Representative Stetson Painter, R‑District 3, told the House Education Committee on Feb. 26 that HB 15‑61 is a “comprehensive attempt to protect our institutions from foreign adversaries whose interests are not aligned with ours.” The committee voted to pass the bill on a voice vote.

The bill requires universities to disclose past gifts or contracts of $250,000 or more dating back to 2019, and to report future gifts or contracts at the same threshold. It also would require screening for higher‑education institutions with federal research expenditures above $10,000,000, create an investigative process led by an inspector general to pursue alleged noncompliance, and require review of software hosted or owned by a foreign adversary with plans to eliminate reliance on such products.

Nut graf: Supporters framed the bill as aligning state law with existing federal reporting requirements and tightening protections for research and intellectual property after Arkansas institutions experienced theft of agricultural research and seed technology, while the sponsor said universities helped craft the measure.

Painter said the measure was developed “with their input” and thanked universities and the attorney general’s office for legal review. He described the policy as mirroring federal obligations and adding “stiffer penalties in research theft and intellectual [property].”

Committee discussion was brief and no members rose with questions. Painter said there was no opposition present and moved the bill for passage. The chair put the motion and the bill passed on a voice vote.

What the bill would change: HB 15‑61 would add state‑level disclosure obligations for large gifts and contracts (≥$250,000) back to 2019, extend reporting to future agreements, create a foreign adversary monitoring program for partnerships and travel, expand screening tied to federal research dollar thresholds, authorize inspector‑general inquiries into compliance, and authorize criminal penalties for misappropriation of trade secrets tied to foreign adversaries. The sponsor also said the bill would require review of software platforms owned or operated by foreign adversaries and plans to eliminate reliance where feasible.

Implementation questions: The sponsor said universities helped draft the bill and generally supported it; the committee record shows no public opposition at the hearing. The bill text referenced thresholds and processes but did not include implementation timelines or detailed administrative rules in the committee discussion. Supporters said the bill aims to put Arkansas “in the top three” of states addressing the issue.

The bill now moves to further House consideration under the committee’s referral process.

Ending: Rep. Painter framed the measure as aimed at protecting state research and intellectual property while supporting university input; the committee’s action advances that proposal to the next stage of the legislative process.