PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 31, 2025
DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act
This bill restricts funding to an institution of higher education (IHE) that has a relationship with a Confucius Institute, Thousand Talents Program, or Chinese entity of concern. The bill defines (1) Confucius Institute as a cultural institute funded by the Chinese government; (2) Thousand Talents Program as any technological or educational program funded or administered by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology; and (3) Chinese entity of concern as generally any university or college in China that is involved in China's military, police, or intelligence activities.
Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must ensure that an IHE that has awarded a contract to, entered into an agreement with, or received an in-kind donation or gift from a Confucius Institute, Thousand Talents Program, or Chinese entity of concern is ineligible to receive any funds from DHS, unless the IHE terminates the relationship. The IHE may regain eligibility for these funds upon termination of the relationship.
People & committees
Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11] · R–TX
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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 266 - 153 (Roll no. 120). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H1891)
House roll call 120 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 266 - 153 (Roll no. 120). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H1891)
House roll call 120 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1895-1896)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate of H.R. 881, the Chair put the question on passage of the bill and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Pfluger demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 881.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 276 and H.R. 881. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 276 and H.R. 881 under a closed rule with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 377. (consideration: CR H1891-1894)
Rule H. Res. 377 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 377 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 276 and H.R. 881. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 276 and H.R. 881 under a closed rule with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 62.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-87.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 119-87.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence Discharged
Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
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 19, 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.881 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.881 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.881 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.881 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.