Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foreign Funding Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee hears bill requiring universities to report funding from designated foreign adversaries
Summary
House Bill 150 would require the University System of Georgia and other institutions to report quarterly disclosures of funding from countries designated as foreign adversaries by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the committee heard testimony and supporters said the bill is about transparency, not prohibition.
Representative Fleming presented House Bill 150 to require quarterly reporting of funding that higher education institutions receive from countries the United States Secretary of Commerce designates as foreign adversaries. The sponsor and supporters said the measure is intended to increase transparency about sources, amounts and purposes of such funds and does not prohibit institutions from accepting the funding.
The substitute defines “foreign country of concern” by cross‑reference to the federal designation and requires institutions in the university system to report the type of funding, its source, amount and stated purpose to the general assembly, the governor and the chairs of higher education committees. Representative Fleming said the bill “does not prohibit” institutions from accepting funds; it is focused on disclosure.
Committee members raised questions about whether the definition would capture international students and researchers; panelists and the sponsor clarified that the language targets funding and people domiciled in designated countries with no U.S. residency status and does not cover routine tuition paid by international students studying in the United States.
Tom Rollins, who assisted with the bill, cited federal findings and congressional committee reports alleging foreign government‑linked funding to some U.S. universities and said the transparency requirement is aimed at protecting intellectual property and academic integrity. Rollins referenced work with a nonprofit called State Shield in raising awareness of the issue; the witness clarified the proposal’s intent is disclosure rather than prohibition.
Representatives and three named witnesses expressed support for the substitute and asked the committee to give it further consideration. The committee did not take a final vote during the session recorded in the transcript.
