PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 17, 2020
Countering China's Theft of American Research and Innovation Act or the CCTARI Act
This bill modifies provisions related to reviewing visa applications for risks, including the illicit transfer of sensitive research from U.S. research institutions, and contains other related provisions.
A previously established interagency working group to coordinate the protection of federally-funded research from foreign interference shall report to Congress on a review of current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State policies for preventing the illicit transfer of sensitive research from U.S. higher education and research institutions, including visa issuance procedures and national security reviews of certain nonimmigrant students.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also modifies provisions authorizing DHS to assign its employees to diplomatic and consular posts to conduct visa application reviews and related tasks. When making such an assignment, DHS shall do so in a risk-based manner based on certain criteria, such as the number of nationals in a country identified as known or suspected terrorists and the number of cases involving illicit technology transfer. Such employees shall review visa applications to improve detection of cases that pose a substantial risk of illicit technology transfers.
DHS shall also prioritize establishing new overseas assignments with the goal of countering the exploitation or illicit transfer of sensitive technologies by student and exchange visitor visa holders.
DHS and the State Department shall jointly carry out a pilot program to evaluate the use of machine-readable technology to improve visa application and security vetting processes.
People & committees
Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3] · R–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.8310 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.8310 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.8310 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.8310 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.