Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4756

Bill Overview

Title: Preventing Malign Chinese Influence on Academic Institutions

Description: This bill requires institutions of higher education (IHEs) to disclose information regarding gifts from and contracts with China-affiliated organizations. China-affiliated organization refers to any entity that receives support directly or indirectly from the Chinese government, including certain educational institutes or programs, think tanks, and business entities. Under current law, an IHE must disclose to the Department of Education (ED) a gift or contract from a foreign source that is valued at $250,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all other gifts from or contracts with that foreign source in a calendar year. This bill establishes a special disclosure rule relating to China-affiliated organizations. Specifically, the bill requires an IHE to disclose a gift from or contract with a China-affiliated organization that is valued at $5,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all other gifts from or contracts with that organization in a calendar year. Additionally, the bill requires an IHE that receives federal grants to annually file a report with ED that identifies any activities conducted pursuant to a contract or other agreement between the IHE and a China-affiliated organization, including any joint research or academic exchanges. Such a contract or other agreement must be made available on a publicly accessible website of the IHE.

Sponsors: Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]

Target Audience

Population: People associated with US institutions of higher education

Estimated Size: 40000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

University Administrator (Boston, MA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think this policy introduces necessary checks to ensure transparency in our international engagements.
  • However, the $5,000 threshold is quite low and could inundate us with paperwork, affecting efficiency.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Postdoctoral Researcher (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned this policy could jeopardize our funding without clearer guidelines on what is allowed.
  • International collaborations are critical to my field and this policy creates uncertainty.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Undergraduate Student (New York, NY)

Age: 21 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see the need for transparency, but the real implications on students like me are unclear.
  • I hope it doesn't interfere with study abroad or language programs between the countries.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Professor (Chicago, IL)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried this policy will create hurdles in our research partnerships.
  • There's a risk of over-regulating academic freedom, which is vital to our institution's ethos.

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 9
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support this measure as it aligns with national security interests.
  • IHEs need accountability when engaging internationally, but oversight shouldn't hinder valuable cooperation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Graduate Student (Austin, TX)

Age: 28 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy makes me worry about losing part of our funding.
  • It's unclear how it might influence our ability to sustain important global partnerships.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

University President (Seattle, WA)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Ensuring transparency is vital but needs to be balanced carefully to not discourage valuable partnerships.
  • The $5,000 disclosure threshold seems excessively low and administratively burdensome.

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 7 9
Year 10 7 9
Year 20 8 9

Data Analyst in Higher Education (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might significantly increase my workload without clear benefits.
  • Compliance resources are already stretched thin; such measures should ideally streamline, not complicate, processes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Research Assistant (Miami, FL)

Age: 26 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's a bit concerning; we heavily rely on international funding.
  • Policies should ensure security but not at the expense of scientific progress and collaboration.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

IT Specialist at a Community College (Pittsburgh, PA)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our college doesn't have many ties to China-affiliated organizations, so the impact might be minimal.
  • General sentiment is that this policy is more relevant for larger universities with diverse international engagements.

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 7 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Key Considerations