PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 14, 2021
This bill requires each federal research agency with an annual extramural research expenditure of over $100 million to establish a requirement that, as part of a proposal for a research and development award from such agency
each covered individual listed in the proposal certify that they are not a party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program from a foreign country of concern, such as China or Russia, in their proposal submission and annually afterwards for the duration of the award; and
each institution of higher education or other organization applying for such an award certify that each covered individual who is employed by the institution of higher education or other organization has been made aware of this requirement.
A covered individual means an individual who
contributes in a substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of a proposed research and development project; and
is designated as a covered individual by the federal research agency.
People & committees
Rep. Waltz, Michael [R-FL-6] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. 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.5265 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.5265 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.5265 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.5265 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.