Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7779

Bill Overview

Title: DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act

Description: This bill restricts funding to an institution of higher education (IHE) that has a relationship with a Confucius Institute (a cultural institute directly or indirectly funded by the Chinese government). It also requires certain disclosures related to Chinese entities of concern (generally, universities or colleges involved in China's military, police, or intelligence activities). Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must ensure that an IHE that has awarded a contract to, entered into an agreement with, or received an in-kind donation or gift from a Confucius Institute is ineligible to receive specified funds from DHS, unless the IHE terminates the relationship. The IHE may regain eligibility for these funds upon termination of the relationship. DHS may waive this funding restriction, on a case-by-case basis and for a period of not more than one year, if it is in the national security interests of the United States. Additionally, an IHE that has a relationship with a Chinese entity of concern and is seeking to receive or receives specified DHS funds must notify DHS about the relationship. DHS must provide outreach and, upon request, technical assistance to IHEs related to compliance with this bill.

Sponsors: Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals connected to institutions with Confucius Institutes or Chinese entity ties

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Undergraduate Student (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I appreciate learning Chinese culture through the institutes, but I understand the concerns about influence.
  • I'm worried this policy might limit cultural exchange opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 7 8

Professor (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might hinder some of the research collaborations I have.
  • I understand the political aspect, but cultural ties are extremely valuable.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 6 8
Year 5 6 8
Year 10 7 9
Year 20 8 9

University Administrator (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We have to weigh the financial implications of this policy, which could be substantial if we sever ties.
  • Our institution might lose valuable donations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 7 8

Non-Profit Education Advocate (Chicago, IL)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm supportive of the policy as it reduces foreign influence in education.
  • I hope schools manage to find alternative cultural resources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 9 9

Undergraduate Student (Austin, TX)

Age: 19 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While the dissolution could limit opportunities, it also opens doors for new partnerships.
  • I am eager to see what new learning experiences arise.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This may limit access to some resources, but it also challenges us to be more critical.
  • I'm cautious but optimistic about the policy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 9
Year 2 8 9
Year 3 7 9
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

University Staff (Boston, MA)

Age: 25 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy may complicate service delivery for international students from China.
  • I hope we can maintain a welcoming environment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could benefit national security, though the cultural implications are concerning.
  • We must balance security and educational openness.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Postdoctoral Researcher (Houston, TX)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This might limit my research opportunities, especially in joint publications.
  • I'm trying to find alternative funding sources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

International Relations Consultant (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy increases my workload as institutions seek guidance on compliance.
  • This could lead to more diverse partnerships.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)

Year 5: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)

Year 10: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $24000000)

Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $26000000)

Key Considerations