[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 94 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3279-S3281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   China and the Student Visa Program

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Kansas.
  I want to talk a little bit about a hearing I chaired yesterday, a 
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration hearing that was called 
``Student Visa Integrity: Protecting Educational Opportunity and 
National Security.'' The point of the hearing was to raise awareness 
about a very serious issue and to hear from the Federal agencies 
responsible for our national security, visa policy, and the vetting of 
foreign nationals studying in the United States.
  We hoped to shed light on policies and procedures that are in place, 
what should be in place but is not, and to address what has become a 
growing source of concern; that is, foreign countries taking advantage 
of their international students studying in the United States and 
turning them into intelligence assets or otherwise using them to gain 
information that will help other countries grow their economy and their 
military in a way that undermines U.S. leadership in both of those 
areas.
  That issue relates primarily to China's aggressive plan to surpass 
the United States on all fronts--militarily, economically, and 
technologically--and to do so by whatever means necessary. We already 
know that China is perhaps the No. 1 abuser of cyber space to steal 
intellectual property and to use that to advance its economy or its 
military. They have been very public about their ultimate goal; that 
is, to use whatever means they need in order to advance their economy 
or their military.
  It is important to remember that China is not a democracy like ours. 
China is a Communist country guided by a doctrine that does not 
recognize the human rights or individual rights that we take for 
granted here in the United States and in other democracies.
  They made it very clear what they intend to do. For example, in its 
``Made in China 2025'' strategy, which is something that has been 
published--you can read it yourself--China is accelerating its efforts 
to acquire U.S. intellectual property and sensitive research. That is 
where our universities in particular come in.
  Billions of Federal tax dollars--I think it is $178 billion in the 
Omnibus appropriations bill alone--are given to universities to conduct 
research to benefit the American people and hopefully all of humankind. 
Some of that research is sensitive because it is classified research. 
We had, for example, the head of security at the Texas A&M University 
System talk about the steps they have taken to protect that from prying 
eyes because of the sensitivity of some of that research.
  Universities are ground zero in this threat. This past February, 
Director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Intelligence 
Committee in an open hearing about the security risk posed by certain 
Chinese students, visiting scientists, and scholars at American 
colleges and universities. His remarks were brief, and because of the 
sensitive and classified aspects of some part of what he said, he 
couldn't provide the full context and breadth in that open setting, but 
what he did say publicly was alarming. He said that the FBI is 
``watching warily'' and that ``naivete'' was exacerbating the problem. 
What I think he meant by that is that people were simply unaware and 
thus unprepared for what was happening. He also made very clear that 
the Chinese Government was intent on doing whatever it needed to do--
whether it is placing intelligence officers or other agents of the 
Chinese Government on campuses--to get the information they want.
  We are fortunate to have the world's top universities and colleges, 
and they are known for their open research, which fosters collaboration 
and innovation across a broad array of industry sectors and academic 
disciplines. One of the crown jewels of our country is our colleges and 
universities and the research they do, but our openness is also a 
vulnerability when being exploited by other countries for their own 
purposes.
  What is happening now, Director Wray says, is that foreign actors 
have taken advantage of that open environment and are using it to 
study, learn, and acquire sensitive information to the detriment of 
U.S. national security--and that is what we are primarily talking about 
here.
  It is not an isolated problem. Director Wray said that the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation is actively monitoring universities in all of 
its 56 field offices across the country, not just in major cities. 
Nearly all students and visiting scholars come for legitimate reasons. 
I take that as a given. We are not talking about everybody; we are 
talking about the isolated few. But the danger still remains. Most are 
here to learn and share our culture and to contribute their talents to 
America.
  I tend to think that our colleges and universities are the best 
elements of our soft power as a nation. When people come here and learn 
more about us and where we share values, perhaps even take those values 
back to their home country and serve as someone we can talk to and work 
with in the future, it promotes world peace, promotes mutual 
understanding, and, as I said, I think it is one of the most important 
elements of our soft power as a country.
  I am not here suggesting that we ought to conflate Chinese Communist 
Party influence on all students and academics--far from it. Students 
from across the world are certainly welcome; we welcome them with open 
arms to come to study at our colleges and universities, and I encourage 
them to explore opportunities to do so.
  What yesterday's hearing was actually about was not them but a small 
subset of people we should be concerned about--security risks, those 
who are here to steal and exploit our intellectual property and our 
national security and economic advantages, people who don't respect the 
rule of law as we do when it comes to intellectual property rights.
  As the FBI Director said, we can't be naive. This theft is occurring. 
It has been well documented, and we have to take the necessary 
preventive measures to ensure that it doesn't continue.
  By the way, I have mentioned one country, China, but certainly these 
concerns are not limited to China. There are more than 5,000 Russian 
students studying in the United States. There are other countries, 
including state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, that have foreign 
students here, actively working to steal U.S. technology and bypass 
expensive research and development and exploit the student visa program 
to gain information that will benefit their countries.
  I will just pause for a moment to say that we spend untold amounts of 
money in this country--taxpayers' hard-earned money--to research and 
develop the newest, most innovative products. That is true in the 
military sector and in the nonmilitary sector.

[[Page S3280]]

But when the American taxpayer pays to produce the necessary weapons 
and necessary infrastructure to protect us and our security, and other 
countries are actively trying to steal it and don't have to pay that 
research and development cost, we can see the obvious problem.
  Yesterday's hearing exposed a bigger problem, and that is the issue 
of competing global visions. Communist China makes no secret of the 
fact that Karl Marx is, in effect, their national hero. There was a 
week-long celebration in China just last month, which included a 
mandatory study session, led by President Xi, of Marx's famous work, 
``The Communist Manifesto.'' Events like this show that China, while a 
rival, in some ways could be a wolf in sheep's clothing when it comes 
to its most aggressive tactics, which I mentioned just a moment ago. 
When it tries to present itself as a westernizing economy and a friend 
of the global community of nations, China conveniently ignores facts 
about its alternative development model and its state-controlled 
economy, the fact that it respects no law in pursuit of those policies. 
It also disguises and downplays its geopolitical aims--to rewrite the 
rules of our world order and recreate them in China's own image.
  Whether it is China's increasing belligerence in places like the 
South China Sea, its crushing of internal political dissent, its 
flagrant human rights violations, or its population controls--like the 
one-child policy, which I understand has now been relaxed, but parents 
are not free to have all the children they want. It is controlled by 
the government; you have to ask the government's permission--China has 
repeatedly shown itself as a power-hungry authoritarian country, 
willing and able to violate the rights of its own people and dismissive 
and contemptuous of international norms and international law.
  I don't intend to sound hyperbolic about this, but this is the truth. 
So let's not deceive ourselves into believing otherwise. That is what 
Director Christopher Wray of the FBI calls naivete. Let's not be naive. 
Let's be wary when China tries to just blend in internationally. Its 
rosy rhetoric and misleading narrative of cooperation are often 
camouflaged for its true and more troubling aims.
  We know that there are high-level negotiations between the United 
States and the Chinese Government on the issue of trade, and that is a 
good thing.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining for the majority.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for one minute 
to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I joined a number of other Senators, 27 
Senators, to talk about ongoing trade negotiations with China. The main 
point of the letter was to emphasize that there is no question that 
China is actively seeking to surpass the United States economically and 
militarily. It is imperative that neither the Federal Government nor 
private U.S. companies abet that effort either deliberately or 
inadvertently.
  When it comes to China, national security isn't just a pretext for 
economic protectionism. It should not be. I, like many of my 
colleagues, believe strongly in free trade, and we shouldn't use 
national security as a pretext for economic protection. But the 
national security concerns are indeed real, for example, in the ZTE 
matter, which is a subject of some debate--as it should be--and 
discussion here in the Congress following the negotiation by Secretary 
Ross of a deal that he is proposing.
  For those of us who serve on the Intelligence Committee and on the 
Armed Services Committee, I assure you, the threat China poses is real, 
and the dangers we worry about are already taking effect. Our inaction 
could have only negative consequences, and we need to aim to prevent 
any future negative consequences for our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak on 
the nomination of Kenneth Marcus to lead the Department of Education's 
Office for Civil Rights, a nomination we are going to vote on in just a 
few minutes.
  First of all, I want to say that I am pleased President Trump and 
Secretary DeVos have moved away from their original choice for this 
position. I believe the current Acting Assistant Secretary, Candice 
Jackson, is unfit for this role and should be removed from her current 
position, not just because of the callous, insensitive, and egregious 
comments she made regarding sexual assault on college campuses but also 
because of the way she has worked to narrow the role of this office and 
back away from enforcing transgender students' rights and take away the 
tools and resources it has as an office to protect our students and 
actually move it away from its core mission. So as I have said before, 
I am very glad President Trump and Secretary DeVos decided to nominate 
someone else to replace Ms. Jackson.
  Secondly, I want to thank this nominee, Kenneth Marcus, for his 
service over the years and for his commitment to the goal of halting 
discrimination on our college campuses, which is certainly an issue the 
OCR will face in light of incidents of hateful rhetoric and violence 
occurring on our campuses and in schools.
  I respect Mr. Marcus's commitment, but right now, in this 
administration, it is not enough. We are now just a bit more than 500 
days into President Trump's term, and when it comes to his record and 
his rhetoric on civil rights, I haven't been surprised once.
  I want to start with his rhetoric. This is a President who kicked off 
his campaign by calling Mexicans criminals, who has called for a ban on 
all Muslims coming to America, who has openly ridiculed a journalist 
with a disability, who has openly demeaned women, who defended White 
supremacists rallying in Charlottesville by saying there were ``many 
fine people'' among them, who compared immigrants to ``animals'' and 
referred to entire countries with an expletive I will not repeat on the 
Senate floor. Sadly, I can go on.
  It goes beyond his hateful rhetoric. President Trump has tried to 
implement that Muslim ban. He has actually rolled back guidance on 
enforcing transgender students' rights. He revoked title IX guidance, 
which protects women and helps bring perpetrators of sexual assault to 
justice, halted investigations into systemic discrimination, and has 
pushed his administration to engage in appalling behavior on our 
border, dehumanizing immigrants and separating kids from their 
families. That list goes on.
  I feel very confident in saying that when it comes to civil rights, 
when it comes to the rights and safety of women, of people of color, of 
LGBTQ people, of people with disabilities, this President has 
purposefully fanned the flames of racism, ableism, bigotry, and sexism 
in ways that we have not seen in a generation, and anyone who cares 
about civil rights in America should be able to point that out.
  That is why I was so disappointed that President Trump's nominee to 
lead the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights could not 
answer one of my questions at his hearing. When I asked Mr. Marcus to 
name a single example of something President Trump has said or done 
that he disagrees with when it comes to discrimination or women's 
rights or civil rights, he couldn't say one--not a single example, and 
that is all I was looking for.
  He could have talked about how President Trump has stoked hatred and 
division of Muslims and Latinos; maybe he disagreed with that. He could 
have talked about how President Trump has downplayed hate crimes 
against minority communities here in America; maybe he could have said 
he disagreed with that. He could have talked about how President Trump 
nominated Jeff Sessions to lead his Justice Department, someone with a 
record of opposing civil rights protections; maybe he disagreed with 
that. He could have talked about how President Trump named someone 
hostile to LGBTQ rights to lead the Office for Civil Rights in the 
Department of Health and Human Services; maybe he could have disagreed 
with that. He could have talked about any of the ways President Trump 
has tried to weaken and has actually weakened the office Mr. Marcus is 
nominated to lead; maybe he disagreed with that. Unfortunately, in this 
administration, there is

[[Page S3281]]

almost no end to the options Mr. Marcus had when I asked him a simple 
question, but we do not know where he stands because he wouldn't name a 
single thing--not one.
  He said: ``I really couldn't say, Senator.'' That was his response to 
my question.
  There are reasons to oppose this nomination, but for me, this 
nonresponse to what should be an easy question was enough for me. We 
have to have someone in this position who is not only able to say that 
he disagrees with President Trump when it comes to civil rights; we 
need someone who is prepared to stand up to him. We need someone who is 
not only able to say they stand on the side of civil rights in the face 
of constant attacks; we need someone who is actually willing to 
disagree with their bosses--President Trump and Secretary DeVos--when 
civil rights are being threatened. But Mr. Marcus could not commit to 
me that he would do either, and that is something I simply cannot 
support.
  I will be opposing this nomination, and I encourage my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Marcus 
nomination?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Blumenthal), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Blumenthal
     Coons
     Duckworth
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________