PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 2025
Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act or the DETERRENT Act
This bill expands oversight and disclosure requirements related to foreign sources and institutions of higher education (IHEs).
Specifically, the bill requires an IHE to annually disclose to the Department of Education (ED) any year in which the IHE
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
receives a gift from a foreign country of concern (e.g., China or Russia) or foreign entity of concern of any dollar amount;
receives a gift or contract from a foreign source (other than a foreign country of concern or foreign entity of concern) that is valued at $50,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all other gifts or contracts within a calendar year (current disclosure threshold is $250,000 or more), or which has an undetermined monetary value;
enters into a contract with a foreign country of concern or foreign entity of concern after receiving a waiver for such contract; or
is substantially controlled by a foreign source.
Additionally, the bill
prohibits IHEs from entering into contracts with a foreign country of concern or with a foreign entity of concern without obtaining a waiver,
requires certain IHEs to disclose gifts or contracts between covered individuals (e.g., researchers) and foreign sources, and
requires private IHEs with specified assets or investments to file annual investment disclosure reports.
The bill requires ED to investigate possible violations of this bill and outlines the various penalties for each violation. Penalties may include losing eligibility for federal student financial aid.
People & committees
Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 241 - 169 (Roll no. 83).
House roll call 83 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 241 - 169 (Roll no. 83).
House roll call 83 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendments en gros as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1048.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1312-1316)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 1048 as unfinished business.
On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Walberg moved that the committee rise.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Tlaib amendment No. 6, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Tlaib demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 242, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Tlaib amendment No. 6.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Tlaib amendment No. 5, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Tlaib demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 242, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Tlaib amendment No. 5.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Self amendment No. 4, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Scott (VA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 242, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Self amendment No. 4.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Scott (VA) amendment No. 3, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Scott (VA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 242, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Scott (VA) amendment No. 3.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 242, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Ogles amendment No. 2.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 242, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Ogles amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1048.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Pat Harrigan to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 242 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24, H.J. Res. 75 and H.R. 1048. The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75 under a closed rule, and provides for consideration of H.R. 1048 under a structured rule. Also, the resolution provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each measure.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 242. (consideration: CR H1241-1260)
Rule H. Res. 242 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 242 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24, H.J. Res. 75 and H.R. 1048. The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75 under a closed rule, and provides for consideration of H.R. 1048 under a structured rule. Also, the resolution provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each measure.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 9.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Workforce. H. Rept. 119-16.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Workforce. H. Rept. 119-16.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 - 14.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 13, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1048 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1048 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1048 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1048 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.