| COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE While C.S.H.B. 127 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill. Higher Education Research Security Council The substitute includes provisions absent from the introduced that establish the Higher Education Research Security Council, including provisions relating to the following: ·the purpose of the council to promote secure academic research at tier one research institutions while mitigating the risk of foreign espionage and interference; ·the required composition of the council; ·the filling of a vacancy on the council; ·the actions the council is required to take; ·council reports; ·the requirements for council meetings; ·the requirements for soliciting and accepting gifts, grants, and donations; ·the date by which the appropriate entities must designate the members of the council; and ·the date by which the council must hold its initial meeting. While both the substitute and the introduced prohibit a public institution of higher education from accepting a gift the institution is directly or indirectly offered from a foreign source of a foreign adversary, the versions differ as follows: ·the substitute also prohibits an employee of the institution from accepting an applicable gift, whereas the introduced did not; and ·the introduced exempted from the prohibition a gift approved by the THECB, whereas the substitute exempts gifts of de minimis value, as determined by THECB rule. Whereas the introduced required an institution to promptly submit to the THECB a report on any gift, contract, or cultural agreement directly or indirectly offered from a foreign source of a foreign adversary, the substitute requires each institution that submits reporting on foreign gift and contract disclosures to the U.S. Department of Education to submit that reporting to the THECB at the time when the institution is required to submit that reporting to the U.S. Department of Education. The substitute includes the following provisions absent from the introduced: ·a requirement for an institution of higher education to include the prohibition against accepting certain gifts in the institution's ethics policy and to create a mechanism by which an employee of the institution may report being offered a prohibited gift; ·a requirement for the THECB, not later than December 1 of each year, to submit to the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the house of representatives a report detailing the information submitted by institutions to the THECB relating to foreign gift and contract disclosures; ·a prohibition, except as otherwise provided, against a foreign adversary company or a federally banned company submitting a bid for a contract or entering into a contract with an institution relating to goods or services; ·a provision that establishes that a company is considered a foreign adversary company if the company enters into a contract with an institution to sell to the institution any final products or services produced by a foreign adversary company or a federally banned company; and · an authorization for an institution to enter into a contract with a foreign adversary company or a federally banned company if certain conditions apply. While both the substitute and the introduced establish that information required to be reported relating to gifts from foreign adversaries is not confidential except as otherwise provided by certain laws or unless protected as a trade secret by federal or state law, the substitute includes federal law, as well as state law, among the laws that may otherwise provide that such information is not confidential, whereas the introduced included only state law. With respect to required and false certifications, the substitute includes the following provisions absent from the introduced: ·a requirement for an institution of higher education to require a vendor submitting a bid for a contract relating to goods or services to include in the bid a written certification that the vendor is not prohibited from submitting the bid or entering into the applicable contract; ·a requirement for an institution that determines that a vendor holding a contract with the institution was ineligible to have the contract awarded because the vendor's certification was false to notify the vendor that the vendor is in violation of certain provisions and to include in the notice the basis for such a determination; ·a requirement for an institution, on making a final determination that a vendor violated applicable provisions, to refer the matter to the attorney general for enforcement and to immediately terminate the contract without further obligation to the vendor; ·an authorization for the comptroller, on receiving notice from an institution of a contract termination, to bar the vendor from participating in state contracts; and ·a provision establishing that debarment under these provisions expires on the fifth anniversary of the date of the debarment. With respect to enforcement and penalties for violations, the substitute omits the following provisions in the introduced: The substitute includes the following provisions absent from the introduced: ·a provision that makes a vendor and certain companies liable to the state for a civil penalty in an amount equal to the greater of twice the amount of the terminated contract or $250,000; ·a provision that applies beginning with money appropriated to an institution for the 2027 state fiscal year that prohibits an institution from spending money appropriated to the institution for a state fiscal year until the institution's governing board submits to certain entities a report certifying the governing board's compliance with the bill's provisions during the preceding state fiscal year; and ·a requirement for the governing board, or the board's designee, in the interim between each regular session of the legislature, to testify before the standing legislative committees with primary jurisdiction over higher education at a public hearing of the committee regarding the board's compliance. Whereas, the introduced authorized the attorney general to sue to collect the applicable civil penalty and authorized the filing of a suit in a Travis County district court, the substitute instead authorizes the attorney general to bring an action to recover the civil penalty. While both the substitute and the introduced require the investigation of an alleged violation of provisions relating to the requirements for gifts from and contracts with foreign adversaries, the introduced set out duties relating to such an investigation for the THECB, whereas the substitute sets out duties relating to such an investigation for an institution of higher education. While both the introduced and the substitute prohibit an institution of higher education from participating in a cultural exchange agreement with a foreign source of a foreign adversary, or an entity controlled by a foreign adversary that meets certain requirements, the versions differ as follows: ·the substitute includes a cultural exchange partnership in addition to a cultural exchange agreement, whereas the introduced did not; ·whereas the introduced required an institution, before entering into a cultural exchange agreement with a foreign source of a foreign adversary, to share the substance of the agreement with the THECB and federal agencies responsible for national security or the enforcement of trade sanctions, embargoes, or other trade restrictions, the substitute requires an institution, before entering into a cultural exchange agreement or partnership with a foreign source of a foreign adversary, to share the agreement or partnership with the Higher Education Research Security Council; and ·whereas the introduced prohibited the institution from participating in the agreement if the THECB or a consulted federal agency determines that the agreement violates the prohibition, the substitute prohibits the institution from participating in the agreement or partnership if the council makes such a determination. The substitute omits the following provisions in the introduced relating to an annual report: ·the requirement for the THECB, not later than December 1 of each year, to submit a written report to the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the house of representatives on the grant programs, cultural exchange agreements, cultural exchange partnerships, and contracts between an institution of higher education and a foreign adversary or a foreign source of a foreign adversary; ·the requirement for the report to include the following information for the preceding fiscal year: odata regarding each grant program, cultural exchange agreement, cultural exchange partnership, or contract between an institution of higher education and an educational institution or other institution that is based in or controlled by a foreign adversary; oa list of each office, campus, or physical location used or maintained by the institution in a foreign adversary; and othe date on which each such grant program, agreement, partnership, or contract is expected to terminate; and ·the requirement for each institution to annually submit such information to the THECB not later than July 1, and the requirement for the THECB to prepare and submit the initial report not later than December 1, 2026. The substitute instead requires the Higher Education Research Security Council, not later than December 1 of each year, to submit to the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the house of representatives a report detailing the total number of cultural exchange agreements and partnerships that were entered into by institutions of higher education and rejected by the council in the 12 months preceding the date of the report and a report detailing the total number of academic partnerships that were entered into or renewed and the total number of academic partnerships that the council rejected or terminated in the 12 months preceding the date of the report, whereas the introduced did not provide for such reports. The substitute omits the provision in the introduced specifying that provisions relating to the screening of foreign researchers and foreign travel apply only to an institution that has an annual research budget of $10 million or more. While both the substitute and the introduced require an institution to screen an applicant before offering an applicant employment for a research or research-related support position at the institution or granting an applicant access to research data or activities or other sensitive data of the institution, the introduced also required the institution to screen an applicant before interviewing the applicant for such a position, whereas the substitute does not include such a requirement. Additionally, the substitute includes the following provisions absent from the introduced: ·a requirement for the screening to include a background check to determine if the applicant has any ties to a foreign adversary that would prevent the applicant from being able to maintain the security or integrity of the institution of higher education and research data or activities or other sensitive data of the institution; and ·a requirement for an institution that procures a third party to conduct the background check to consult with DPS and the council in determining whether the third party is qualified to conduct the background check. Whereas the introduced included provisions set to expire September 1, 2026, which required the THECB, not later than March 31, 2026, to conduct an operational audit regarding the implementation of provisions relating to the screening of foreign researchers and an operational audit regarding the implementation of provisions relating to foreign travel, the substitute does not include such provisions. The substitute instead includes provisions absent from the introduced that set out requirements relating to a compliance audit of each institution conducted by the state auditor to determine whether the institution has spent state money in violation of the bill's provisions and sets out penalties for an institution that fails to cure a violation found during such an audit. While both the substitute and the introduced require an institution to establish an international travel approval and monitoring program, the introduced required the program to be established not later than March 31, 2026, whereas the substitute does not. While both the introduced and substitute authorize an institution to enter into or renew an academic partnership with an educational or research institution located in a foreign adversary under certain conditions, the versions differ as follows: ·the introduced specified that the authorization is subject to THECB approval, whereas the substitute does not; ·whereas the introduced conditioned the authorization to enter into or renew such an academic partnership on the institution maintaining sufficient structural safeguards to protect the institution's intellectual property, the security of the state, and U.S. national security interests, the substitute conditions the authorization on the council determining that the institution maintains such sufficient structural safeguards; ·whereas the introduced authorized the THECB to approve an academic partnership only if the THECB, in consultation with the attorney general's office, determines that the partnership includes certain specified safeguards, the substitute authorizes the council to make a determination only if the council determines that the partnership includes certain specified safeguards; and ·whereas the introduced authorized the THECB, in consultation with the attorney general's office, to reject or terminate the academic partnership at any time and for any reason, the substitute authorizes the council to require an institution to reject or terminate the academic partnership at any time and for any reason. Whereas the introduced required the THECB to conduct a thorough review of the use by the institution of higher education of testing, tutoring, or other education software owned or controlled by a foreign adversary or a company domiciled or headquartered in a foreign adversary and to develop a plan to eliminate the use of such education software, the substitute requires an institution of higher education to conduct such a review and to develop such a plan. While both the substitute and the introduced define certain terms for purposes of provisions relating to higher education research and protection, the versions differ as follows: ·the substitute defines "company," "federally banned company," and "foreign adversary company," whereas the introduced did not define those terms; ·the introduced defined "interest," when referring to an entity, as any direct or indirect investment in or loan extended to the entity that is valued at five percent or more of the entity's net worth or control over the entity at a level exerting similar or greater influence on the governance of the entity as such an investment, whereas the substitute does not define that term; ·the introduced defined "foreign adversary" as the State of Qatar and any country designated as a foreign adversary by the U.S. secretary of commerce under applicable federal regulations, whereas the substitute defines that term as a country identified by the U.S. director of national intelligence as a country that poses a risk to U.S. national security in at least one of the three most recent Annual Threat Assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community issued pursuant to the federal National Security Act of 1947 or designated by the governor after consultation with the DPS director; and ·the substitute includes service of any kind in the definition of "gift," whereas the introduced did not. With respect to procedural provisions, the substitute does the following: ·omits the requirement in the introduced for each public institution of higher education, not later than March 31, 2026, to establish an international travel approval and monitoring program as required by the bill's provisions; ·omits the requirement in the introduced for the THECB, not later than December 1, 2026, to prepare and submit the initial report required by the bill's provisions; ·whereas the introduced included a provision that established that the bill applies only to a contract entered into or renewed on or after the bill's effective date and provided for the continuation of former law, the substitute includes a provision establishing that the bill applies only to a contract for which the request for bids or proposals or other applicable expression of interest is made public on or after the bill's effective date and provides for the continuation of former law; ·includes a requirement for the appropriate entities, not later than October 1, 2025, to designate the members of the Higher Education Research Security Council; ·includes a requirement for the Higher Education Research Security Council, not later than January 1, 2026, to hold its initial meeting; and ·includes a provision establishing that provisions relating to enforcement apply beginning with money appropriated to a public institution of higher education for the state fiscal year beginning September 1, 2026. |