best interests in mind, the best talent going to them, American talent, doing very innovative things, but they need to have the necessary clarity to faithfully implement research security measures that the CHIPS and Science Act put into place to protect our national research assets. H.R. 1318 clarifies--it is always nice to clarify in legislation--the definition of malign foreign talent recruitment program so that our beloved universities and research institutions can [[Page H1202]] readily ensure that their faculty members are not affiliated with malign foreign talent. {time} 1445 The National Science Foundation affirmed that our amendment, this adjustment, would improve their ability to ensure institutional compliance because people want to follow the law. They need the guardrails, and they need the clarity of the law. So even minor differences in definitions can have large consequences and can make implementation difficult. So we have the chance, and this year we are eager to make this one right and to strengthen the United States and to strengthen our research enterprise. We have got a good example in this bill of how to address gaps in policy and improve the efficiency of our agencies. In this case our academic stakeholders are the ones who came to us, and they said that we have a problem with a definition in a law that we wrote. So in a bipartisan and in an informed process we worked with these stakeholders, and we worked through the committee, the agency, and certainly the NSF, to fix this issue. This is how improving efficiency and accountability at our agencies should be handled, with stakeholder consultation and congressional action. This bipartisan bill passed the 118th Congress. The Senate didn't act, but we are going to encourage them in the 119th to act when we urge all of our colleagues in the House Chamber to support this bill once again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy). Mr. KENNEDY of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of my legislation, the United States Research Protection Act. H.R. 1318 is a critical piece of legislation that seeks to protect the future of our Nation's scientific and technological advancement. The stakes could not be higher in this era of rapid global innovation and increasingly complex geopolitical dynamics. I thank Chairman Babin for working with me to bring this important bipartisan legislation to the floor quickly. I also thank my colleague from Michigan, Congresswoman Stevens, for co-leading this bill with me. I am proud that my very first bill to pass the House will protect crucial research done here in the United States from adversarial foreign actors seeking to exploit our research, talent, and resources for their own gain. Everyone in this Chamber knows the growing threat from the Chinese Communist Party. This adversary has made no secret of its intentions to surpass the United States in key technological areas, from artificial intelligence to quantum computing to biotechnology. In 2022, Congress passed the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act as part of the CHIPS and Science Act. That bill prohibited researchers who receive Federal funds from participating in malign foreign talent recruitment programs in which foreign countries incentivize or compensate researchers for activities that present a conflict of interest for the researcher or that are otherwise unauthorized. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has been conducting vigorous oversight of the implementation of the CHIPS Act and has found that complicated and confusing language in the b

Referenced legislation: HR1318, HR1318