    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM THREATENED BY CHINA'S
                           INFLUENCE ON U.S. UNIVERSITIES?

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
                            GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
                          INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 25, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-87

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
                                      or
                           http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

                                     ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    95-248PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            GRACE MENG, New York
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    CURT CLAWSON, Florida                BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
    TOM EMMER, MinnesotaUntil 5/18/
        15 deg.
    DANIEL DONOVAN, New YorkAs
        of 5/19/15 deg.

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
                          International Organizations

                   CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         KAREN BASS, California
    CURT CLAWSON, Florida                DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS,                    AMI BERA, California
        Tennessee
    TOM EMMER, MinnesotaUntil 5/18/
        15 deg.
    DANIEL DONOVAN, New YorkAs
        of 6/2/15 deg.
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Jeffrey S. Lehman, vice chancellor, New York University-
      Shanghai.......................................................    10
    Ms. Susan V. Lawrence, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Congressional
      Research Service...............................................    23
    Mr. Robert Daly, director, Kissinger Institute on China and the
      U.S., Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.........    32
    Mirta M. Martin, Ph.D., president, Fort Hays State University....    43
    Ms. Yaxue Cao, founder and editor, China Change..................    61

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Mr. Jeffrey S. Lehman: Prepared statement........................    14
    Ms. Susan V. Lawrence: Prepared statement........................    26
    Mr. Robert Daly: Prepared statement..............................    36
    Mirta M. Martin, Ph.D.: Prepared statement.......................    47
    Ms. Yaxue Cao: Prepared statement................................    64

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    98
    Hearing minutes..................................................    99
    The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California: Letter submitted for the record.......   100
    Mr. Jeffrey S. Lehman: Appendices to testimony...................   102
    The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
      Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
      Organizations: Statement of Dr. Dawood Farahi..................   106

          IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM THREATENED BY CHINA'S INFLUENCE ON U.S.
                                 UNIVERSITIES?

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2015

                           House of Representatives,

                     Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,

             Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
    Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order.
        And I want to welcome all of our very distinguished
    panelists and guests to this hearing this afternoon.
        And I would like to begin with an opening statement, and
    then I will yield to my two distinguished colleagues if they
    would like to make any opening statements.
        This hearing is the second in a series probing the question
    of whether maintaining access to China's lucrative education
    market undermines the very values that make American
    universities great, including academic freedom.
        This hearing is timely for three reasons: The growing
    number of satellite or branch campuses started by the U.S.
    universities in China; the record numbers of Chinese students,
    275,000 estimated, enrolling in U.S. universities and colleges
    in China in each year, bringing with them nearly $10 million a
    year in tuition and other spending; and the recent efforts by
    the Communist Party of China to regain ideological control over
    universities and academic research.
        Official Chinese Government decrees prohibit teaching and
    research in seven areas, the so-called seven taboos or seven
    silences, including universal values, press freedom, civil
    society, citizen rights, criticism of the party's past neo-
    liberal economics, and the independence of the judiciary. All
    of these so-called seven taboos are criticized as Western
    values, which begs a very significant and important question:
    Are U.S. colleges and universities compromising their images as
    bastions of free inquiry and academic freedom in exchange for
    China's education dollars?
        Some may defend concessions made as the cost of doing
    business in an authoritarian country or dictatorship, such as
    in China. Maybe a university decides that it won't offer a
    class on human rights in China. Maybe they won't invite a
    prominent dissident, a fellow, or visiting lecturer. Maybe they
    won't protest when a professor is denied a visa because of his
    or her work that is critical of a dictatorship. Maybe such
    compromises are rationalized as necessary to not offend a major
    donor or for the greater good of maintaining access.
        If U.S. universities are only offering Chinese students and
    faculty a different name on their diploma or paycheck, is it
    worth the cost and the compromises and the concessions?
        Perry Link, the eminent China scholar, argued during our
    last hearing in this room just a few months ago that the slow
    drip of self-censorship is the most pernicious threat to
    academic freedom, and it undermines both the recognized brands
    of our major universities as well as their credibility.
        Self-censorship may be the reason why NYU terminated the
    fellowship of a world-class human rights activist and hero,
    Chen Guangcheng. As NYU faculty said in their letter to the
    board of trustees, the circumstances surrounding the launch of
    an NYU satellite campus in Shanghai and the ending of Chen's
    residence created a ``public perception, accurate or otherwise,
    that NYU made commitments in order to operate in China.''
    Again, begs another question: Did NYU make any commitment or in
    any way fashion their response to Chen's staying at NYU?
        Let the record show that we had invited NYU's president or
    faculty some 16 times to testify before this subcommittee
    without success. However, we are very, very pleased that
    Jeffrey Lehman, the vice chancellor of the NYU Shanghai campus,
    is indeed here with us today.
        On a personal note, I spent a considerable amount of time
    with Chen Guangcheng when he first came to the United States
    and have continued that friendship ever since. Though NYU
    offered him important sanctuary, he was, in my opinion, treated
    very rudely at times, particularly when it was clear that he
    would not isolate himself on campus. And that included times
    when I invited him to join Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi at
    a joint press conference to hear from Chen Guangcheng about his
    beliefs about human rights in China, and it was a totally
    bipartisan effort, and yet that was not looked at very
    favorably.
        Though NYU offered NYU officials and others worked hard to
    cordon off access to Chen, even on the days that he came. I was
    literally moved to the side so I wouldn't be able to have
    access to him. And that is after holding four hearings,
    including two in this room, when we got him on the phone when
    he was in a hospital in Beijing and hooked him up right here at
    this microphone, and he made his appeal to the American public
    and to the press that he would like to come to the United
    States.
        Reuters and The Wall Street Journal also reported that
    there was concern that Chen was too involved with so-called
    antiabortion activists, Republicans, and others, which would
    fit me as a description because I am very pro-life.
        We may never know if NYU experienced persistent and direct
    pressure from China to oust Chen from his NYU fellowship or
    whether they sought to isolate him in order to keep Chen's
    story out of the 2012 Presidential election, as Professor Jerry
    Cohen had said in an interview at the time. Certainly, there is
    some interest here, as Hillary Clinton spent a whole chapter in
    her book detailing the events of Chen's escape and exile in the
    United States, which, when Chen Guangcheng's book came out,
    certainly was not the same story being told by both. Or maybe
    there wasn't any pressure at all, just self-censorship to keep
    in Beijing's good graces during the final stages of opening the
    NYU Shanghai campus.
        While we are not here to exclusively focus on the sad
    divorce of Chen Guangcheng and NYU, but his ousting begs the
    question: Is it possible to accept lucrative subsidies from the
    Chinese Government, or other dictatorships for that matter, and
    operate campuses on their territory and still preserve academic
    freedom and other values that make America's universities
    great?
        I am sure there are those here today who say they can and
    reference the assurance they receive from the government or any
    agreement they sign, which is often kept secret with the host
    government. The real answer appears to be much more murky.
        Foreign educational partnerships indeed are important
    endeavors for students, collaborative research, cultural
    understanding, and maybe even for the host country. The U.S.
    model of higher education is the world's best. American
    faculty, fellowships, and exchange programs are effective
    global ambassadors. We must all seek to maintain that
    integrity, and it is in the interest of the United States to do
    so, and particularly when it comes to China.
        Nevertheless, if U.S. colleges and universities are
    outsourcing academic control, faculty and student oversight, or
    curriculum to a foreign government, can they really be the
    islands of freedom in the midst of authoritarian states or
    dictatorships? Are they places where all students and faculty
    can enjoy the fundamental freedoms denied them in their own
    country?
        These questions we ask today are not abstract at all. The
    Chinese Government and the Communist Party are waging a
    persistent, intense, and escalating campaign to suppress
    dissent, purge rivals from within the party, and regain total
    ideological control over the arts, media, and universities.
        The campaign is broader and more extensive than any other
    in the past 20 years. Targets include human rights defenders,
    the press, social media and the Internet, civil rights lawyers,
    Tibetans, Uyghurs, and religious groups, the Falun Gong, NGOs,
    intellectuals and their students, and government officials,
    particularly those allied with former Chinese leader Jiang
    Zemin.
        Chinese universities have been targeted, as well. The
    recently issued Communist Party Directive Document 30
    reinforces earlier warnings to purge Western-inspired notions
    of media independence, human rights, and the criticism of Mao
    Zedong.
        In a recent speech reported by The New York Times,
    President Xi Jinping urged university leaders to ``keep a tight
    grip on . . . ideological work in higher education . . . never
    allow singing to a tune contrary to the party center, never
    allowing eating the Communist Party's food and then smashing
    the Communist Party's cooking pots''--his words.
        Will anyone at NYU or Fort Hays or Johns Hopkins or Duke,
    for that matter, be allowed to smash any Chinese Communist
    Party cooking pots? It is a serious question, because if your
    campuses are subsidized by the Chinese Government, if your
    joint educational partnerships are majority-owned by the
    Chinese Government, aren't you then eating the Communist
    Party's food and then subject to its rules just like any
    Chinese university?
        I remember almost 10 years ago when Google, Yahoo,
    Microsoft, and Cisco here testified in a hearing about
    censorship and raised their hands and gave their oath that they
    would tell the truth. The persistent response to their
    censorship and their opening up of their personally
    identifiable information to the Communist dictatorship in China
    was that they were just following Chinese law. And many great
    people, like activists, particularly in the media area, were
    imprisoned because of that complicity, because they were
    enabling it.
        I will never forget showing pictures of Tiananmen Square on
    Google which showed nothing but nice pictures--that is the
    Chinese version--and then if you went to Google, obviously the
    one that we have access to, you got millions of hits of tanks
    in the Square and young students being killed.
        There are nine U.S. educational partnerships operating in
    China. The New York University Shanghai campus opened its doors
    to students in September 2013; Duke; the University of
    California, Berkeley's School of Engineering; Kean College,
    which is located of course in my own State of New Jersey. In
    addition, there is Fort Hays State University out of Kansas,
    and there are a couple of others as well.
        I would point out to my colleagues that we have also
    asked--because this is the second in what will be a multiseries
    of hearings on this--the Government Accountability Office, and
    they have agreed, to study the agreements of both satellite
    campuses in China and the Confucius Institutes in the United
    States.
        I know some agreements are public while others are not. In
    fact, some schools made their agreements public after our last
    hearing, and we are very grateful for that. We are looking for
    complete and total transparency, and we will be asking all the
    universities and colleges to make their agreements with the
    Chinese Government public.
        We need to know if universities and colleges who are
    starting satellite programs in China can be, again, islands of
    freedom in China or in other parts of the world. We need to
    know what pressures are being placed on them to compromise and
    backstop them, knowing that the Congress and the U.S.
    Government is behind they being unfettered in their ability to
    have academic freedom.
        These are important questions. Can they be handled by the
    universities and faculties and trustees themselves, or are
    there things that the U.S. Congress and State Department and
    the White House need to be doing to protect these freedoms?
        I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague Mr.
    Sherman for any comments he might have.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am not ranking member of this subcommittee. I am not even
    a member of this subcommittee. Karen Bass asked me to sit in
    and promised that I could leave at 2:45, which I will need to
    do. But I am the ranking member of the Asia Subcommittee, which
    I believe is somewhat relevant to this discussion.
        As an interloper to this subcommittee, I want to commend
    the chair and congratulate the chair and Ranking Member Bass of
    the passage of AGOA today on the House floor.
        When it comes to the greatest human rights deprivation by
    China, it is probably the enormous trade deficit they run with
    the United States. We are now engaged in this strategic and
    economic dialogue. All the bigwigs from China are here. The
    entire State Department is dedicated to them. Hundreds of pages
    of pronouncements are being generated. I can't find one that
    actually mentions that we have a $343 billion trade deficit
    with China.
        And I would point out that, while there are dozens and
    dozens of meetings, none of them are with Members of Congress,
    except for the administration has created this Potemkin village
    situation where Members of Congress are invited to participate
    only if they do not speak to anyone from China. God forbid the
    Chinese find out that there are people in the United States,
    unlike, perhaps, the administration, who care about that I
    mentioned the $343 billion trade deficit.
        Now, as to the matter at hand, we have to focus on what
    effect these educational relationships have with free speech in
    the United States and free speech in China. One other issue
    that is mentioned is, are we just cheapening the brand,
    independent of human rights and politics? Are we sending people
    over--are the Chinese learning mathematics the same way they
    would learn at the home campus here?
        That, I think, is a little outside of government's purview.
    You know, there are Buicks being sold in China, and if GM wants
    to make a Yugo and put a Buick nameplate on it and sell it to
    the Chinese, that is their business, and it will hurt their
    business. The universities have a lot tied up in the value of
    their name, and I think that will at least assure that good
    mathematics is taught by those good universities that establish
    branches in China.
        But the question is, what is the effect of this
    relationship on free speech there and free speech here? As to
    free speech there, I think that American campuses in China are
    doing a better job of honoring American values of free speech
    than any other campus in China. So our presence there does
    raise the standard, to some degree.
        Even better, from a free-speech standpoint, is when Chinese
    students come here. I guarantee that every Chinese student that
    comes here will have a chance, often, to see the cooking pots
    of the Communist Party of China smashed. It will be a good
    experience for them.
        But, as to those who are taught there, we would want to
    have the highest standard of free speech, the highest standard
    of political inquiry and tough Socratic questions. My guess is
    that we will not be able to reach American standards.
        I am also concerned about the effect this all has on free
    speech here. For example, AMC--I believe it is the second-
    largest owner of movie screens in the United States--is now
    Chinese-owned. Is Richard Gere going to be in a movie about
    Tibet that is made in the future by some studio that feels that
    being on movie screens in the United States is not relevant to
    the success of the movie? I don't know. But we do know that
    such a movie will not be on Chinese screens and may have
    difficulty being on Chinese-owned screens here in the United
    States.
        More attuned to academia, I have seen Turkey try to buy
    chairs of genocide denial by endowing chairs of history, and I
    would be concerned about China endowing chairs at our
    university.
        They have a program worldwide of teaching Confucianism. I
    think China should be very proud of Confucian philosophy and
    what it has added to the world. The world could learn more
    about Confucianism. But I have fear that, if it is up to the
    Chinese Government, the version that you will learn will
    involve not breaking the cooking pots of the Chinese Communist
    Party.
        We do have to worry about the influence of money.
    Universities are not exempt from this, and there is a ton of
    money. We already see the enormous political power China gets
    from our corporations. The easiest way to make money is to make
    something for pennies in China and sell it for dollars in the
    United States. A lot of people are in that business, and they
    are a powerful force here in Washington and in the general
    political circles. And, of course, the money that our
    universities make on the Chinese enterprise, whether it be
    campuses there or students coming here, may very well affect
    what is taught, what stances are taken, who does the teaching.
        So, in conclusion, I think that having our campuses there
    helps free speech in China--though it doesn't help it as much
    as if we were able to obtain the levels of purity and free
    discourse that I would like to see--but we can do better. And a
    hearing like this will push people like you to move in the
    right direction.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, first and foremost, I would like to
    thank our witnesses for coming today, and I would like to thank
    the chairman.
        Chairman Smith has been a stalwart example of what I think
    Americanism is supposed to be all about. We are supposed to
    stand for other things rather than simply corporate profit and
    making money. I am not against making money, and I am for lower
    taxes, but that is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind,
    just a place where selfish people could come and make a load of
    money and not care about any other values.
        No, instead, it is very clear that our Founding Fathers
    believed that there are certain rights that are granted by God
    to people everywhere, every individual has rights that are
    granted by God, and that as Americans we should lead the way
    and hold out basic values so that the world--we don't have to
    go to war with everybody, but at the very least we should be an
    example to the world and an inspiration to people of China and
    everywhere that would like to have their freedom, as well.
        I think the moment of truth, Mr. Chairman, came--and it was
    very sad; we were defining ourselves--in 1989 when the Chinese
    military poured into Tiananmen Square and slaughtered the
    democracy movement.
        Let me just note that when I was working with Ronald Reagan
    in the White House for 7 years we prided ourselves that we
    brought down the Soviet Union without an actual military
    confrontation between our two societies. But we did that by
    supporting and financing and bolstering the efforts of those
    people who were struggling for freedom in their own country, in
    the Soviet Union, and in those countries that the Soviet Union
    was trying to dominate.
        And, in 1989, the moment came for China to reverse its
    course from dictatorship and totalitarianism. And we let them
    down; we let ourselves down. We let ourselves down because that
    cowardice that we showed in not confronting the Chinese
    leadership was something that we are now beginning to
    experience the negative side of that decision.
        People said, well, what would you have done to back them
    up? Ronald Reagan, who I worked for for 7\1/2\ years, was not
    President at the time. Had he been President at the time, there
    would have been a phone call as soon as he got an intelligence
    report that the Chinese Army was going into Tiananmen Square,
    and that would have said, ``I am sorry, if you destroy the
    democracy movement in China, the deal is off. No open markets,
    no technology transfers, no interaction and cooperative efforts
    and social interaction. It is all off. Don't destroy the
    democracy movement.''
        George Herbert Walker Bush's telephone call, it went like
    this: There was no telephone call. And after they invaded
    Tiananmen Square and slaughtered the democracy movement, there
    was no price for the Communist Party of China to pay. And we
    continued having policies that enriched them and their control
    over their country.
        China's evolution stopped that day, and, since then, there
    has been no democratic reform in China. Although, we have been
    told, even after Tiananmen Square, if we just have this
    interaction, economically and socially and like the education
    programs we are talking about today, China will evolve into a
    better country. I have always called that the ``hug a Nazi,
    make a liberal'' theory.
        And there has been no evolution toward political freedom in
    China. But we have seen an enrichment and an empowering of an
    elite, a despotic and brutal and belligerent elite, in China.
    And it is now becoming very evident that this new China that is
    emerging poses, at least in the future, not only as a symbol of
    repression to their own people but as a belligerent threat to
    the rest of the world.
        When we don't stand up for freedom and those people
    struggling for freedom in these countries, we pay the price in
    the end. And that is what is happening.
        And we have seen all of these proposals, like we are going
    to discuss today, with interaction on education. And there have
    been lots of these various programs that, supposedly, we are
    going to make China evolve toward a freer direction. We have
    instead enriched them and empowered them in the economic arena.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record,
    at this point, a letter that I have just sent out describing
    and alerting our Government to the fact that--a major American
    company has brought this to my attention--that the Chinese have
    a predatory strategy when it comes to business. And,
    especially, they are trying to get control of the chip
    manufacturing, get control or at least have a dominating
    influence on the manufacture of computer chips.
        And, with your permission, I would like to submit for the
    record a letter that I have just sent today alerting our
    Government to that fact.
        Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Now, this was brought to my attention by an American
    company there. And I have the letter--it is to the Secretary of
    the Treasury--right here, right now. And I hope that we pay
    attention to that predatory and that negative strategy on the
    part of the Communist Party of China.
        However, what we talk about today, I think, has--where that
    is an immediate threat, this idea that we are having--and I
    disagree with my friend Mr. Sherman on this, and we usually
    agree on things. I do not believe that we need to bring Chinese
    students over here and train them in our technology schools. If
    they want to come over and take some courses in social studies,
    I think maybe that is okay.
        But I would like to hear from the panel today. I understand
    many of these students that are coming over are taking
    graduate-level classes in the sciences, number one, which puts
    them in a position to out-compete us, but puts us in jeopardy
    in terms of knowledge that we have spent billions of dollars
    trying to develop in our scientific research. That should not
    be just shared with individuals from another country if they
    are going to take it home to that country.
        So we need to start using, number one, a moral system to
    guide our decisionmaking in terms of countries like China, but
    we need to be courageous, and we need to make sure that we are
    honest with ourselves about what these policies are
    accomplishing.
        Thank you again. Thanks to the witnesses for alerting us
    what is going on with our universities, how that is impacting
    this whole dynamic at play.
        So thank you very much.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Chairman Rohrabacher.
        You underscored--and I think most members of the panel know
    this, that Mr. Rohrabacher was a speechwriter for Ronald
    Reagan. And the opposition to what George Herbert Walker Bush
    did, especially in sending Brent Scowcroft soon after Tiananmen
    Square to assure the dictatorship that they had nothing to fear
    from the United States, was one of the most infamous betrayals,
    in my opinion, that is only paralleled by, not exceeded or
    matched but paralleled by, President Clinton, when he de-linked
    human rights and trade, infamously, on a Friday afternoon, when
    the Chinese took the measure of the United States of America
    and said, profits trump human rights.
        And the Executive order, which I had lauded--held press
    conference after press conference thanking President Clinton
    for--only to find out it was a ruse. That was when they
    realized that America, at least the administration, cared only
    about making more money, at the expense of human rights
    activism. And none of the matriculation from dictatorship to
    human rights protections have occurred.
        Mark Meadows, the vice----
        Mr. Sherman. If I could----
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. Chairman of the----
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from
    California mentioned me. I was simply saying that Chinese
    students here in the United States will learn our systems of
    free expression. I never weighed that benefit to our values
    with the technological progress that they might be able to
    furnish to their government. And so you would have to weigh one
    or the other.
        And I join with the gentleman in feeling that those who
    study sociology, political science, and history in the United
    States are more of a pure plus for our values.
        Mr. Smith. Okay.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Meadows.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very, very
    brief.
        Thank each of you for your willingness to testify here
    today, for illuminating an issue that, if we do not talk about,
    becomes a bigger and bigger problem. And so your testimony is
    not only important, but it is also one that hopefully will make
    a change.
        The chairman has been a champion for human rights, freedom
    of speech and freedom of religion, unparalleled by anybody else
    here in Congress. And so it is an honor to serve with him.
        It certainly is one that we would love to know what
    legislative things or what pressure can be brought to bear for
    us to truly address that. And coming from the great State of
    North Carolina, we have a lot of institutions of higher
    learning, and I enjoy a good relationship with many of those.
        And so, Mr. Chairman, this is a fly-out day, and there are
    not many members, and so I wanted to be here to show that it is
    not only a priority for the chairman but a priority for many of
    the others of us in Congress. So thank you for being here.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.
        Let me begin first by introducing our first distinguished
    panelist, Mr. Jeffrey Lehman, who is the first vice chancellor
    of NYU Shanghai. He has previously been chancellor and founding
    dean of the Peking University School of Transnational Law,
    president of Cornell University, dean of the University of
    Michigan Law School, a tenured professor of law and public
    policy at the University of Michigan. He has also been a
    practicing lawyer in Washington, DC, a law clerk, including
    being a law clerk to Associate Justice John Paul Stevens of the
    United States Supreme Court.
        Welcome, Mr. Lehman.
        We will then hear from Ms. Susan Lawrence, who is a
    specialist in Asian affairs at the Congressional Research
    Service, a unit of the Library of Congress that provides the
    U.S. Congress with research and analysis. She covers U.S.-China
    relations, Chinese foreign policy, Chinese domestic politics,
    Taiwan, and Mongolia. She joined CRS after a career spent
    largely in journalism in which she worked in Beijing for 11
    years and reported from Washington, DC. Immediately prior to
    joining the CRS, Ms. Lawrence managed public health advocacy
    programs in China for a Washington, DC-based NGO.
        Then we will hear from Mr. Robert Daly, who has directed
    the Kissinger Institute on China and the U.S. at the Wilson
    Center since 2013. Previously, he was at the University of
    Maryland, where he served from 2007 until 2013. And, prior to
    that, he was American director of the Johns Hopkins University-
    Nanjing University Center for Chinese and American Studies for
    6 years. Mr. Daly began his work in U.S.-China relations as a
    diplomat, serving as an officer in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.
    He has taught at Cornell, Syracuse, and has worked on TV and
    theater projects in China as a host, actor, and writer.
        We will then hear from Dr. Mirta Martin, who was appointed
    the ninth president of Fort Hays State University in 2014. Dr.
    Martin is the first female president in the 113-year history of
    Fort Hays State University and the first Hispanic president in
    the more-than-150-year history of the entire Kansas Regents
    system. Dr. Martin's career involves work in both public and
    private sectors, including special expertise in organizational
    behavior, management, institutional advancement, and workplace
    development. She has worked as a senior banking executive, held
    numerous positions in higher education, and was appointed by
    the former Governor of Virginia to serve on the Virginia
    Council on the Status of Women.
        Then we will hear from Ms. Yaxue Cao, who was the founder
    and editor of ChinaChange.org, an English language Web site
    devoted to news and commentary related to civil society, the
    rule of law, and human rights activities in China. The site
    works to help the rest of the world understand what people are
    thinking and doing to effect change in the PRC. Reports and
    translations on China Change have been cited by The New York
    Times, Time Magazine, The Guardian, Telegraph, The Washington
    Post, and The New Republic, among others, and of course has
    been included in many congressional reports. Ms. Cao grew up in
    northern China during the cultural revolution and studied
    literature in the United States.
        Mr. Lehman, if you could proceed.

     STATEMENT OF MR. JEFFREY S. LEHMAN, VICE CHANCELLOR, NEW YORK
                          UNIVERSITY-SHANGHAI

        Mr. Lehman. Chairman Smith, other Members of Congress, I
    thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon.
        I have submitted detailed written testimony concerning my
    experiences in China. Because of time constraints, my oral
    testimony will only touch the key points.
        I moved to China in 2008 because the president of Peking
    University asked me to help his university create the first law
    school outside the United States to offer a true J.D. Program
    taught in the American way. I hesitated at first, but people
    like Justice Anthony Kennedy stressed my patriotic duty as an
    American to help develop the rule of law in China. And so I
    agreed to go, but I insisted that I be given absolute control
    over the school's curriculum and faculty appointments and that
    the school operate according to fundamental principles of
    academic freedom.
        Peking University has fully honored those promises. For
    example, the students there study American constitutional
    principles with the legal director of the American Civil
    Liberties Union of Southern California, and they learn about
    international courts from the chair of the American Bar
    Association Human Rights Advisory Council.
        That law school is part of a government-supported effort
    inside China to experiment with new approaches to higher
    education, and so is NYU Shanghai, which began teaching in
    2013. NYU Shanghai is a degree-granting campus of New York
    University, whose work must be accredited by both the Middle
    States Commission on Higher Education in Philadelphia and
    China's Ministry of Education in Beijing.
        The trustees of New York University award degrees to its
    graduates. Therefore, NYU agreed to participate, on the
    condition that it would operate under principles of academic
    freedom. NYU has exclusive and final responsibility over
    faculty appointments, student admissions, curricula, academic
    policies and procedures, et cetera.
        Half of NYU Shanghai's undergraduates come from China, and
    half come from the rest of the world.
        NYU Shanghai delivers an undergraduate liberal education in
    the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences,
    promoting the skills of critical and creative thinking. All of
    our undergraduate students pursue a core curriculum in Shanghai
    for 2 years and then spend their junior year studying at other
    campuses within NYU's network, which now spans 14 cities around
    the world. And then they return to Shanghai to complete their
    degrees.
        We at NYU choose the faculty who teach our courses, and I
    am proud to say that we have recruited a remarkable group of
    stars who do not diminish the brand and who are listed in
    Appendix 1 to my written testimony.
        Financially, NYU does not profit from its activities in
    Shanghai. NYU Shanghai sits as a tub on its own bottom. So why,
    you might ask, has NYU taken this on? Two reasons stand out.
        First, NYU Shanghai advances NYU's bold redefinition of how
    a university can be structured. In the 21st century, the
    phenomena of globalization and modern information and
    communications technologies have created new challenges and new
    opportunities for humanity. In order to more effectively
    fulfill its academic mission, NYU expanded to become a global
    network of campuses and academic centers in important cities.
    Students can enter NYU through the degree-granting campuses in
    New York, Abu Dhabi, and Shanghai, and they can study away in
    11 other cities.
        Shanghai is a superb location for NYU to have established a
    degree-granting campus. China is an extraordinarily important
    and rapidly changing country, and Shanghai is New York's
    natural counterpart.
        Second, NYU Shanghai provides NYU with an essential
    opportunity to reflect deeply about what knowledge, skills, and
    virtues this generation of students requires in order to lead
    lives of satisfaction and contribution. NYU Shanghai is a place
    where NYU can experiment with new ways of developing those
    qualities.
        For example, because it is so important today that each of
    us know how to see the world through the eyes of others, NYU
    Shanghai requires every student to live with a roommate from
    another country.
        I personally teach the course that all students are
    required to take during freshman year, an intellectual history
    course which I teach using the Socratic method, in which
    students engage a set of great books by authors such Aristotle,
    Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Adam Smith, and Friedrich Hayek.
    These are the same readings I would use if I were teaching the
    course in New York, and I included syllabi from the course as
    Appendix 2 to my written testimony.
        NYU Shanghai is a pioneering university, and we receive
    dozens of visitors to our campus every week. We would be
    delighted if any members of this subcommittee or their staffs
    would come to visit us.
        People who have not visited us in person occasionally
    suggest that NYU Shanghai should not exist. Sometimes they
    argue that American universities should stay away from any
    authoritarian country. Sometimes they say that China presents
    unique risks that render academic freedom impossible. While I
    appreciate the good motives of these individuals who speculate
    about our university from afar, I do not believe their
    conclusions are well-founded.
        First of all, the benefits of engagement are enormous. Our
    universities in America nuture skills and values that we
    believe are important to their wellbeing as individuals and to
    their societies. We are all better off if Chinese students,
    American students, and students from around the world have the
    chance to study at institutions like ours. And we would all be
    better off if countries all around the world developed
    institutions like ours that could provide those benefits to
    large numbers of their citizens.
        China is in the middle of a period of astonishing change.
    Within Chinese society, there is heated debate about what
    direction change should take over the next two decades and
    about what goals should take precedence over others. This
    debate is more likely to go well if the participants can point
    to the positive impact of schools like NYU Shanghai on Chinese
    students.
        The challenge of engagement in foreign lands is real, but
    it does not come close to offsetting those benefits. American
    universities themselves grew and prospered in a flawed country
    with serious human rights problems like slavery, but our
    universities have been durable institutions and have made
    important contributions to America's progress.
        To be sure, we have to be vigilant. A university such as
    ours cannot function if students and faculty are not free to
    ask questions and to entertain arguments that might be
    disruptive and even offensive to others. Norms of civility may
    be imposed, but they must not cut off genuine and rigorous
    inquiry. If it would become impossible to operate with academic
    freedom, NYU would close down its Shanghai campus.
        Last weekend, I told a Shanghainese friend that I would be
    testifying here today. He asked why, and I explained that some
    people who value the free exchange of ideas believe American
    universities should not be present in China. His response was
    crisp and, I believe, quite apt. He said, ``If someone is truly
    committed to the free exchange of ideas here in China, they
    should want to see more schools like NYU Shanghai, not fewer.''
        I believe in my heart that this is a noble project. It is
    not without risk, but it has the potential to benefit all of
    humanity.
        In my written testimony, I suggest that Congress consider
    creating a scholarship program to ensure that students from
    families of modest means are able to study abroad at programs
    like these. I hope that you will take that proposal seriously.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lehman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Mr. Lehman, thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        I would like to now ask Ms. Lawrence if she would proceed.

        STATEMENT OF MS. SUSAN V. LAWRENCE, SPECIALIST IN ASIAN
                AFFAIRS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

        Ms. Lawrence. Chairman Smith, Congressman Rohrabacher,
    Congressman Sherman, Congressman Meadows, thank you for this
    invitation to testify today.
        China's Ministry of Education indicates it has so far
    approved 11 U.S. universities and 1 U.S. individual to work
    with Chinese partners to run cooperative education institutions
    in China, essentially joint campuses. The Ministry has granted
    three of these institutions independent legal person status,
    which may give them some greater autonomy in their operations
    than those without such status. Those three are NYU Shanghai,
    Duke Kunshan University, and Wenzhou-Kean University.
        In addition, the Chinese Ministry of Education has approved
    a broader set of U.S. universities to work with Chinese
    partners to offer degree programs on campuses operated solely
    by Chinese partners. More than 80 U.S. universities are
    involved in partnerships to offer undergraduate degrees, and
    more than 30 U.S. universities are involved in partnerships to
    offer graduate degrees in China. In all, universities from at
    least 36 of the 50 U.S. States appear to be involved in
    approved cooperative educational institutions or programs in
    China.
        In the case of high-profile partnerships to establish new
    joint campuses, U.S. universities cite benefits in the forms of
    generous funding from the Chinese side, typically covering all
    campus construction costs and some or all operating costs;
    opportunities for new global research collaborations; and
    opportunities for students from the universities' home campuses
    to broaden their education through study abroad.
        Critics of U.S. educational collaborations in China have
    focused on several areas of concern. The most prominent relates
    to the compromises U.S. universities may be forced to make with
    regard to academic freedom--the subject of this hearing.
        Educational institutions in China, including those with
    U.S. partners, are subject to an array of Chinese laws and
    administrative regulations and guidance documents. The key
    national laws include the 1995 Education Law and the 1998
    Higher Education Law.
        Several provisions of the Higher Education Law have
    implications for academic freedom on campuses with U.S.
    partners. As I will discuss later, however, not all of these
    provisions appear to be uniformly enforced.
        Article 10 of the Higher Education Law stipulates that the
    state ``safeguards the freedom of scientific research, literary
    and artistic creations, and other cultural activities in
    institutions of higher learning according to law,'' but it also
    says that such creations and activities should abide by law,
    potentially limiting such freedoms.
        Article 39 of the law outlines the leadership role of
    Communist Party committees in state-run higher education
    institutions. It states that Communist Party committees
    ``exercise unified leadership over the work of the
    institutions'' and that the committees' duties are, among other
    things, to guide ideological and political work and moral
    education on campuses and to make key personnel decisions.
        Article 51 of the law stipulates that ``the basis for the
    appointment, [or] dismissal'' of faculty and administrative
    personnel should be ideology and political performance first,
    followed by professional ethics, professional skill, and actual
    achievements.
        Similarly, Article 58 of the law stipulates that students
    should be permitted to graduate if they, first, ``are qualified
    in their ideology and moral character,'' and, secondarily, if
    they have ``completed the study of the courses required and
    have passed the examinations or got all the credits required.''
        Finally, Article 53 requires that students of institutions
    of higher learning should ``build up their physiques and the
    concepts of patriotism, collectivism, and socialism; diligently
    study Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong thought, and Deng Xiaoping
    theory; have sound ideology and moral character; and grasp a
    comparatively high level of scientific and cultural knowledge
    and specialized skills.''
        In 2003, China's State Council promulgated regulations
    specifically addressing collaborations with foreign partners in
    education. The regulations bar foreign partners from
    involvement in military academies, police academies, and
    political education. They also bar foreign religious
    organizations, religious institutions, religious colleges and
    universities, and so-called religious workers from involvement
    in cooperative education efforts in China, and they bar joint
    campuses from offering religious education or conducting
    religious activities.
        The regulations require that Chinese foreign educational
    collaborations ``not jeopardize China's sovereignty, security,
    and public interests''--a broad requirement that Chinese
    authorities could use to rule out academic discussion related
    to Taiwan, Tibet, Uyghurs, electoral reform in Hong Kong, the
    Falun Gong spiritual group, and other topics.
        It appears that, in practice, the Chinese Government has
    been willing to relax some of these requirements, particularly
    in the case of jointly operated institutions with independent
    legal person status and significant numbers of non-Chinese
    students, such as NYU Shanghai and Duke Kunshan University, a
    partnership among Duke University, China's Wuhan University,
    and the Government of Kunshan Municipality in China's Jiangsu
    Province.
        On the role of party committees, a 2013 article in the
    Global Times, a tabloid affiliated with the Chinese Communist
    Party's paper of record, the People's Daily, cited unnamed
    educators as saying that ``unlike Chinese universities, where
    administrative interference is considered one of the biggest
    problems with the education system, the Party committees in
    these branch campuses usually don't have a say in academic
    affairs.''
        NYU Shanghai's chancellor, Yu Lizhong, told a Hong Kong
    newspaper in 2012 that the NYU Shanghai campus would be run by
    a board of directors rather than by a Communist Party
    committee. And the NYU Shanghai Web site contains no reference
    to a party committee.
        Public reports of the Communist Party activities of NYU
    Shanghai staff relate to their participation in party bodies
    and activities not at NYU Shanghai but at NYU Shanghai's
    academic partner in the NYU Shanghai campus, East China Normal
    University. NYU Shanghai's head of human resources, for
    example, is identified on East China Normal University's Web
    site as serving concurrently as the head of the party branch of
    East China Normal University's Chinese-Foreign Cooperation
    Office.
        In contrast, one of the three campuses run jointly by Fort
    Hays State University, Henan Province-based Sias International
    University, openly lists information about its Communist Party
    Committee on its Chinese language Web site. The Web site lists
    the school's Party Secretary and Deputy Party Secretary as
    among the nine members of the school's leadership group and
    includes an organization chart showing party structures across
    the university, including party groups in the university's
    business school, law school, school of international education,
    and nine other schools.
        On the scope of permitted expression, U.S. media reports
    indicate that academic discussions on campuses in China jointly
    operated by U.S. partners do sometimes stray onto topics that
    would be taboo on other campuses in China, especially when the
    joint campuses include significant numbers of non-Chinese
    students.
        Such campuses may also have arrangements allowing their
    students unfettered access to the Internet, including to sites
    that are usually blocked in China, such as Google, Gmail,
    Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Such allowances may contribute
    to greater levels of overall academic freedom on such campuses
    than China normally tolerates.
        The legal guarantees underpinning such zones of free
    speech, however, remain ambiguous, raising questions about the
    long-term sustainability of such zones. Some observers have
    also noted that, because joint campuses in China tend to be
    heavily subsidized by the Chinese Government, the government
    may have significant leverage if serious disputes over academic
    freedom issues should arise.
        My fellow panelists are the experts on how their
    institutions operate within the broad legal and regulatory
    framework for institutions of higher learning in China and
    within the context of their individual partnership agreements
    and their legal person status. I look forward to learning from
    them.
        Thank you again, Chairman Smith, for the opportunity to
    testify about these issues. As an employee of the Congressional
    Research Service, I am confined to speaking about the technical
    and professional aspects of the issues under discussion in this
    hearing and to answering questions within my field of
    expertise. With that understanding, I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lawrence follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Ms. Lawrence, thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        And, without objection, your full statement and that of all
    of our distinguished witnesses will be made a part of the
    record, but I thank you for it.
        Now, Mr. Daly.

    STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT DALY, DIRECTOR, KISSINGER INSTITUTE ON
      CHINA AND THE U.S., WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR
                                SCHOLARS

        Mr. Daly. I would like to thank the chair and the other
    members of the committee for the chance to discuss a very
    important set of issues with you today.
        These are issues that I have worked on from within
    government and academia for almost 30 years. And I can tell
    you, Mr. Chairman, that all of your concerns are very well-
    founded, and they require constant attention from the
    practitioners in the field who are working with China. There
    are no easy answers to this. It requires balance.
        Many of my Chinese colleagues and friends would be
    surprised to hear that there was a discussion today about
    Chinese influence on American universities, because, in their
    experience, the influence has flowed almost entirely in the
    other direction since 1854, when the first Chinese earned a
    degree from an American University.
        In fact, the very idea of the university, the modern
    university in China, was introduced from the West and primarily
    from the United States by people like John Leighton Stuart, by
    Johns Hopkins University, Oberlin, Yale, and Harvard, who
    brought the idea of the academic disciplines at university
    degrees to China in the first place. And the model for China's
    universities, their structures, their degrees, their
    governance--with the exception of the involvement of the
    Chinese Communist Party, which is pervasive, as you suggest--
    this model comes primarily from the United States.
        Even today, Chinese universities are adapting American
    academic standards and models to suit China's needs, and
    Chinese scholars seek partnership with American experts and
    publication in American journals. Furthermore, young Chinese,
    as you have mentioned, now comprise 29 percent of all foreign
    students in the U.S., and approximately 2 million have pursued
    degrees here since 1979.
        On the other side of the equation, American academics
    rarely seek publication in Chinese journals, most of which are
    of low quality and many of which deal in plagiarized and faked
    research. And few American students pursue degrees from Chinese
    universities. Most Americans students who visit China--and I
    support them to do so, I believe strongly in the value of study
    abroad, but most of these students go for short-term language
    and cultural classes as part of U.S. degree programs. So
    Chinese education, as such, holds very little allure for
    Americans.
        So there can be no question that American universities have
    far greater impact on China than China has on them, just as
    there can be no question that American soft power in China
    overall--our influence on Chinese institutions, the
    aspirations, tastes, and values of the Chinese people--while
    they are not what we would like them to be, dwarf China's soft
    power here. I think that that fact has to be kept clearly in
    mind, because calls for reconsideration of our policy of
    engagement with China are growing more strident.
        Still, yes, as you note, China does exert influence on
    American universities, and that seems to be growing. And it
    comes, I believe, primarily from American colleges' and
    universities' need for and their fear of losing Chinese sources
    of financing, although it doesn't come only from there.
        We should mention, too, that while we are talking about our
    concerns about Chinese impacts on America, we should recognize
    the contribution that educational exchanges with China have
    made to the United States. This is not just a story about the
    flow of Chinese money into American universities. Even more
    beneficial has been the flow of Chinese talent and energy into
    American society.
        Many of the Chinese students who study here remain in the
    U.S. after graduation, and this new generation of immigrants,
    like their predecessors, is providing a vital infusion of
    expertise into every professional field and academic discipline
    in the United States. So we should recognize today that when we
    speak of Chinese students, this is not to demonize them; we are
    also speaking of our American neighbors, colleagues, and
    friends, and they are making a big contribution to this
    country.
        We should also note that money isn't the only thing that
    American universities want from the PRC. They also cooperate
    with China in order to fulfill their academic missions.
    American scholars, if they are to be leaders in their field,
    need access to Chinese archives, data, and research sites. They
    need to interview Chinese experts and survey Chinese
    populations. They need study-abroad opportunities for American
    students. American students now cannot be leaders in their
    field unless they have knowledge in China.
        In short, because the PRC is now central, whether we like
    it or not, to nearly every global issue, be it strategic,
    economic, technological, environmental, public health, U.S.
    universities cannot do their work, they cannot be universal,
    unless they engage with China to some degree.
        This is a new situation not only for American universities
    but for American corporations, professional institutions,
    American filmmakers, American subnational governments. They now
    have China interests, China relations, and China policies. This
    is a positive development, I believe, in the main, but it has
    its dangers.
        American universities fear ill repute in China. They fear
    being cut off from China. They fear the loss of Chinese tuition
    and fees. And this fear does give China leverage, and China
    knows it.
        We should, furthermore, be worried about how China will use
    the leverage. As the chairman has mentioned, Document 9 and
    following documents make very clear that issues like
    constitutional democracy, civil society, neoliberal economics,
    and Western ideas of journalism cannot be discussed openly in
    Chinese universities or in the Chinese media.
        Earlier this year, China's Minister of Education, Yuan
    Guiren, told a meeting of Chinese academic leaders in Beijing
    that they should reduce the number of Western-published
    textbooks in their classrooms and ``by no means allow teaching
    materials that disseminate Western values.''
        The reason for this prohibition was provided by the state-
    run Global Times paper that Susan mentioned. They wrote,
    ``Young students and teachers are the major groups used by
    enemy forces to penetrate and divide China.'' This is the
    attitude.
        So Yuan's statement sounds like a direct order to Chinese
    universities and a direct threat to American schools that offer
    American degrees on Chinese soil. If Western textbooks, as
    China claims, are vectors that infect young Chinese minds and
    weaken the country, are not Western faculty members and
    universities more dangerous still?
        And it is this situation, I think, that has compelled this
    subcommittee to ask the question about whether academic freedom
    can be maintained while working in and with a country such as
    the PRC.
        Despite these difficulties, however, I would argue that
    there is a way forward under the current set of circumstances.
    Now, circumstances could change, and there is definitely a time
    to pull out tent stakes and say that, yes, while the perfect
    may be the enemy of the good, China is imposing conditions on
    American universities that they cannot meet, as you mentioned.
    There could be a time to leave, but we are not there yet.
        And the reason, I think, is that, despite Xi Jinping's
    ideology campaign and despite the political character of
    Chinese universities, American universities have been able to
    find ways to interact with Chinese counterparts that do not
    threaten academic freedom.
        How can this be done? Is there room for honorable maneuver?
    I think there is because, as Susan has suggested, Xi Jinping's
    campaign and Yuan Guiren's pronouncements against American
    textbooks haven't meant much in practice yet on campuses. There
    is an atmosphere of hesitancy and fear in Chinese academic,
    cultural, and media circles that we haven't seen since the
    aftermath of the Tiananmen massacre, but, to date, there have
    been no reports of Chinese faculty being required to revise
    their reading lists or of Chinese colleges altering their
    curriculum. There has of yet been no systematic implementation
    of this very backward and draconian ideological campaign.
        Many Chinese students and scholars within China,
    furthermore, question and mock openly Yuan Guiren's call to
    restrict Western textbooks, and they do this in state-run
    media. So it is hard to keep track of what all this means in
    China.
        The president of Tiankai University wrote in the Communist
    Party flagship paper, the People's Daily, ``I have read people
    on the Internet saying that the ranks of academics must be
    cleansed, purified, and rectified. I can't agree with this.
    This was the mentality of 1957,'' the violent anti-rightist
    campaign, ``or 1966,'' which was the launch of the cultural
    revolution. Other Chinese critics point out gleefully that
    Marxism is itself a Western idea and that this campaign is,
    therefore, self-contradictory and incoherent.
        So we don't yet know where this is headed. There is space
    that is in play. And it may be that Beijing is only paying lip
    service to rectification on Chinese campuses because Beijing
    remains conflicted about the influence of the West. We still
    lead, we, the West, with the United States at the fore, lead
    the world in nearly every field of academic inquiry.
        And Xi Jinping surely knows that, despite demonizing
    Western culture, China cannot meet his reform goals unless it
    masters Western learning. His desire to make China a leader in
    the international knowledge economy and his demand that Chinese
    universities produce more innovative students are at odds with
    his calls for ideological purity. And everyone in China knows
    that his own daughter is a graduate of Harvard University, so
    it makes it hard to be too loud about these issues.
        So lastly, I would just like to make a few specific
    recommendations going forward to universities that want to work
    with China.
        One is, I would suggest that all memoranda of understanding
    with Chinese universities state clearly that any relationship
    or program can be concluded at any time by either party if its
    standards of academic freedom, academic integrity, or academic
    rigor are compromised. This clause will serve as a warning to
    both sides and a reminder of first principles, and it will
    protect American partners if Xi's ideological agenda is
    actually put into practice, at which point these programs do
    become untenable, in my view. MOUs should also, as the chair
    suggests, be made public, as any practices that fall short of
    full transparency will fuel a reasonable skepticism, the
    skepticism that American faculty, students, and other
    university stakeholders rightly have.
        American faculty, furthermore, and having worked in Hopkins
    and other universities I have seen this in practice, American
    faculty should be consulted at every stage in the planning of
    cooperative ventures with China, and faculty should vote to
    decide whether projects meet their standards of academic
    quality. This is essential because university administrators
    have to consider financial and political matters while faculty
    loyalty is to their discipline, to their departments, and to
    standards, so faculty need to lead.
        U.S. colleges and universities should not allow the Chinese
    Government or any other national government, or its agencies,
    to appoint faculty or instructors on American campuses, to
    violate U.S. fair hiring laws, or to dictate program conditions
    that violate U.S. best practices.
        And lastly, the U.S. Government, you asked what the
    government can do, we should ask regularly in our
    representations, ask Beijing to clarify its opposition to
    Western culture and its policies restricting foreign NGOs.
    China does not shy away, as you know, from accusing American
    media of bias against China. We shouldn't be reticent about
    asking why Beijing has a formal campaign demonizing our values.
        But in closing, even as we remain vigilant, I think that we
    must remember that our educational institutions, culture, and
    ideas have vastly more influence in China than China has here.
    That influence is made possible by our policy of engagement.
    Curtailing engagement would cut off our influence, which would
    serve neither American interests nor those of the Chinese
    people.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Daly follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Mr. Daly, thank you so very much for your
    testimony.
        We are joined by Eliot Engel, who is the ranking Democrat
    on the full Foreign Affairs Committee.
        Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for calling this hearing. Thank you for your leadership. We
    have discussed this together for many, many years. Thank you
    for your concern about academic freedom, especially when it
    comes to American institutions operating in the People's
    Republic of China.
        Let me welcome our witnesses. Thank you for sharing your
    time and expertise. We really, really appreciate it.
        I want to give a shout-out to Vice Chancellor Lehman. NYU
    is near and dear to my heart. I am very proud to have that as
    one of the wonderful institutions in New York City. And while
    you are not in New York City, you are certainly an extension of
    that wonderful, wonderful campus. And so welcome. And I also am
    told that you are a native of Bronxville, New York, which is in
    my district. So that is two good things. And I know you have
    come a long way to be with us today, all the way from Shanghai.
    I am so grateful to see you.
        I support these things. I think academic exchanges are a
    very critical tool to building relationships between Americans
    and people around the world. I was a teacher myself. Before I
    ever got a law degree, before I ever went into politics, I was
    a classroom teacher. I have seen firsthand how new ideas and
    new perspectives can transform a student's understanding of the
    world and of themselves. And when students from around the
    world sit in our classrooms, or when American academics teach
    and research abroad, I really believe it helps to spread
    knowledge and understanding. And these person-to-person ties
    are the foundation of strong engagements between countries and
    governments. And that is why I think these exchanges are a
    priority and should remain so in our foreign policy. So thank
    all of you for what you do.
        The United States and China have a troubled relationship in
    many ways, but have a long history of educational exchange. And
    as Mr. Daly testified, the U.S. has had far more influence on
    China as a result of these educational exchanges than China has
    had on the United States. So we should put aside the question
    of whether these exchanges should take place, the value, as far
    as I am concerned is clear, but we should be asking how they
    take place. We need to make sure these educational agreements
    continue to benefit students and teachers, and also to advance
    American interests.
        We have heard that NYU has worked hard to maintain full
    academic freedom on their campus in Shanghai. So far the
    Chinese authorities, I am told, haven't interfered with course
    material or classroom discussions. So to me, it seems that the
    NYU Shanghai campus is resulting in more freedom and a greater
    exchange of ideas, not less. To be sure, NYU needs to stay
    vigilant in protecting these freedoms, and I expect that will
    be the case.
        Another issue is whether financial arrangements between
    university partners could prejudice the academic freedom of
    U.S. institutions. Fort Hays State has established two campuses
    in China that issue U.S. bachelor's degrees to Chinese
    students, one through a partnership with Sias International
    University, and one with the Shenyang Normal University.
        Dr. Martin, I guess, will testify in your written testimony
    that the faculty have voluntarily chosen to avoid the topic of
    the Tiananmen Square massacre. The issue is considered too
    sensitive for discussion in China. I think we need to take a
    hard look at this sort of self-censorship and how it relates to
    the academic freedom of American institutions, and I look
    forward to a rich discussion.
        So I am going to end by again thanking the chairman for
    having this very important hearing and thanking our witnesses
    for giving their unique perspectives. That is how we in
    Congress learn. We talk to ourselves too much. We like to learn
    by talking to people who are experts in what they do.
        So thank you all, and I appreciate you coming here today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel.
        Dr. Martin, please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF MIRTA M. MARTIN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, FORT HAYS STATE
                               UNIVERSITY

        Ms. Martin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
    Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Thank you for
    affording me today the opportunity to come before you and to
    provide you with testimony. In the interest of time, and with
    your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will provide you a summary of
    those comments since you have the full spectrum in your
    possession.
        Fort Hays State University was established in 1902 when the
    U.S. House of Representatives decommissioned the U.S. Army
    Base, Fort Hays, and gave the land to form a state university.
    Since then, Fort Hays State University has evolved and is now a
    regional comprehensive university serving close to 14,000
    students through three modalities: On campus, where we serve
    approximately 4,800 students; the Virtual College, which
    delivers online education to about 5,800 students located in
    Kansas, nearly all 50 States, and the U.S. Armed Services
    personnel internationally; and in China, where we have
    approximately 3,100 students.
        In March 1999, Fort Hays State University was introduced to
    a private university in China, Sias International University, a
    university that had previously been approved by the Chinese
    Government. Sias affiliates with the prestigious Zhengzhou
    University, located in the Henan Province of China, which is a
    sister province to the State of Kansas. Fort Hays State
    University's profile was presented to the Ministry of Education
    in China, who approved the request to deliver courses leading
    to a bachelor's degree. This partnership came under the Chinese
    regulation of Sino-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools, and
    the initial agreement was signed in May 2000.
        In the fall of 2000, Fort Hays State University delivered
    its first courses to 40 students. Fort Hays State University
    does not have a satellite campus in China; rather, it operates
    through a partnership agreement to deliver courses leading to
    bachelor's degrees which are dual in nature. These courses are
    taught by faculty hired by Fort Hays State University, many of
    whom live on the campuses of our partner institutions, and Fort
    Hays State University has labeled the delivery of these courses
    cross border education.
        Soon after offering Fort Hays State University's first
    courses, we were asked by the Chinese Government to provide the
    syllabi, textbooks, and other instructional resources, as well
    as the faculty credentials for the courses offered to Chinese
    students. All materials requested were forwarded to the Chinese
    Government, and soon thereafter we were approved to deliver
    bachelor's degrees in China. There was no censorship of the
    content of any course by the government, nor by the university
    partners. The Chinese Government has never asked again to
    review our curriculum, to review our content, or to review the
    faculty credentials.
        In 2010, Fort Hays State University's two partners, Sias
    University and Shenyang Normal University, which was approved
    in 2004, were selected by the Ministry of Education to conduct
    a self-study related to the quality and performance of the dual
    degree programs. Other universities through the world that fell
    under the regulations, entitled Sino-Foreign Cooperation in
    Running Schools, were also selected. The work was not
    inconsequential and the results identified Fort Hays State
    University's practices as a model for other universities. As a
    matter of fact, 50 percent of the partners operating in China
    at that time failed this regulation, and as a result their
    partnerships were canceled.
        The guarantee of teaching quality is the sole
    responsibility of Fort Hays State University. Faculty teaching
    in China report to international coordinators and department
    chairs who are located on the campus of Fort Hays State
    University, just like any other faculty would that teach on our
    campus. All faculty teaching in China are required to attend a
    week-long training in Hays, America, conducted by the Fort Hays
    State University academic units prior to even setting foot in
    China. The Chinese Government, as a matter of fact, has been
    rather impressed that Fort Hays State University spends
    significant financial resources and time to train our faculty
    and to ensure academic rigor and academic consistency.
        Faculty have had total control over the design and content
    of the curriculum. The textbooks and other circulor materials
    are selected only by our faculty. The partners purchase these
    materials from import-export companies and the students are
    required to refer to them in the classroom. Rarely, the
    administration of the universities or the party secretary visit
    the Fort Hays State University courses.
        At this time, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would
    like to brief you very quickly on the programs offered by Fort
    Hays State University in China. All Chinese students enroll in
    an academic program offered by Fort Hays State University and
    they take English Composition sequence 101 and 102, as would
    our students here in the United States. The sequence provides
    the foundation for introducing Chinese students to Western
    values and the Western educational system.
        One of the most important goals of these courses is the
    development of critical thinking and analytical skills. These
    English courses mirror the courses offered on campus at Fort
    Hays State University, although they are augmented with English
    for foreign language learners strategies to accommodate the
    foreign students' abilities as English learners. Chinese
    students are held to exactly the same standards of academic
    integrity as our U.S. students, and classroom practices, such
    as group work, collaboration, and active participation, which
    foster Western educational values. The Department of Leadership
    Studies in the College of Arts and Sciences has offered a
    bachelor of science degree at Sias University and Shenyang
    Normal since 2008.
        Despite the academic freedom enjoyed by faculty teaching
    the curriculum, Fort Hays State University has experienced some
    instances where the faculty of the partner school has been
    complacent in undermining academic integrity, but Fort Hays
    State University has met with the partner institutions'
    leadership team to work through solutions to these issues
    surrounding academic integrity, and requests by Fort Hays State
    University have been met with great support. I will say that
    more faculty and more student training, the use of student
    identification cards, and enforcement of policy need to be
    fully implemented to augment the progress in this area.
        As a whole, Fort Hays State University has dealt with
    issues of academic integrity by taking the stance that we own
    the curriculum and that our standards of academic rigor and
    academic excellence will not be sidetracked. Collaboration
    between Fort Hays State University and the Department of
    Political Science has been extremely positive. We have
    experienced absolutely no efforts to infringe the academic
    freedom or integrity of our Political Science: Legal Studies
    program. All universities have been respectful, transparent,
    and collaborative with each other. Learning about the American
    system of government and law has been the key learning
    objective of this program.
        In the decade of teaching American law and government at
    two institutions in China, Fort Hays State University has never
    encountered any resistance in teaching Western values or
    political structure. Through the political science curriculum,
    the students receive extensive exposure to the U.S. democratic
    system of government and rule of law. In courses such as the
    American Government, Introduction to Law, and Constitutional
    Law, faculty spend a significant amount of time discussing the
    issues of civil liberties, and civil rights, including the
    concepts of due process, equal protection, freedom of speech,
    freedom of the press, freedom of religion and assembly, and the
    rights of criminal defendants. In essence, we discuss our Bill
    of Rights.
        The predominant programs at Fort Hays State University's
    College of Business and Entrepreneurship, such as the Bachelor
    of Business Administration in Management and the Bachelor of
    Administration in International Business and Economics, by
    their nature, typically do not involve subjects that are
    sensitive or political in nature. However, our faculty have
    always had access to Western academic databases, albeit
    limited, and have never been prevented from sharing Western
    scholarship in the classroom setting.
        Every semester Fort Hays State University conducts student
    and faculty evaluations, and the results of these are used by
    the academic departments on the campus of Fort Hays State
    University to modify and improve quality and the performance of
    students overseas. Fort Hays State University faculty display
    principles of academic freedom and transparency in their
    teaching, research, and discussions with the students in China.
    Discussions regarding learning objectives for degree programs,
    majors, and individual courses have all been given and accepted
    in an atmosphere of transparency.
        China's new leader, Xi Jinping, has made no secret of his
    ambitions to revitalize China and increase her influence on the
    global stage, as you have stated earlier, Mr. Chairman.
    President Xi has made it clear that he wants to build an
    innovative society with strong tech firms that compete
    internationally. Fort Hays State University was selected and
    approved to deliver the first American bachelor's degree to
    Chinese students on mainland China, and I believe that because
    of that and because of the strength of our curriculum we are
    highlighting to China and the students all that is great in
    America.
        The challenges that we have faced have been addressed
    together with our Chinese partners under the auspices of their
    respective education commissions, and we have protected the
    academic freedom and integrity of our programs. I believe that
    the greatest outcome of the relationships are our Chinese
    students' expanded knowledge of the world and the United
    States. The Chinese students have similar aspirations to those
    of the U.S. students: To be engaged in their communities, to
    own their own businesses, to be successful leaders and role
    models for their families, and to improve our world.
        Tom Friedman in his book, ``The World Is Flat,'' writes
    that students who have the facility of two languages, have a
    cultural experience in another country, and use technology to
    communicate worldwide are true citizens of the world. They are
    equipped and ready to change the world in a positive way.
        As I conclude, I would like to leave you with some final
    thoughts. From the early days of our Republic, our forefathers
    recognized the value of a widely and highly educated citizenry
    to the success and stability of our Nation. Indeed, we have
    created a system of public and private higher education that is
    the worldwide standard for academic excellence. As an immigrant
    to this country, sir, I submit to you that we, as a Nation,
    need to go back to those roots. We need to return to the
    guiding principles established by our Founding Fathers that
    support and deliver a superb education because it is essential
    to the common good.
        This year the Chinese Government mandated that English be a
    required course in middle school. They are committed to
    educating the citizenry to do business in the global
    marketplace. We need to do the same. We need to look beyond our
    current status and recognize that knowing how to do business in
    the East, that knowing how to do business in the world will be
    a determining factor in the prosperity of our children and the
    success of our Nation. Fort Hays State University stands ready
    to continue to build bridges that connect and educate our
    world.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, distinguished Members
    of the House of Representatives.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Martin follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Dr. Martin, thank you so very much for your
    testimony. And your full statement as well, I think I mentioned
    this earlier, as well as anybody else, will be made a part of
    the record, and anything you want to add to it, any extraneous
    materials.
        Ms. Cao.

      STATEMENT OF MS. YAXUE CAO, FOUNDER AND EDITOR, CHINA CHANGE

        Ms. Cao. Dear Congressman Smith and the members of the
    subcommittee, I am pleased to speak today about the Chinese
    Government's policy on joint higher education ventures, its
    mechanisms of controlling them, the Communist Party's presence
    in these ventures, and the regime's suppression of academic
    freedom in Chinese universities.
        China first set the rules for the joint-venture higher
    education programs in 2003. In 2010, China issued the National
    Plan for Medium and Long-Term Education Reform and Development
    that devotes a chapter, Chapter 16 that is, to these ventures.
    The purpose of these joint ventures is to bring the best
    international higher education resources to China. This
    includes bringing world-class experts and scholars to China to
    engage in teaching, research, and management, conducting joint
    research with the best universities in the world, all to
    advance the science and technology, and encouraging foreign
    universities to use their intellectual property as their share
    of investment in these ventures.
        When entering WTO in 2001, China promised to open its
    education sector to foreign universities, allowing ``foreign
    majority ownership,'' but China has had no intention to deliver
    that promise. Instead, it set up joint ventures with the
    Chinese Government being the controlling party. The rules
    stipulate that the board of these joint ventures must have a
    Chinese majority and the president must be a Chinese citizen.
    Courses and textbooks must be filed with the authorities. These
    programs must provide courses known as political thought
    education to the Chinese students.
        The most insidious part of the control mechanism probably
    lies in the finance of these joint-venture universities. It is
    also the least transparent part. Financial dependence on the
    Chinese Government, even if it is partial, puts foreign
    universities in the vulnerable position where they may feel the
    need to conform to China's expectations, not only on the joint-
    venture campuses, but also on home campuses.
        The 2,000 also joint-venture programs in China are mostly
    focused on advanced technology. Thirty-seven percent of them
    are engineering, while literature, history, and law are less
    than 2 percent each.
        China is also bringing its quest for knowledge to the U.S.
    soil. Last year, China's elite Tsinghua University, the
    University of Washington, and Microsoft launched the Global
    Innovation Exchange Institute in Seattle that focuses on
    technology and design innovation. In the Chinese press this
    institute was described as, ``An important step in the
    milestone of Tsinghua University's international strategic
    deployment.'' China is seeking to invest in the research
    triangle in North Carolina and also establish innovation
    platforms elsewhere in the U.S. with Chinese investment and the
    research expertise from American universities.
        Another component of China's strategy is theft. Reports on
    this abound. For example, in May, Penn State University
    disclosed that its engineering school had been invaded by
    Chinese hackers for more than 2 years. Penn State develops
    sensitive technology for the U.S. Navy.
        China's intentions are probably best illustrated in two
    incidents involving UC Berkeley. In November 2014, Peking
    University gave the president of UC Berkeley an honorary
    professorship, and they expressed the desire in ``cooperation''
    on big data processing technology, which has wide applications.
    Three months later, a labor rights center in Guangzhou jointly
    established by UC Berkeley and the Sun Yat-sen University was
    forced to close as part of a systematic suppression of rights
    activities and civil society in recent years.
        Reports in the Chinese press confirmed the CCP presence on
    joint-venture campuses as well. From the Ministry of
    Education's review of joint-venture programs in 2014, I quote:

            ``Joint-venture universities have established the party
            committees so that there would be a party organization
            wherever there are party members, achieving the party's
            no-blind-spot coverage on the grassroots level. Some
            universities have also established the overseas party
            cells to ensure that the party's work remained
            synchronized with its work at home when students study
            abroad.''

        In China's current political system there has never been
    academic freedom as understood by Americans, though the level
    of repression has fluctuated. Since early 2013, a CCP order
    known as Document No. 9 has shut down what little academic
    freedom was enjoyed before. The Christian Science Monitor
    reported recently that professors were fired or pressured to
    quit their jobs for exposing liberal ideas and teaching them in
    the classroom. Trips to academic conferences were cut or
    constrained. Student reading lists were vetted for ideological
    content. On some campuses classrooms are monitored by
    surveillance cameras.
        Over the last 30 years the Communist regime has benefited
    enormously from the unprecedented transfer of knowledge from
    Western countries, much of it through joint business ventures
    and through theft of intellectual property. Many such relations
    have soured in recent years and the trend is likely to worsen.
    Now it seems that the Chinese Government is duplicating the
    successful model in higher education while pursuing an agenda
    to stamp out the Chinese people's demand of freedom.
        I have no problem with the free exchange of knowledge, but
    I have a problem with freely providing knowledge to the
    Communist regime and to strengthen its grip on power. I have a
    problem with our institutions of higher education looking the
    other way as terrible suppression of freedoms and civil society
    take place in the country.
        On a personal level, for the 3 years I have been an
    activist of human rights in China, all the peoples, I mean all
    the peoples have been in jail now. Some of them left the
    country for political asylum, but almost all of them are in
    jail.
        The U.S.-China relationship for the last 3 years has
    operated on the premise that the U.S. should engage with China,
    help her grow economically, and the economic development will
    lead to the Chinese Communist Party's embracing human rights
    and democratic values. Instead, today we have a monstrous
    combination of state capitalism, the kleptocratic marriage of
    power and money, and the broader and harsher suppression of the
    Chinese people and their legitimate demand for political and
    civil rights. Internationally, we are witnessing an
    increasingly aggressive China, a rising threat to the peace and
    security of the world and a challenge to the existing world
    order.
        One can argue about all the defects of the current order,
    but I assure you with absolute certainty that you do not want a
    global regime set up and dominated by the Chinese Communist
    Party. The CCP has mastered the game of taking advantage of a
    free society like ours. It is sad to see how easily our
    universities can fall prey to the party's scheme. It is my wish
    that American universities are able to see the full picture,
    where they fit into it, and what end they are serving when
    entering joint ventures with the Chinese Government.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Cao follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much for your testimony and
    your research.
        Let me first begin the questioning first with Mr. Lehman,
    if I could. Is it your testimony that the Chinese Government
    officials have no say whatsoever in hiring, firing, promotion
    of NYU personnel, including your professors and teachers?
        And when it comes to admissions, how is that determined?
    For example, can a son or a daughter of a dissident be accepted
    to NYU? What is the cost? What is the tuition, fees, and all
    when you add it all up together for an academic year for a
    student? How much of that is paid for by the Chinese
    Government? I mean, getting to who actually owns NYU Shanghai,
    is it a partnership where 51 percent is you or them? We just
    don't know on this side of the aisle.
        But, again, how much are those student fees and tuition is
    subsidized by the government? And if they don't have a say in
    who is admitted to NYU, I mean, do they just give you the money
    and then you decide who it is that comes in?
        I do want to thank you for the invitation offered broadly
    to Members of Congress. I accept. I would very much like if you
    could provide me with an invitation to speak on human rights. I
    would love to give a lecture on religious freedom and other
    human rights issues.
        This is my 53rd hearing on human rights in China. I have
    chaired probably close to 500, if not more, human rights
    hearings covering from human trafficking, to forced labor, to
    issues of every kind. The students and professors might find it
    of some interest. So I would hope, if you could extend that to
    me when we are not in session, I and my staff will be there.
        Let me also ask you too, and I know I am throwing a number
    of questions right out first, but how do you vet NYU teachers
    there to ensure that--the Chinese Government, as we all know,
    is extraordinarily effective in placing people in positions,
    they do it in business all the time, that keep a very sharp eye
    on others to ensure conformity to what the party wants. How do
    you ensure that the people you are hiring are not agents or
    people reporting back and surveilling both other teachers and
    others, personnel, as well as the students?
        I yield.
        Mr. Lehman. So thank you, Chairman Smith, and I will try to
    answer all of the questions. If I miss one of them, please feel
    free to remind me and I will do my best.
        I will start at the end and the beginning, which was the
    question about faculty appointments and how they work. So
    faculty appointments at NYU Shanghai are the same as they are
    at NYU New York. That is to say, they are led by a provost on
    our campus, who is Joanna Waley-Cohen, who is seated behind me
    today. She was the chairman of the History Department at NYU
    for many years. She was on the NYU faculty for decades before
    coming to NYU Shanghai.
        The process is, we announce that we are holding a search.
    It is a global search, and the search is for the best people in
    the field. The searches are done by discipline. Because we are
    starting out, we don't have a large established faculty in
    Shanghai, and so we rely on faculty from NYU's campus in New
    York to help us to conduct the search. And the search is all on
    the academic merits.
        It is a very rigorous and extensive process. Potential
    faculty members' publications are reviewed by the search
    committee. A small group of finalists are then brought in to
    give what are called job talks, where they have to give a
    lecture, effectively conduct a class in the way that they
    should, and then ultimately offers are extended.
        You can see from Appendix 1 to my testimony the list of the
    people who are teaching at NYU Shanghai. They are
    extraordinarily distinguished people. They did their academic
    training at the finest universities in the world. They did
    postdocs at the finest universities in the world. We also have
    visiting faculty from New York who are members of the National
    Academy of Sciences, the American Academic of Arts and
    Sciences. This is an extraordinary group of faculty. People who
    have held endowed chairs at institutions like Cornell and
    Northwestern University have come to teach with us.
        The Communist Party has no say, the Chinese Government has
    no say, no voice in this process at all. East China Normal
    University, which is the partner to NYU in this process, has no
    voice in this process. Our graduates get degrees from New York
    University. They get degrees from the trustees of New York
    University. They do not get degrees from East China Normal
    University. So NYU is responsible for the education that they
    receive and the quality that they receive.
        In terms of the admissions process, again, it is completely
    controlled by NYU. The process is complex. So half of our
    students come from China and the other half come from the rest
    of the world.
        Mr. Smith. And that is what, about 2,000? What is the
    number that you will build out to?
        Mr. Lehman. When we are full grown, it will be 2,000
    undergraduates. That is to say, 500 per year, 251 from China in
    each entering class, 249 from the rest of the world. In the
    startup period, we have had only 300 students in each entering
    class, so 151 from China, 149 from the rest of the world.
        The students who apply from the rest of the world follow a
    process that is the same as for NYU New York, NYU Abu Dhabi,
    the common application, they submit essays. They indicate which
    campus they would like to go to, and they are free to select
    Shanghai or New York or Abu Dhabi or any two or all three as
    their preferences, and they can rank what their preferences
    are. The process is a little bit more intensive than it is in
    New York because we are small. So our admissions office in New
    York is able to actually conduct video interviews with
    finalists who are applicants in New York.
        Mr. Smith. Can I ask you, while you are answering, can a
    Falun Gong practitioner be admitted to NYU and also be hired as
    a professor?
        Mr. Lehman. Sure. I mean, they could.
        Mr. Smith. Do you have any?
        Mr. Lehman. No, we don't have any. I don't know that we
    have received any. We don't ask people about their religious
    preferences when they apply for application.
        Mr. Smith. But you believe you would be free enough that if
    a Falun Gong practitioner said, ``This is my expertise,'' has
    the academic gravitas to take on that position, you would be
    able to do it?
        Mr. Lehman. Yeah. If they were the most qualified
    applicants we could hire them, absolutely.
        Mr. Smith. But is there any fear of self-censorship where
    you believe that could hurt your standing with the government?
    You would have no such concerns?
        Mr. Lehman. We came on a condition, and the condition was
    that NYU would be NYU. And the government said: Good, that is
    what we would like. If they were to change their mind, then we
    would leave. But so far, so good.
        So as the other witnesses have testified, China is a
    constantly changing place. And it is as Mr. Daly testified
    right now, there are mixed signals all around us. We hear
    different voices all the time. And so we don't know what
    tomorrow will be like. But I would be very surprised if the
    government of Shanghai were to say: Well, sorry, we don't want
    you anymore. But they could. That is their prerogative.
    Conversely, they could try to go partway and say: Well, we want
    you, but you can't have academic freedom. And if they did that,
    then NYU would leave.
        Mr. Smith. Well, can I ask you then in followup, there was
    a letter dated September 3--I am sure you have seen it--2013 to
    the NYU Board of Trustees signed by five members of the
    faculty, including Andrew Ross, the president of NYU AAUP, and
    they wrote, ``We are obliged to record some grave concerns
    expressed by our members about the prospects of academic
    freedom in China and at the new campus.''
        They speak to the seven silences and whether or not those--
    and I mentioned in my opening universal freedoms, press
    freedom, and the like--would be able to be spoken about,
    discussed, inquiry in an unfettered way. And they also said how
    concerned they were, and this is their words: ``Under such
    circumstances, self-censorship of instructors and students is
    certain.'' They didn't say it is a probability, they said it is
    certain. How do you respond to that?
        Mr. Lehman. Well, they are entitled to their opinion, but
    that opinion is not correct. That letter was written just as we
    were starting to begin teaching, and I think it was perhaps
    appropriate at that time for them to have had some concerns
    about how things would play out. But as things have played out,
    we have enjoyed full academic freedom on our campus.
        And so I don't know all five, I don't recall all five of
    the signatories to that letter, but certainly one faculty
    member from New York who was quite vocal in expressing her
    concerns about how things would play out in Shanghai has talked
    with us and has gone back and told people: No, there is
    academic freedom, absolutely, at NYU Shanghai.
        I would actually direct your attention, there is a blog
    published by a professor called PrawfsBlawg, and in it there
    was a submission by a member of our faculty who talked about
    his course at NYU Shanghai. He is a member of the law school
    faculty at NYU New York, and he was visiting with us.
        And in his course, he says, in response to something that
    he had read: ``I could not speak for anyone else at NYU
    Shanghai, but I, myself, am teaching exactly what I want with
    the usual lack of oversight enjoyed by any professor teaching
    at NYU in Washington Square,'' in his course. ``As an example
    of my unhindered freedom, my course requires the students to
    compare U.S. and Chinese constitutional rules and concepts, and
    as background for this comparison I assign so-called
    `sensitive' documents such as the infamous Document Number 9.''
        This is the kind of classroom that we have at NYU Shanghai
    today. And I do believe it is important that we have classrooms
    like this in order to be true to our mission as NYU.
        Mr. Smith. Just so I am totally clear, it is your testimony
    that the seven taboos or seven silences--universal values,
    press freedom, civil society, citizens' rights, criticism of
    the Communist Party's past, neoliberal economics, and
    independence of the judiciary--can all be taught in an
    unfettered way on your campus without any fear of retaliation?
    That is what happening?
        Mr. Lehman. That is my testimony. It is absolutely true.
    That is the case. And I should say, one of the interesting
    points about the seven taboos--and this is just an example of
    how complicated China is today--one of them I think that you
    mentioned is on neoliberal economics as a banned topic. If you
    go in Shanghai to the Tsinghua book store and look, you will
    see a display of two of the most prominent books right now
    there, and one of them is the speeches of Xi Jinping, and the
    other one, next to it, is a Chinese translation of a book by
    Professor Ned Phelps called ``Mass Flourishing.''
        Professor Phelps is a professor at Columbia University. He
    won the Nobel Prize in Economics. And ``Mass Flourishing'' is
    about the way in which modern capitalism is essential to
    enabling humans to flourish in a society that values what he
    calls vitalism. That is Shanghai today.
        And so, yes, on the one hand, there are these seven
    taboos--never given to us, never given to NYU Shanghai, I
    should say, but I have heard about them. I have never seen
    them. But I seen them referred to widely. So there is that
    document out there.
        And I should say Premier Li Keqiang has spoken about Mr.
    Phelps' book and has spoken about its importance. Premier Li
    Keqiang gave a talk in February in which he talked about Adam
    Smith's ``Theory of Moral Sentiments'' and it is importance to
    their thinking about how the economy should develop.
        There are mixed signals everywhere in China today. We at
    NYU Shanghai operate consistent with our principles and no one
    has told us not to.
        Mr. Smith. Not to belabor the point, but how much of a
    student's cost, total costs are borne by the government? And
    does that have any impact as to how you bring students in,
    admit students into the school?
        Mr. Lehman. Sure. So the tuition for NYU Shanghai is the
    same as the tuition at NYU in New York. It is about $45,000 per
    year.
        Mr. Smith. Is that in keeping with other colleges or
    universities in China? Is that parallel to or far in excess of?
        Mr. Lehman. You mean other Chinese universities?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Lehman. Wildly in excess. Wildly in excess of what it
    is. And I believe that that is reflected in the nature of the
    education that we provide. The kind of education we provide is
    very labor intensive and it is very expensive. And I believe
    that it is actually reflected in the difference in the quality
    of the education that we provide.
        Now, that level of tuition would be unaffordable to many of
    the best Chinese students. And therefore one of the important
    conditions of opening NYU Shanghai was that there be a subsidy
    from the government of Shanghai that would enable Chinese
    students to pay 100,000 Renminbi per year, which is about
    $17,000, instead of $45,000. So that works out to about a
    $28,000 per-student subsidy for all Chinese students, not only
    ones----
        Mr. Smith. Who actually pays that, the central government
    or the Shanghai----
        Mr. Lehman. Shanghai, city of Shanghai.
        Mr. Smith. City of Shanghai.
        Mr. Lehman. City of Shanghai.
        And so if you look at the overall structure of our budget,
    as I said, NYU Shanghai is a tub on its own bottom. So no
    profits are distributed to NYU in New York and no subsidy is
    demanded from New York. Our budget is self-contained.
        So when we are full grown, when we have 2,000
    undergraduates, the plan for the budget is that about 60
    percent of the total cost of operating the campus will come
    from tuition, about 25 percent will come from government
    subsidy, and of which about 14 of that 25 percent is going to
    be going to financial aid for Chinese students.
        Mr. Smith. Again, the tuition would be 60 percent. A large
    part of that is from the government as well, so----
        Mr. Lehman. No, no, no. The 60 percent is what is sometimes
    referred to as sticker price tuition. So that is tuition.
    Financial aid reduces that cost for--is part of the
    expenditures against which that operates.
        So another way to think about it, I guess, would be to say
    the total budget will be about $200 million a year. About $60
    million of that, $55 million of that, will be going to
    financial aid. So that means there is about $145 million left
    for operating costs. So I am talking about percentages of the
    $200 million.
        About 60 percent of that $200 million comes from tuition,
    about 25 percent will come from government, and the last 15
    percent will come from private philanthropy, and to the extent
    we operate executive education programs that are able to
    produce net surplus, that will be part of the last 15 percent.
        Mr. Smith. Just one final question on the admissions.
        Mr. Lehman. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. Are the students the children of the elite, are
    they just any child, any young person, I should say, who
    aspires and has the academic credentials to make it? And when
    the decisions are made by your local board, are there Chinese
    nationals on that board who are influencing this or is it done
    exclusively by NYU coming out of New York?
        Mr. Lehman. Exclusively by NYU.
        Mr. Smith. New York, I mean.
        Mr. Lehman. NYU New York. I mean, we have local staff.
        Mr. Smith. But my question is about the vetting before. Who
    are the local staff? I mean, how do you know they are not
    clandestinely part of the government apparatus?
        Mr. Lehman. Well, I could be wrong, I suppose. I mean, I am
    not experienced at spotting----
        Mr. Smith. I mean, to shell out $28,000, you would think
    the government would want to have a main say in who it is that
    gets admitted.
        Mr. Lehman. I don't believe so. The mission here is for us
    to have the best and the brightest in China studying with us.
    So we have students who turned down Peking University, turned
    down Tsinghua University, turned down Fudan, turned down
    Berkeley, turned down Cornell for the opportunity to be a part
    of this very special academic experience.
        The concern both at NYU and, honestly, by the city of
    Shanghai, was that at $45,000 a year it would simply be a
    playground for children of the rich and that would not be
    acceptable. So it was necessary from the beginning to structure
    this to make NYU Shanghai affordable. Now, some students can't
    afford 100,000 Renminbi either, and so we have need-based
    financial aid as well, in addition to sort of the flat
    reduction to 100,000 RMB.
        The process, we have thousands and thousands of applicants
    from all across China for these 150 seats. And so the process
    that is followed is they send us their high school grades,
    their letters of recommendations from principals, their essays.
    And that written portfolio is reviewed first by our staff in
    Shanghai, then by our staff in New York, and a group of about
    500, the top 500, are invited to come to our campus for what we
    call Candidate Day.
        And in Candidate Day, they are in batches of 125. They have
    one-on-one interviews with us. They have sample classes. They
    write essays. We want to be sure that they are ready to study
    in the kind of academic environment that we provide, that their
    English is good enough. And after that Candidate Day process,
    we then identify the top 150 or so, to whom we extend
    conditional offers of admission.
        Now, the condition is that they then have to take this
    Chinese examination known as the gaokao, which I am sure you
    are familiar with, which is the national admissions exam in
    China. They then have to score in the top tier on the gaokao in
    order for their offer of admission actually to be effective.
    Almost all of them do, but every year, unfortunately, some of
    them do not.
        This process, I will say, Chairman Smith, I have complete
    confidence in. It is not an ideological screen. It is not
    controlled by the government. You asked me to speculate why the
    government would give us money to subsidize this if they don't
    get to control admissions.
        Mr. Smith. Or even influence.
        Mr. Lehman. Or even influence admissions. I will give two
    partial answers to that.
        Most of our financial aid in the United States in American
    universities is underwritten by donors, by private
    philanthropists who make gifts, and that accounts for the
    ability to give financial aid. And the question is, why do they
    make these gifts if they don't get to influence who they are
    supporting? And the idea is there is a sense that you are doing
    good if you are opening up access on the basis of merit rather
    than on the basis of financial capacity. And I honestly believe
    that that is a big part of the motivation here.
        Separately, I would say, because we are so small, if there
    were ways for the government to influence who came, to say,
    okay, there is a special side door for children of privilege,
    that would destroy our reputation in China immediately. I mean,
    word would get around in a flash. The social media in China
    today are an unbelievably powerful force. Mr. Daly spoke about
    the comments, about Minister Yuan's comment, alleged comment.
    And I think everyone in China knows that this is all very, very
    visible.
        And so, again, we haven't received that kind of effort to
    influence yet, but if it were to come, we will be vigilant.
        Mr. Smith. Can I ask you, Dr. Martin, did you receive that
    kind of subsidy or anything close to it?
        Ms. Martin. No, sir. Our program is a little bit different,
    obviously, because it is an undergraduate program conducted at
    two universities. Sias University, as I shared earlier, is a
    private university, whereas SNU is a public university.
    Normally students who come to the campuses pay for their
    degree.
        As you know, there are two types of students in China:
    Those who are termed planned, which as was stated earlier,
    achieve a certain high percentage in the gaokao examination,
    and then those who are unplanned, which means that they did not
    fall within the auspices of those examinations.
        The planned students are subsidized normally by the
    government, whereas the unplanned are not. And so for many who
    are unplanned students at the private universities, the
    education and the degree that they obtain through the courses
    and the program at Fort Hays State University is their only
    chance to have access to an education in China.
        Mr. Smith. Any of our distinguished witnesses, if you want
    to chime in or speak out on anything you hear, please.
        Yes, Ms. Cao.
        Ms. Cao. I just want to add a few points, because I was the
    one who did this research on ``NYU Shanghai: What's the Deal,''
    in February. So I know a few things from--almost all my sources
    are from the Chinese language sources when I posted this, and
    several NYU faculties wrote me thinking it is very, very
    helpful, and the fact that they knew it is a joint venture, but
    what it means really was lost to most of the faculty members at
    the NYU here.
        Now, just pick Professor Lehman's comments. I want to point
    out, at least at the early stage, at least that, that may or
    may not be the case now, that at least at the very early stage,
    NPR, when the Shanghai campus opened in 2013, right, NPR had
    the article, interviewed a half-dozen also American students,
    all of them received generous tuition from NYU Shanghai. And
    some were even paid with their plane tickets.
        So where does that money come from? All of them were given
    huge tuition fees that cost--let me read from the original NPR
    report--that one of the students was offered a deal worth
    $228,000. That is huge. And, quote from the NPR report, ``The
    half dozen others with whom NPR spoke said that they got either
    generous discounts or free tuitions.'' So that is one comment I
    want to make.
        Another comment is about the philanthropy part of NYU
    Shanghai. There was an article I found in Chinese that
    described this newly found foundation called the Education
    Development Foundation at the NYU Shanghai. NYU President
    Sexton referred to the three distinguished people on this
    foundation, and I was amazed to find that two of them were
    high-ranking Chinese party officials, retired.
        And these are officials, in the Chinese culture parlance,
    they are called the tui ju er xian de guan bu, which means,
    ``Communist cadres working on the second front,'' meaning that
    they work in the nongovernment sector to exert government
    control.
        So I just find the word ``philanthropy'' is misleading in
    here because of exactly where does the money come from? It
    could still come from the government, even it is labeled as
    fundraising philanthropy. I don't know. I am just saying
    because this foundation is led by former high-ranking
    officials. One of them was a former member of the CCP Central
    Committee. That is very, very high ranking. I mean, you have
    what, 1,000, a few hundred CCP Central Committee members across
    the country?
        And also just on a more playful note, the Chinese elite
    privileged kids, guess what? They don't want to go to NYU
    Shanghai. They all come here, to Harvard, to Princeton, to
    UPenn, and they come here. So that is my comment.
        Mr. Smith. If I could, Mr. Lehman, maybe ask you another
    question, whether or not discussions about--and, Dr. Martin,
    this would be to you as well and any others who would like--can
    there be a robust discussion about the Dalai Lama?
        I led the congressional effort to nominate Liu Xiaobo, Chen
    Guangcheng to get the Nobel Peace Prize, went there when they
    had the big, empty chair, which is one of the most
    heartbreaking scenes ever. And of course Liu Xiaobo's wife is
    not doing very well, and she is under a kind of house arrest.
        Here is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. We are going to hold
    another hearing on Liu Xiaobo very soon to try to keep the
    focus on a Nobel Peace Prize winner who is languishing in
    prison. And my question would be, can you discuss his work? Can
    you do it? Dr. Martin, as well, and Mr. Daly, do you want to
    speak this, or anyone else?
        And, again, in an unfettered way, because the crackdown
    there was so complete they even threatened the Nobel Peace
    Prize Committee and the host country for having the audacity to
    raise his issue, as they did so well in nominating him or
    selecting him.
        Let me also ask with regards to religious freedom, can
    Bible studies exist? Can, again, Falun Gong practitioners
    engage in their spiritual exercise on campus?
        Internet freedom. We know how the Internet is absolutely
    abridged by the great China firewall that is in place. So,
    again, your students--I am not sure there is much anyone can do
    about that except if we keep the pressure on worldwide--but
    they are getting a very filtered set of facts and information
    via the Internet.
        But let me ask you as well, in 1983, 1984, I offered the
    first amendment that passed the U.S. House of Representatives
    on the greatest human rights violation of women's rights ever,
    in my opinion, and that is the egregious one-child-per-couple
    policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal. It requires
    forced abortion by policy. There has been talk since 1985 that
    it is relaxing, and it never seems to bear fruit. It is usually
    proffered for international consumption and to garner a
    headline somewhere that somehow they are relaxing the policy.
        And, frankly, with the implosion that is imminent in China
    because of the missing girls, we had a hearing just a few weeks
    ago, and the number of missing daughters is incalculable. It
    might be as many as 100 million or more, leading to sex
    trafficking and a disproportionality of males to females that
    is causing huge problems for the country. Hopefully, the
    government realizes their self-interest in eliminating such a
    ban on children, making children illegal.
        I asked in this room the head of the Foreign Affairs
    Committee, when she was visiting with a delegation from China,
    how they deal with the fact that 600 women per day commit
    suicide, nowhere else in the world is female suicide more than
    male, except China, and the fact that there is such a terrible,
    terrible toll and a lot of it. We don't know how much.
        But that comes for the Centers for Disease Control--theirs,
    not ours. They challenged my number. We brought down the facts
    and figures and she walked out. That was the end of that
    conversation. That is a loss of women's lives that is, again,
    unparalleled anywhere else in the world, 600 per day.
        My question would be, with regards to the one-child-per-
    couple policy, and Dr. Martin as well, in one of my trips to
    China I asked a number of businesses whether or not they were
    implementing the one-child-per-couple policy, whether or not
    workers can snitch--and that is the word they used--on a women
    who is pregnant without the birth permitted coupon and
    authorization given by the government. And most of the
    businesses told me yes. These were American businesses. Some
    didn't know what I was talking about, but those that did said:
    Sadly, it is part of Chinese law and we follow it.
        And I am wondering what happens to an unwed mother, one of
    your students--and again they are not even allowed one child,
    all unwed mothers are compelled to abort or face ruinous
    fines--what is the university or the college's response to
    that? Are you in any way complicit in enforcing the one-child-
    per-couple policy? Do you have a health clinic?
        My hope is that you are in no way involved, directly or
    indirectly. But what is the case with regards to that?
        Mr. Lehman. So we are in no way involved. We have a clinic
    on campus. It is a health and wellness area. It is very popular
    with our students. The mission of the health and wellness
    clinic is not to enforce the one-child policy. We are not
    charged with enforcing or implementing the one-child policy.
        Mr. Smith. But if a woman is or a young student is
    pregnant, how does that get--I mean, we have had--we have
    worked--I have worked personally, as well as my staff, on many
    cases of women who had a second-order baby, including talking
    to the Ambassador, travelling to Beijing, just to say: Please,
    cease and desist, don't kill that baby simply because the
    authorization wasn't given out.
        What does the clinic do? Do they inform government
    officials? Do they try to hide it?
        Mr. Lehman. So our clinic does not provide abortion
    services. To my knowledge, none of our students have gotten
    pregnant. If one of our students got pregnant, we would have
    absolutely no role in enforcing the one-child policy. We are
    not an arm of the government, Chairman Smith. We are a
    university.
        Mr. Smith. I understand. But my hope would be that you
    wouldn't--I mean, that woman is immediately at risk, and she
    will be forcibly to be aborted. And a student, obviously
    marriages are not even allowed to occur until 25. I read your
    Statement of Labor Values. You have a section on protecting
    women's rights.
        Mr. Lehman. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. You do put in provided by PRC law should be
    protected, talking about pregnancy, childbirth. But, again, the
    dark side of Chinese law when it comes to women and children
    is--one of them--is this terrible one-child-per-couple policy.
        If you could check to see what happens if a woman presents,
    same with Dr. Martin, so that we are no way complicit.
        [The information referred to follows:]
      Written Response Received from Mirta M. Martin, Ph.D., to Question
         Asked During the Hearing by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith
        Fort Hays State University (FHSU) has partnerships with one public
    and one private University in China. Faculty are hired by FHSU to teach
    in China on the campus of the partner Universities. As such, they are
    FHSU employees and they are responsible only to FHSU. They have no
    reason to report any situation to Chinese authorities.

        Mr. Lehman. I will certainly check, Chairman Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Because that is, you know, there is a child's
    life and a mother's life at risk.
        Mr. Lehman. I will check and confirm that we are in no way
    complicit.
    Written Response Received from Mr. Jeffrey S. Lehman to Question Asked
            During the Hearing by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith
        I have double checked and, as I testified, there is no requirement
    that NYU Shanghai report pregnancies to Chinese officials.

        Mr. Smith. That would be very good. I appreciate that.
        Ms. Martin. Mr. Chairman, unlike NYU, of course, you
    realize that Fort Hays State University partners with the
    institutions. So the program is owned in its totality by the
    institution, but it is delivered on a host campus, so to speak.
    So there are other students on that campus. As a matter of
    fact, Sias International University has about 30,000 students
    on its campus, and only a very small minority of those students
    are actually part of the program.
        So to the extent that the communications take place within
    our faculty and our students, their ability to discuss anything
    has never been an issue. The scholarship, their willingness and
    ability to discuss things, as you have discussed, from the Bill
    of Rights all the way up to more sensitive issues, have never
    met opposition by any of the government.
        And to that extent, one of the things that we feel very
    privileged to be able to do is to expand the mind of the
    students. I said to somebody the other day: If you understand
    why people do what they do and you understand the human nature
    of people, then you are able to put them in context and not
    judge them as bad or good, but rather create a system whereby
    you can expand your view of the world. And that is what our
    faculty try to do in China, and they do it very well.
        And addressing your statement about spiritual or religious
    freedom, they are very well able to practice their religion.
    Clearly there is not a Catholic church that they can go into in
    their neighborhood, but they are able to practice their
    religion within their own homes.
        Mr. Smith. Before going to Mr. Sherman, I do have some
    other questions that I will finish with. But under number five,
    protecting women's rights, NYU's Statement of Labor Values, it
    says: ``Women's rights during pregnancy, childbirth, and
    nursing period will be protected as provided by PRC law.''
        That is the problem, the PRC law, which is outrageously
    unethical, immoral, and out of any human rights norms, even
    according to U.N. principles, Cairo Population, ICPD, or
    anything else, because it is forced, it is coerced. And so what
    does that mean, ``as provided by PRC law,'' in your statement?
        Mr. Lehman. I wasn't part of the drafting of that, but my
    understanding, at least the way I understand it, is under
    Chinese law, after you give birth you are entitled to paid
    leave. And I don't know, I think it may be 4 months. And so I
    think this is guaranteed paid leave.
        Mr. Smith. But it does say during pregnancy as well. PRC
    law during pregnancy makes that child at the gravest risk of
    extermination at any time during their life on the planet.
        Mr. Lehman. I believe, Chairman Smith, that that provision
    is intended--I think it is framed in terms of protecting the
    rights of the woman, I believe. And so I think what that is
    intended to do is to say to the extent that Chinese law creates
    a floor under the rights of the woman, those will absolutely be
    respected. And that is not only by NYU Shanghai, but by anyone
    who deals with NYU Shanghai.
        Mr. Smith. Okay. But, again, we are talking the rights of
    the women here would be coercive population control, including
    forced sterilization and forced abortion, which is so
    egregious, at Nuremberg, at the Nazi war crimes tribunal, it
    was construed to be a crime against humanity, which it is.
    Twice the U.S. Congress has called it a crime against humanity.
        So my point is, if you could clarify that for us, what do
    you mean by that? Because if it just means enforcing--and this
    is what I have gotten from many businesses operating in China,
    it is what we got from Google when we talked about the issue of
    censorship, a different issue, of course, that they were just
    following law as promulgated by the PRC.
        Mr. Lehman. So the point of the Statement of Labor Values,
    and it is comparable to the one that I believe was praised by
    Human Rights Watch as it was applied in Abu Dhabi, the point of
    this is to ensure that workers on projects associated with NYU
    Shanghai have their labor rights respected and enforced. And
    you are pointing at number five. I believe it is 13 paragraphs.
    Is that right?
        Mr. Smith. Fourteen.
        Mr. Lehman. Fourteen paragraphs of rights in different
    areas. And the point is to say that in each of these areas,
    including worker safety, including guarantees that they will be
    paid, that their rights will be respected and enforced. Because
    sometimes, as you know, in many countries, including in China,
    there will be times when there are rights on paper that are not
    respected.
        Mr. Smith. But it is precisely at the workplace where the
    one-child-per-couple policy is implemented. So whether these be
    contractors or whatever, that is the point of contact where
    they have their greatest means of compliance, and that is where
    the snitches come in, fellow workers, who are rewarded or
    penalized if they do not bring to the attention of the family
    planning cadres that so and so is pregnant without being given
    the ability--without getting the authorization from the
    government.
        Mr. Lehman. Yes, Chairman Smith, I understand that. We will
    get back to you.
        Mr. Smith. So that would be both from the worker's point of
    view, as well as from the student's.
        Mr. Lehman. Exactly.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
        I would point out that while fining a woman for having a
    child seems a deprivation of human rights, Mr. Lehman points
    out that in other cases China provides 4 months of paid leave.
    A woman seeking 4 months off in the United States faces a fine
    equal to 4 months pay.
        Mr. Smith. Not everywhere. Not in New Jersey.
        Mr. Sherman. Well, everywhere in the United States there is
    no paid maternity--there is paid maternity leave in New Jersey?
        Mr. Smith. State government.
        Mr. Sherman. Oh, if you are an employee of the State
    government. Okay. Well, the vast majority of my constituents
    are not employees of any government, and it is good to see that
    the State is generous to its own employees. It would be nice to
    see how we can work that out for all employees.
        Let's see. Mr. Lehman, if one of your students is sitting
    in your library in Shanghai and they Google ``Tiananmen Square
    1989,'' and they do it on Google.com, what do they see? Do they
    see what I see or do they see what everybody else in Shanghai
    sees?
        Mr. Lehman. They see what you see.
        Mr. Sherman. So you get around the Great Firewall of China?
        Mr. Lehman. We are part of NYU's global network.
        Mr. Sherman. Gotcha.
        Mr. Lehman. And so in order for us----
        Mr. Sherman. Let me move on.
        Ms. Lawrence, first, thank you so much for all the guidance
    you provide to my staff and myself. Second, how much money is
    China throwing into these Confucian Institutes here in the
    United States or otherwise in order to give free services,
    professorial and otherwise, or cash to U.S. universities? Is
    this a big thing?
        Ms. Lawrence. I am afraid I don't have a number. I could--
    --
        Mr. Sherman. I mean, are there a dozen or several dozen
    professors fully paid by the Chinese Government here in the
    United States?
        Ms. Lawrence. My understanding is that usually the Hanban,
    which is the organization in China that manages Confucius
    Institutes, provides a certain amount of money per Confucius
    Institute to get it set up. And it can be up to, I think, about
    $500,000, somewhere between $100,000 and $500,000, but I think
    it depends on the university. Robert may have more information
    there actually.
        Mr. Daly. Well, in addition to those arrangements, you are
    right, the Hanban has also started to propose endowed
    professorships to universities. The test case on this a few
    years ago----
        Mr. Sherman. So this would be the chair in----
        Mr. Daly. Chair, faculty member.
        Mr. Sherman. Okay. These faculty would teach the nine-dash
    line is----
        Mr. Daly. No. The test case was in Stanford a few years
    ago. In fact, I testified in 2011 before Congressman
    Rohrabacher's committee on this. And there was a fight at
    Stanford, there was concern because the faculty got a say about
    the constraints that the Chinese side would put either on the
    specialty of the faculty member or teaching. Stanford won that
    argument, and they took the money for the chair sans
    conditions, and it was all designed by Stanford University, and
    the money still came through----
        Mr. Sherman. I know at least one major university has
    turned down the money or pulled out presumably because they
    didn't get that.
        Mr. Lehman, you suggested that the Federal Government pay
    money to U.S. students at your university and elsewhere. All I
    can say is nice try. This would be basically a lottery ticket
    in the sense that there are 1 million American students that
    would want it, and five or ten would get it, and I am not going
    to cut cancer research in order to send you students. You are
    going to have to get those on your own.
        Let's see. Ms. Lawrence, Chinese students studying here in
    the United States, are they studying STEM, science and
    technology, engineering, math, or are they studying business?
    Kind of give me a vague breakdown. Humanities versus business,
    business law versus----
        Ms. Lawrence. Traditionally, the Chinese students coming to
    the United States in the early wave of students came to do
    graduate study and often were studying STEM subjects, in part
    because they didn't require such strong language abilities. If
    you were studying mathematics you didn't have to have
    incredibly fluent----
        Mr. Sherman. What do we see now?
        Ms. Lawrence. But now we are moving into an era where there
    are many Chinese students now starting to come over actually at
    the undergraduate level too. I was recently in Beijing and
    hearing that one of the best high schools in Beijing----
        Mr. Sherman. But you may have heard the exchange with Mr.
    Rohrabacher. If they are here learning the technology that will
    strengthen China, that is one thing. If they are here learning
    American values, that is something else. Are they here reading
    the works of Chairman Smith on human rights in a humanities
    course or are they here learning how to beat us at technology?
        Ms. Lawrence. I think that now the new wave of students who
    are coming not just at the graduate level but now also at the
    undergraduate level, I think they are starting to study rather
    more diverse subjects than the first wave.
        Mr. Sherman. What about the institutes that we are
    basically focusing on in these hearings, the Chinese campuses
    of U.S. universities, are they teaching STEM, or are they
    teaching business and law, or are they teaching humanities, or
    mostly one, mostly the other?
        Ms. Lawrence. There is a wide range of models for these
    U.S. universities that are operating in China. So NYU Shanghai
    is one model, and it is a joint campus. It is a joint venture
    between NYU and East China Normal University, with East China
    Normal University as the majority partner, and it is providing
    a liberal arts education.
        The number of joint campuses is very small. There are three
    U.S. universities that have been given this independent legal
    person status, which Vice Chancellor Lehman could explain more
    what the implications of that status are.
        There are only 13 U.S.-partnered institutions that China
    recognizes and approves as collaborative education
    institutions, but there are more than 100 other U.S.
    universities that are involved in offering degree programs on
    Chinese campuses.
        And so it kind of varies depending on the model, but I
    would say that the bulk of the degrees that are being offered
    by U.S. institutions in China, a lot of them are business,
    engineering degrees, some English degrees. There are a few
    unusual degrees. There is one U.S. university that is offering
    a music degree. There is another U.S. university that is
    offering a dance degree. But for the most part it is more STEM,
    business.
        Mr. Sherman. Chancellor Lehman, if I got you right, you
    testified that you are not aware of any of your students being
    pregnant. That is the first time a chancellor of a non-all-male
    university has ever said that here in Congress. Obviously then
    you are not focused on that, but the chancellor of UCLA has
    never said that.
        I will ask Ms. Lawrence first, but perhaps others as well.
    What does the Chinese Government do to insulate the students
    that it sends to the United States from the wrongful influences
    of those who would want to break the pots of the Chinese
    Communist Party? What do they do to prevent the students they
    send here from bringing back American political values?
        Ms. Lawrence. The Chinese Government does allow, does
    encourage a lot of the students now to come and study in the
    United States. There are Chinese student groups on a lot of
    campuses which have very close relationships with the Chinese
    Embassy, the Chinese consulates.
        Mr. Sherman. Are they spying on the Chinese students in
    what they are saying and doing?
        Ms. Lawrence. I wouldn't know whether they are spying on
    them, but I think they do coordinate with the Embassy. You see
    when major Chinese leaders are visiting, often there will be
    groups organized by these Chinese student groups to take
    Chinese students studying in the U.S. to come and join welcome
    parades and that sort of thing for visiting officials.
        Mr. Sherman. Let me ask, Ms. Cao, if someone was interested
    in commemorating the events of Tiananmen Square in 1989, would
    it be wise for them not to cause the Chinese students
    organization described by Ms. Lawrence, take steps so that they
    wouldn't be aware of that effort? Or would you walk into one of
    these Chinese student groups with a big ``remember Tiananmen''
    badge on and feel just comfortable?
        Ms. Cao. You will feel uncomfortable. There is evidence of
    that, there is incidences of that. And the associations of
    Chinese students and scholars on larger American campuses, like
    Columbia University, MIT, there is strong evidence supporting,
    showing that there is very close cooperation and influence from
    the Chinese consulates and the Embassies.
        And in the UK, in Cambridge, there was an example--well, I
    can only quote examples that are in the paper, that is how we
    get to know. But I have no reason to assume that was an
    isolated incident.
        Now, a couple years ago in Cambridge University, the
    university authorities actually cancelled the Chinese student
    association because of the Chinese Embassy's influence on who
    will become the president of that association, because these
    associations are called on, for example, when Chinese leaders
    are visiting, they are called on to wave the flags, and they
    are paid the meal and money to do that. And when the Tibetans
    protest, these students are organized, these associations at
    the behest of the Embassy or consulate are going to do the
    counter protest, things like that. There are a lot of incidents
    like that.
        Mr. Sherman. Ms. Lawrence, if you are an agent of a foreign
    government or paid by a foreign government, aren't you supposed
    to register? I realize that we heard a description of what went
    on in England, but assuming that there are Chinese student
    organizations being subsidized by and the officers being
    selected by the Chinese Embassy, should those students be
    registering as agents of the PRC?
        Ms. Lawrence. I have to refer you to another branch of CRS
    which handles U.S. domestic law. I focus on China, so I am
    afraid I am not familiar with----
        Mr. Sherman. Okay. Get those folks to give us an answer.
        Ms. Lawrence. Sure.
        [The information referred to follows:]
    Written Response Received from Ms. Susan V. Lawrence to Question Asked
                During the Hearing by the Honorable Brad Sherman
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Sherman. I don't know who else----yes, Ms. Cao, you
    have a----
        Ms. Cao. Just a few weeks ago, very recently, the Chinese
    student association at Columbia University was shut down by the
    university and the reason they gave is that, well, they broke
    some rules. And I recently, just last week, I talked to a
    Reuters reporter, I urged him to dig deeper, because I believe
    it is likely, very likely there is something else, not just
    leaving food after their events or something like that.
        Mr. Sherman. That is so unusual at an American university.
    If you were to shut down the Albanian students organization at
    UCLA, the whole campus would erupt.
        Mr. Daly, what can U.S. campuses do to ensure that Chinese
    students are not only protected from this intimidation or
    observation, but are actually encouraged to break the pots of
    the Chinese Communist Party?
        Mr. Daly. They can do very little directly. There have
    always been organized----
        Mr. Sherman. Well, let's back up a little bit. They send
    the kids here to study STEM. Can we require at all our
    universities, if you are here to study STEM, you have to take
    one or two courses where you may read the writing----
        Mr. Daly. American universities all have distribution
    requirements, they have general education requirements. What
    American campuses can do is be American campuses. Where is our
    confidence? Yes, there are attempts by the consulates and the
    Embassies to infiltrate Communist Party cells----
        Mr. Sherman. So you don't have U.S. universities saying:
    Hey, we really want the Chinese money. We will let students
    come here. We will give them some sort of certificate. They can
    take nothing but math and science.
        Mr. Daly. American universities provide the opportunity,
    the environment, and all of the stimuli that are the best
    antidote to everything the Chinese Communist Party is
    attempting to do.
        Mr. Sherman. Unless they are willing to provide programs
    designed with the interests of the PRC in mind. Are there
    universities that, regardless of the breadth requirements they
    have for their U.S. students, either have some certificate
    program or degree program designed to teach STEM to Chinese
    students without exposing them? I see Dr. Martin is saying no.
        I realize no for your own campus. Does that apply to every
    campus you are aware of? Is there any university in this
    country that is saying: Come here, bring your Chinese dollars,
    study math and science and technology, and you can leave, and
    you don't have to take a course in politics, humanities,
    anything like that?
        Ms. Martin. Sir, I don't have the vast knowledge to be able
    to answer.
        Mr. Sherman. But have you heard of any such example?
        Ms. Martin. However, every single institution of higher
    education is governed and accredited by a regional accrediting
    body to whom we have to answer. And as such, we provide this
    accrediting body a list of all of our programs and they approve
    it. Within those programs, as was stated earlier, there are the
    general education programs that include your English, your
    sciences, your mathematics, your humanities, your social
    sciences.
        Mr. Sherman. So there is no certificate somebody can earn
    without those breadth requirements?
        Ms. Martin. A certificate is a specialized series of
    courses in a specific area. And so the answer would be,
    certainly it could be designed, but I am not aware. It wouldn't
    be a degree.
        Mr. Sherman. Let me just make a comment. I am concerned
    with Chinese money influencing American thought. I think the
    number one problem is the corporate sector where hundreds of
    billions of dollars are made and lobbyists for the benefit of
    China descend upon this place and descend upon the media,
    particularly the business cable channels, with an amount of
    power that far exceeds our influence in China.
        I know some of you said we have got the soft power way
    beyond what they do. That is true if you just ignore money,
    lobbying, and the effect of money on cable television and think
    tanks. If you just ignore money and focus only on the academia,
    then you would say that we have got the soft power and they
    don't.
        And then finally, as I mentioned, when China controls a big
    chunk of the movie theaters in the United States, they control
    or influence what studios will choose to make, and those of you
    who are looking for a second Gere movie on Tibet will have to
    look at just some movie that is, like, made for cable. It will
    not be a theatrical run.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for these hearings. I
    know that you have some additional questions.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
        Ms. Martin. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say something.
    While I am not able to speak on behalf of every single
    institution of higher education as to what course of study they
    may or may not have or what certificate they may or may not
    have, I believe that I can speak on behalf of every institution
    in this country to the fact that the academic integrity of our
    programs highlight and dictate who we are as an academic
    institution. And speaking for them, and certainly on behalf of
    Fort Hays State University, no amount of money will ever be
    able to be given to me to sacrifice the name or the credibility
    of my institution or those of higher education in the United
    States.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Just a couple of final questions, and again I
    thank you for the generosity of your time as well this
    afternoon.
        Mr. Lehman, I am encouraged when you say the seven taboos,
    there is not a concern. I think I am concerned that
    surveillance can be very, very ubiquitous. It could be
    everywhere.
        When Frank Wolf and I made our way over to the PRC, to
    Beijing, immediately prior to the Olympics, we brought with us
    a prisoners list that the Congressional-Executive Commission on
    China, which I chair, had put together, a very extensive list,
    as you know, that really goes to great depth. It is one of the
    best prisoners lists I have ever seen. It is updated
    constantly, combed to make sure that it is accurate.
        And while Congressman Wolf and I were in the Embassy van,
    it is the only time we talked about this, we talked about,
    kiddingly, going to Tiananmen Square, because we were on our
    way to another meeting, and unfurling a banner that called for
    human rights. Twenty minutes to twenty-five minutes later the
    U.S. Embassy got a phone call saying that if Smith and Wolf
    unfurl the human rights banner at Tiananmen Square--which was a
    fiction, we were talking to each other, and we did make one
    phone call in which we mentioned it as well--we would be
    immediately escorted to the airport or worse, and the Embassy
    was very concerned. This was right before a big showcase
    Olympics.
        And the ability to embed surveillance equipment and the
    like in the classroom when the Embassy van may have been
    compromised, I don't know that, but my own and my
    subcommittee's computers have been compromised at least once
    and the PRC hacked into them. So I am concerned about when
    someone does go beyond or says Tiananmen Square.
        I mean, Chi Haotian, as we all remember, when he came into
    town during President Clinton's tenure in office, was given a
    19-gun salute. He was the butcher of Beijing, as you know, was
    the operational commander, and then at that point when he was
    in town was the Defense Minister, he said nobody died at
    Tiananmen Square. We put together a hearing 2 days later. We
    had people who were there on the square, including
    correspondents, and someone from the People's Daily, who said
    people died and they died in large numbers.
        I mean, the ability of this government in Beijing to do
    unbelievably nefarious things and to lie in broad daylight, I
    mean, here he was in Washington at the Army War College saying
    nobody died at Tiananmen Square. I thought Mr. Clinton did a
    terrible thing in honoring him. He should have been on his way
    to The Hague for crimes against humanity. But that said.
        So I am concerned, and I completely accept your sincerity
    and the fact that as a very learned man you believe this is the
    case, and I absolutely hope it is true.
        But I do want to ask you a question. The whole episode with
    Chen Guangcheng, and Jerry Cohen was one of my witnesses
    earlier on, so it is not like I have any animus toward NYU, and
    I want that clear and unmistakable. And we held hearings, like
    I said, I had worked on his case for about 5 years when he
    first was put behind bars. And the way that I was treated, you
    know, who cares. The way Chen was treated was what really
    concerned me. But even as he was flying into Newark
    International Airport, huge efforts, including Under Secretary
    Kennedy, who I was on the phone with, ensured that I did not
    meet him at the airport. He was ushered, when he came in, we
    were at the gate, and I know because the man who ran the Port
    of Authority used to be my intern and he couldn't believe the
    great lengths and hoops being jumped through to ensure that my
    wife and I were not there at the gate to greet him. I thought
    it was a bit bizarre, frankly. But that said.
        We made our way over to the NYU. I was pushed to the side,
    and I mean literally brought to the side by someone working for
    NYU, and if it wasn't for Chai Ling yelling, as he got out of
    the van, ``Chris Smith is here,'' he perked up and walked over
    to the direction of what she said, and I shook his hand, that
    was the end of it, and I was shunted to the side again.
        The meetings that we had with him were always, particularly
    in the early days, and we tried hard to have meetings, they
    were hostile. And I was bewildered by it, and I mean
    bewildered. Then I heard from Mr. Chen how he repeatedly was
    admonished, maybe threatened, but admonished may be a kinder
    word, about coming to Washington, testifying before our
    subcommittee. He never got the answer from the administration
    or from anyone else about the agreement, which it turns out
    probably was just oral, it was never written, with the Chinese
    Government about looking into his case. So more subterfuge
    there.
        And then when he came down, as I said in my opening before,
    to an event that we suggested with former Speaker Pelosi and
    Speaker Boehner, which I think was a great success, that was
    frowned upon. And then he was told the day after he testified
    here, and it took almost a year to get him here because of
    these obstacles, that he was gone.
        Whether it be Lech Walesa or Nelson Mandela or any other
    world-class human rights leader, not to treat Chen with that
    kind of--the respect, I mean, if it was my university, you are
    here for as long as you want to be. And he was even told: See
    what your right-wing friends like Smith can do. And thankfully
    I was able to with phone calls within an hour of his ouster, or
    information about his ouster, to set up for him to become part
    of a three-part sponsorship, including Catholic University of
    America, the Lantos Foundation, and the Rutherford Institute.
        So it has been a very strange episode. I don't have the
    answers for it. I read his book. He had concerns about how he
    was treated, especially by the U.S. Government.
        So a very specific question, and it is done in the hopes of
    just clearing the air. Did the PRC officials in any way
    pressure, advise, or convey any message to NYU personnel
    concerning Chen Guangcheng's case? And if so, how were those
    messages conveyed? And was Chen's situation perceived by NYU as
    a threat to NYU's Chinese programs, including at Shanghai
    campus?
        I know that he was admonished many times not to go into
    certain directions. I mean, he was incarcerated and tortured,
    as was his wife, because he brought up the one-child-per-couple
    policy and in Linyi tried to defend women who were being
    horribly abused. And to suggest he ought to talk about
    corruption and rule of law generically and esoterically without
    getting into details was, again, mind-boggling. You wouldn't
    say to Nelson Mandela: By the way, don't bring up apartheid.
    You just wouldn't do it. That is why he was singled out for
    punishment.
        So if you could answer that question, I would appreciate
    it.
        Mr. Lehman. So the simple answer to the question is no. The
    Chinese Government did not attempt to influence NYU's dealings
    with Mr. Chen. I should say I was in China at the time. I was
    not in New York. No one spoke to me ever.
        Mr. Smith. But that is just you. I am talking about NYU
    personnel.
        Mr. Lehman. NYU personnel in general, I mean, I will say it
    should be remembered that when Mr. Chen sought refuge in the
    Embassy in Beijing and Harold Koh was there and was working to
    trying find a solution so that he could leave China, to my
    knowledge NYU was the only university that offered a fellowship
    to Mr. Chen to enable him to leave. Other universities were
    approached and they refused.
        And this was at the time that NYU Shanghai was being
    negotiated. This was before there was any agreement to create
    NYU Shanghai. And so NYU was not worried about the possibility
    that they might lose NYU Shanghai. This was not a motivating
    factor at all.
        Mr. Smith. With total respect, at that point I agree
    completely. It was as he came here and as his time in the
    United States began to unfold that the pressure seems to have
    been applied.
        Mr. Lehman. I don't believe there was any pressure applied.
    I have spoken with people who worked with--I have never meet
    Mr. Chen, but I have spoken with people who worked with him. I
    have spoken with people who worked closely with him while he
    was here. None of them ever felt any pressure whatsoever. And I
    believe, Chairman Smith, if NYU Shanghai was being used as a
    lever, I would have been told.
        Mr. Smith. Would anybody else like to say anything before
    we conclude?
        Yes.
        Ms. Cao. I just want to quickly make it, because this
    matters a lot, the Internet freedom on these campuses. My
    research on the Chinese sources, my impression is that the
    situation varies from campus to campus. On the campus like NYU
    Shanghai where you have half of the students are American
    students, it may very well be the case that they have free
    access to Internet.
        But I just read an article on Hong Kong's Ming Bao that
    reported that on the Shenzhen campus of the Chinese University
    of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong university invested the capability
    of using their own VPN, which is completely free, like on their
    Hong Kong campus, but the university, the students, in the end
    were not allowed to use the Hong Kong university's VPN. Instead
    they have a domestic VPN that has the Great Firewall of China.
        So my guess is that from these joint programs their
    Internet freedom probably varies. If the student body is
    entirely Chinese the likelihood is that they won't have
    complete Internet freedom.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. Again, I want to thank you for your
    leadership, your generosity. This has been a long hearing.
        And without objection, I would ask that Dr. Dawood Farahi,
    the president of Kean University's testimony be included in the
    record. We did invite Dr. Farahi to be here. We will invite him
    again for a future hearing. But without objection, his
    statement will be included in the record.
        This hearing is adjourned, and thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]