[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 37 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1574-S1575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          China Investigation

  Mr. President, I will now talk about the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations' hearing we had today.
  I am here to talk about China and the impact it is having on the U.S. 
education system. I chair the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 
which is a subcommittee of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs 
Committee. My colleague Tom Carper, on the other side of the aisle, is 
the ranking member. We worked together on bipartisan--I believe you 
would say nonpartisan investigations.
  We had success working on the opioid crisis in coming up with 
legislation to stop fentanyl from coming through the mail, the 
deadliest of all the drugs. We also had success in pushing back against 
human trafficking, leading to actually shutting down the website that 
trafficked more women and children than any other one, backpage.com.
  Today we looked at something that is also very important for our 
country; that is, understanding better how these Confucius Institutes 
work. We issued a bipartisan report today talking about how there is a 
lack of transparency in how American colleges and universities manage 
their Confucius Institutes. These are located at more than 100 colleges 
and universities around the country. These institutions in America have 
received more than $150 million in support from the Government of China 
for these Confucius Institutes since 2006.
  Confucius Institutes are enterprises that engage in the teaching of 
Chinese culture and language, and they are at universities and colleges 
around the world. These Confucius Institutes are designed, funded, and 
primarily staffed by the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government 
bills them as an opportunity for cultural exchange, and the funding 
comes from them. It is an appealing prospect for many U.S. schools 
trying to meet their demand for language instruction, but we need to be 
careful.
  There needs to be more transparency in how these institutes operate 
in the United States, and there needs to be more reciprocity so the 
United States can also provide its cultural institutions in China. That 
is not happening now because China has systematically shut down 
comparable U.S. State Department public diplomacy efforts on college 
campuses in China.
  Let me be clear. I do support cultural exchange--we all should; it is 
a good thing--with China and with the international community more 
broadly, but there needs to be reciprocity, and there needs to be 
appropriate engagement without, in this case, the Chinese Government 
determining what is said and what is done on U.S. campuses.
  The law must be followed. That is why transparency is so important.
  This morning we held a hearing following an 8-month investigation 
into this issue. Based on our findings, let me focus on these two 
issues of transparency and reciprocity--transparency in how colleges 
and universities manage the institutes which are controlled, funded, 
and mostly staffed by the Chinese Government and the lack of 
reciprocity in how China does not permit U.S. State Department 
programming in China.
  Our report details how China, known for its one-sided dealings in 
trade--not having a level playing field in trade--also does not have a 
level playing field with regard to these cultural changes.
  Our report documents how U.S. officials had expressed concerns about 
China's influence through its Confucius Institutes. Recently, the FBI's 
Assistant Director for Counterintelligence testified before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee that the Confucius Institutes are ``not strictly a 
cultural institute'' and that ``they are ultimately beholden to the 
Chinese government.'' The State Department has labeled Confucius 
Institutes ``China's most prominent soft power platform.''
  Higher education groups have also expressed concern. The American 
Council of Education, the National Association of Scholars, and the 
American Association of University Professors have all recommended that 
U.S. schools fundamentally change how they manage Confucius Institutes 
or consider shutting them down.
  Other foreign governments have already acted. For example, the UK 
Conservative Party Commission on Human Rights called for the suspension 
of further agreements until it can complete a more comprehensive review 
of potential threats to academic freedom at the Confucius Institutes in 
the United Kingdom.
  The Canadian Province of New Brunswick recently announced that it 
would cease its Confucius Institute operations, citing academic freedom 
concerns and that the program provides a ``one-dimensional'' view of 
China. Finally, an Australian State, New South Wales, is currently 
reviewing the Confucius Institute program, citing that it exposes 
children to propaganda.
  These concerns are well-founded. Past statements by Chinese officials 
make clear the purpose of Confucius Institutes. For example, in 2011, a 
former member of the Chinese Government explained:

       The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for expanding 
     our culture abroad. It has made an important contribution 
     toward improving our soft power. The ``Confucius'' brand has 
     a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching 
     Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.

  The Director General of Confucius Institute Headquarters has also 
commented on how the program controls messaging about controversial 
topics. She said in 2014:

       Every mainland China teacher we send . . . will say Taiwan 
     belongs to China. We should have one China. No hesitation.

  So with regard to issues like Taiwan, Tibet, and Tiananmen Square, 
the Confucius Institutes stay away from those issues that are 
considered controversial.
  We know that Confucius Institutes exist as one part of China's 
broader, long-term strategy, but China has invested heavily in them, 
giving about $150 million to U.S. schools just in the last decade. 
China's other long-term initiatives include its Made in China 2025 
plan, which is a push to lead the world in certain advanced technology 
manufacturing. The Thousand Talents Program is another state-run 
initiative designed to recruit Chinese researchers in the United States 
to return to China for significant financial gain, bringing with them 
the research knowledge gained at U.S. universities and companies. We 
plan on continuing to examine the U.S. Government's responses to these 
issues as well.
  Confucius Institutes, by the way, do not stop at colleges and 
universities alone. China has also opened more than 500 Confucius 
Classrooms programs at U.S. K-12 schools. In fact, the Confucius 
Classroom program is a priority for the Chinese Government. A document 
obtained by the subcommittee during our investigation details a plan to 
expand Confucius Classrooms by seeking ``top-down policy support from 
the state government, legislative and educational institutions, with 
particular emphasis on access to the support from school district 
superintendents and principals.''
  Over the last 8 months, we interviewed U.S. school officials, 
teachers, and Confucius Institute instructors. We also reviewed tens of 
thousands of pages of contracts, emails, financial records, and other 
internal documents obtained from more than 100 U.S. schools that were 
either active or recently closed Confucius Institutes.
  Since our investigation started, more than 10 U.S. schools announced 
they would be closing their Confucius Institutes. We found that Chinese 
funding for Confucius Institutes comes with strings attached--strings 
that can compromise academic freedom. The Chinese Government vets and 
approves all Chinese directors and teachers, events, research 
proposals, and speakers at U.S. Confucius Institutes. Chinese teachers 
sign contracts pledging with the Chinese Government that they will 
follow Chinese law and ``conscientiously safeguard China's national 
interests.''
  Some schools actually contractually agreed that both Chinese and U.S. 
law will apply at Confucius Institutes in

[[Page S1575]]

the United States on their school campuses. Think about that. American 
universities are agreeing to comply with Chinese law on their campuses. 
This application of Chinese law at these schools can result, of course, 
in exporting China's censorship of political debate and prevent 
discussion of politically sensitive topics.
  As such, numerous U.S. school officials told the subcommittee that 
Confucius Institutes were not the place to discuss topics like the 
independence of Taiwan, Tibet, or the Tiananmen Square massacre. Put 
simply, as one U.S. school administrator told us: ``You know what 
you're getting when something is funded by the Chinese government.''
  Investigators from the Government Accountability Office also spoke 
with U.S. officials, who acknowledge that hosting the Confucius 
Institute could limit events or activities critical of China, not just 
at the Confucius Institute but also elsewhere on campus.
  In response to the growing popularity of Confucius Institutes, the 
United States initiated its own public diplomacy program in China 
through the State Department. The Chinese Government effectively shut 
it down. Since 2010, the State Department has provided $5.1 million in 
grant funding for 29 American Cultural Centers in China. Through this 
program, a U.S. school would partner with a Chinese school to set up a 
cultural center, which would enable Chinese students to better 
understand our country, our culture.
  The Chinese Government stifled the program from the start. Seven of 
the 29 American Cultural Centers never even opened. Of those that did 
open, they needed permission from the Chinese partner schools, 
sometimes including local Chinese Communist Party officials, just to 
hold events. Eventually, because of the obstacles, the State Department 
stopped funding the program altogether. There are four programs 
remaining. They are all going to be phased out entirely by this summer.
  We heard some very interesting testimony today from the State 
Department--testimony that details the academic environment in China 
that has made it impossible for us to have the kind of freedom they 
enjoy over here. The State Department testimony aligns with the 
findings of our investigation.
  For example, while the State Department conducts various public 
diplomacy programs in China, the Chinese Government has increasingly 
impeded access to some segments of Chinese society, including Chinese 
schools and universities. All Chinese institutions, including 
universities, have a foreign affairs officer or a ``gatekeeper'' that 
is an internal governmental office that manages contact between the 
non-Chinese entities and the institution. Any Chinese institutions that 
wish to interact with foreign government officials must obtain approval 
first from this gatekeeper.
  The State Department even told us that the Fulbright Program, a 
prestigious and longstanding student exchange program, is impeded as 
Chinese authorities have prevented Chinese alumni of the Fulbright 
Program from forming a Fulbright Association, a standard practice in 
other countries. We even heard directly from an American educator who 
was detained by the Chinese police and questioned extensively about her 
involvement with a State Department grant. While the Department of 
State said they conveyed to the Chinese Government that it expects 
reciprocal access for U.S. diplomats in our programs, it is not 
happening. Obviously, more needs to be done.
  While the State Department is mostly known for its overseas 
diplomatic efforts, it also has oversight responsibilities right here 
in the United States with regard to these Confucius Institutes. The 
State Department conducts field site reviews to ensure that foreign 
nationals who come to the United States on these Exchange Visitor 
Programs have visas that are appropriate and that they are here for the 
stated reason.
  There are roughly 100 Confucius Institutes at colleges and 
universities in America, yet the State Department has conducted field 
visits only to two of them. At those two, they found serious problems. 
At the Confucius Institute, the State Department revoked more than 30 
visas for Chinese visitors who were supposed to be working at the 
university that sponsored their visa but were actually teaching in the 
K-12 environment. They also discovered evidence of ``fraudulent 
paperwork and coaching'' that was a ``deliberate attempt to deceive'' 
investigators, according to the State Department.
  The Chinese director coached the Chinese teachers to tell the State 
Department they were working on research programs that they really 
weren't working on at the university's campus.
  State also told us it does not collect the visa information 
specifically related to the Confucius Institute, so we don't know how 
many Confucius Institute teachers there are or where they are. Again, 
they visited only 2 schools out of 100, and in those they found serious 
problems with regard to the State Department's responsibilities on 
visas.
  Our investigation also identified failures at the Department of 
Education that have contributed to a lack of transparency and oversight 
at schools that take money from foreign governments. If a U.S. school 
receives more than $250,000 from a single foreign source in 1 year, it 
is required by law to report that data to the Department of Education, 
which, in turn, publishes it on its website. The Department of 
Education, however, has not issued any guidance on foreign gift 
reporting for 14 years, the same year that China opened its first 
Confucius Institute, and our investigation was able to find that 70 
percent of the colleges and universities that should have reported 
receiving funds for Confucius Institutes from China did not; 70 percent 
are out of compliance. When a school fails to report a foreign gift, 
the Department of Justice can force the school to comply, but only at 
the request of the Secretary of Education. The Department of Education 
has never referred this type of case to them--never.
  We received two important commitments at the hearing this morning. 
One is the Department of Education has committed to issuing new 
guidance to the more than 3,000 schools it oversees. This guidance is 
important to ensure that schools know that they are obligated to report 
receiving these foreign government funding sources. They also agreed to 
step up their enforcement on the law on reporting foreign government 
funds from Confucius Institutes.
  The State Department committed this morning to do more to ensure 
visas are being properly used at Confucius Institutes around the 
country. Again, they conducted only two site reviews. They have to do 
more, and they said they will. We are going to follow up on that.
  As with all of our investigations, we are developing legislation 
aimed at addressing the problems identified here today. I want to call 
attention, as I conclude, to a news report that came out just a couple 
of days ago. The Chinese Communist Party's central committee and the 
Cabinet published a document stating that the Confucius Institutes will 
remain ``a key government policy.'' Specifically, the news report plans 
to ``optimize'' the spread of Confucius Institutes. While it is unclear 
what ``optimize'' means at this point, any legislation must try to 
anticipate the potential rebranding of Confucius Institutes or other 
efforts that may seek to avoid the transparency, disclosure, and 
reciprocity that is needed if these programs are to continue on our 
campuses.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.