With the funding bill pulled from consideration, the House took up several pieces of legislation relating to competition with China and foreign affairs.
On Tuesday, the House voted on the DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act, H.R. 1516, which prohibits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from providing funding to any higher education institution that hosts a Confucius Institute or that has a relationship with a “Chinese entity of concern.” According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are fewer than five Confucius Institutes remaining in the United States as a result of previously enacted legislation, but, if enacted, the bill would create a new category of “Chinese Entities of Concern”, a category so broadly defined it could potentially deny critical funding to American colleges and universities that have any relationship with any of China’s more than 3,000 public schools and universities—such as a student exchange program or cultural program—regardless of whether a national security threat exists. Concerned that educational institutions would be pressured to end student exchange, study abroad programs, and research collaborations or risk losing DHS funding, which is not only critical for advancing our domestic science and technology research but also for FEMA natural disaster response and recovery funding, I voted against the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 249-161.
On Wednesday, the House voted on the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act, H.R. 1425, which requires any international agreement on pandemics negotiated by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) to be considered an international treaty, which requires Senate approval to be ratified. Historically, the majority of these types of international agreements are approved by executive action rather than Senate approval. At a time when WHO member states are working to develop a multilateral framework to improve global responses to future pandemics, this partisan bill hinders U.S. global health security initiatives and constrains both the current and future administrations from responding to prevent international public health emergencies like COVID-19. For these reasons, I voted against the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 219-199.
The House also voted on Wednesday on the Protect America’s Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act of 2024, H.R. 1398. This bill directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to reinstate a program that is almost identical to a program implemented by former President Trump known as the China Initiative, which was intended to address economic espionage and trade secret theft by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and which was terminated in 2022 because it was ineffective and failed to address actual acts of espionage. According to many, the program instead diverted critical resources to target Chinese academics at U.S. institutions for crimes unrelated to espionage, furthering racial profiling and discrimination against Chinese scientists, researchers, and academics in the United States—an issue of concern to many people in our district. The Biden administration terminated the China Initiative in favor of a broader approach to combat threats posed by trade secret theft, hacking, and espionage while also encompassing other nation-state threats. For these reasons, I voted against the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 237-180.
Also on Wednesday, the House voted on the Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024, H.R. 9456, a bill which, if enacted, would add the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) and direct the Secretary to report any agricultural land acquisition made by a “foreign person”— including individuals, businesses, or government entities of China, Iran, Russia, or North Korea. It is important that the United States maintain and fortify it efforts to review foreign investments in the United States to determine the impact on U.S. national security, but the bill presented in the House is overly broad and is inconsistent with previous bipartisan legislation tailored to transactions of concern. This overly broad bill has the potential to discriminate against lawful residents in Texas’ Seventh Congressional District and across the country, including visa holders, lawful permanent residents, and refugees. People across our district led the opposition to similarly overbroad legislation in the Texas legislature last year. For these reasons, I voted against the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 269-149.
On Thursday, the House voted on the End Chinese Dominance of Electric Vehicles in America Act of 2024, H.R. 7980. The bill would narrow the eligibility requirements for clean-vehicle tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act by modifying the definition of "foreign entities of concern" limitations on electric vehicle (EV) battery supply chains. According colleagues and others, this narrowing would impose a standard for "prohibited foreign entities" that is less clear for automakers and their suppliers, creating confusion and undermining national security and supply chain resilience. The Department of Treasury has already issued guidance that strikes the right balance between accelerating the transition to EVs while also ensuring domestic manufacturing. For these reasons, I voted against the bill, which passed by a vote of 217-192.
The House also considered several bills under suspension of the rules, including the BIOSECURE Act, H.R. 8333, which aims to prohibit federal contracting with certain biotechnology providers connected to foreign adversaries. While I agree with the premise of this legislation that the federal government should not contract with foreign adversaries, this bill identifies by name specific companies that are subject to bans with no clear indication of why those companies were chosen and without the opportunity for due process. Because this bill was brought to the floor under suspension of the Rules, Members did not have the opportunity to offer amendments or have a thorough debate before the final vote. With these concerns about process in mind, I voted against the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 306-81.
As a reminder, you can always find a list of all of the votes I have taken for the district on my website.