[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 11, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1691-S1694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today there is a discussion about 
transparency. I am going to talk about one that is maybe going to 
surprise some people, but it is about the lack of transparency and 
about $150 billion a year that is taxpayer money that is put into 
research and development. It is money that we, as taxpayers, pay to 
places like the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes 
of Health does great research. So the Federal dollars go in there to 
try to develop cures--as an example, for diseases, but also for other 
healthcare research. There is the National Science Foundation, which 
does a lot of research on technology and research, and the Department 
of Energy, which does a lot of the basic research on science in our 
country. So I am going to focus on that funding today and a specific 
problem we have right now. It is about ensuring the government remains 
accountable to taxpayers. It is about ensuring that hard-working 
American taxpayers know where their money is going, and it is about a 
specific issue of that money going to research that is then taken by 
other countries, particularly by China, and the need for us to address 
that issue, in part, through transparency and, in part, through 
actually some new criminal statutes to be able to ensure that there is 
accountability.
  Last fall, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations did a study. 
It was about a yearlong study. We looked at this issue of China's 
talent recruitment programs and, more broadly, other countries, but, 
specifically, what China has been doing to find researchers over here 
in the United States whom they think are doing interesting work and 
recruiting those people to be able to provide that research and 
sometimes to have the person actually go to China to provide that 
research.
  The issue we focused on in our report was this theft of intellectual 
property at research institutions and at our colleges and universities. 
It was a shocking report. We issued it late last year. It showed, as 
you probably know now from some of the press accounts that have arisen 
since then, that, in fact, China was recruiting individuals who were 
giving up their research that was taxpayer funded.
  China has made no secret of its goal to surpass the United States to 
be the world leader in scientific research, but that doesn't mean they 
should use our research institutions here in America, paid for by us, 
to accomplish that goal. These talent recruitment programs--most 
notably, the Thousand Talents Program--recruits researchers at American 
universities and American research institutions to do the same 
research, usually at shadow labs in China, in order to just transfer 
taxpayer-funded research back to China.
  This is an issue that has been going on for two decades, we found 
out, and

[[Page S1692]]

really kind of right under the nose of the FBI and others. The FBI 
testified at our hearing and said they readily acknowledge that they 
were asleep at the switch, essentially, that they had not been on top 
of it, and they have only recently begun to focus on it.
  We have seen the results of that, by the way. Little was done to stop 
it, but, recently, there has been a lot of publicity. You probably know 
about the recent arrest of Dr. Charles Lieber at Harvard University. 
Dr. Lieber actually lied to Federal investigators about his 
participation in the plan, and that is what they have charged him with.
  Most recently, today, we heard about another one, Dr. James Lewis at 
West Virginia University, who pleaded guilty to fraudulently requesting 
time off to raise a newborn, when he was actually in China conducting 
research as part of his agreement with this same group, the Thousand 
Talents Plan. Now, this is a definite conflict of interest.
  As an example, Professor Lieber is accused of accepting $50,000 a 
month from the Chinese talent recruitment program and, also, $150,000 
in funding just for his expenses--now, remember, he is already being 
paid by Harvard--but also accepting $1.5 million to set up a shadow lab 
in China. He did not tell his employer, Harvard, about this. Again, he 
was not honest when talking to the Federal prosecutors, which is how he 
came to be charged. So the fraud that he was committing was not the 
charge because that is not a criminal offense. It needs to be one.
  With regard to the guy from West Virginia who just pleaded guilty 
yesterday, we don't know all the details yet there, but we know that 
this, again, is research that was being done, we assume partly funded 
by taxpayers, and this talent recruitment program was able to get that 
research.
  So this can lead, obviously, to a real problem because it is helping 
to fuel not just the Chinese economy but also the Chinese military. 
Some of Professor Lieber's research, apparently, was done for our 
military, and, therefore, they got military research and, we assume, 
military secrets as well.
  So they provide a reputational risk to the universities we are 
talking about, of course, and so many others around the country. But it 
is also just unfair to taxpayers, because this is government funded for 
the benefit of America, not to one of our stiffest global competitors.

  So we are working with the Trump administration to ensure that we 
know where that taxpayer money is going and making sure it is going to 
benefit the United States of America.
  Along with my counterpart on the subcommittee on the Democratic side 
of the aisle, Tom Carper from Delaware, we plan to introduce bipartisan 
legislation that uses the key findings in our subcommittee report to 
ensure that our research enterprise is protected here in this country 
and also to ensure that it continues to be open and transparent and 
accountable but also secure. Our legislation does this in a few ways, 
and a lot of it has to do with more transparency.
  First, it creates a new cross-government council at the Office of 
Management and Budget to coordinate and streamline the grant-making 
process between Federal agencies so we know where the money is going 
and how it is being used.
  Right now, these agencies don't talk to each other, and we don't know 
much about the grant-making process. We need to make that transparent. 
Sunshine, I think, will be a very effective disinfectant here.
  Second, the bill makes it illegal to not tell the truth on a grant 
application. Apparently, that happens all the time now. We requested 
some of these grant applications from the Thousand Talents Program. We 
weren't able to get all the information we wanted, but we got enough to 
know that most of these contracts, apparently, have the individuals 
saying: OK, I will accept this money from the Chinese Government 
through this program, but I will not tell my employer about it. On the 
grant application, they have to say that they will not reveal it. 
Obviously, that is defrauding the U.S. Government.
  The third part of our legislation closes the loopholes exploited by 
China and other countries and empowers the U.S. State Department to 
deny visas to foreign researchers who seek to exploit the openness of 
our U.S. research enterprise to steal intellectual property and 
research from our universities and research institutions.
  Now, this is something that the State Department has worked with us 
on and has asked for. They are looking for additional authority from 
us. When they know somebody is not here on a good-faith effort to do 
research but, rather, to take our research, they want to be able to 
act.
  Fourth, it requires research institutions and universities to have 
basic safeguards against unauthorized access to sensitive technology. 
You would think that is already in place, but, apparently, it is not. 
Also, it requires them to tell the State Department what technologies a 
foreign researcher will have access to on campus, so, again, we can 
start talking to each other, including folks at the State Department, 
law enforcement folks, and people in our research institutions.
  Fifth, it directs the U.S. Government to work with our critical 
research partners--think of Japan or Australia or the UK--to protect 
their research enterprises from Chinese theft as well. We are not 
interested in having U.S. taxpayer dollars go to do research here on 
which we then collaborate with a foreign government, an ally, and then 
that research is taken back to China or other countries. So we want 
more information about working with partners, as well, to protect that 
important research.
  And, finally, it requires colleges and universities to report any 
gifts of $50,000 or more and empowers the Department of Education to 
fine universities that repeatedly fail to disclose these gifts. Current 
law requires reporting at the level of $250,000. So if you get $250,000 
from a foreign entity, you are supposed to report it. In our study we 
found, shockingly, that 70 percent of U.S. universities consistently 
failed to do that. So the universities don't want to report the fact 
that they are getting money from foreign governments, but we need to 
know that. The taxpayers need to know that.
  Lowering the threshold from $250,000 to $50,000 and increasing this 
transparency, including adding the penalty, ensures that those schools 
will report. In my view, that will lead to accountability and what we 
are looking for, which is more information.
  Beyond these provisions, we are all going to have to do more to 
protect the U.S. research enterprise. My bill makes it clear that 
research institutions receiving taxpayer dollars have to do a better 
job giving the government just basic information about foreign 
researchers they partner with.
  By the way, academics tend to agree. On Monday, the President of the 
American Council on Education in an op-ed agreed with our report's 
recommendation that research institutions should establish a ``know 
your collaborator'' culture--know whom you are collaborating with, know 
what their background is.
  Providing basic information about researchers and what they will have 
access to on campus allows the State Department to properly vet foreign 
researchers before issuing them a visa. Frankly, it is hard to believe 
that universities aren't already required to tell the U.S. State 
Department this information, but they aren't.
  A few universities and academic groups have raised concerns about the 
administrative burdens. We don't want to unnecessarily burden any 
research institution, university, or college, but we do want the 
transparency.
  It is my hope that our research institutions will step up and do 
their part as patriots to help us ensure that our taxpayer-funded 
research does not fall into the wrong hands. Research universities need 
to take a hard look at what is happening on their own campuses. This 
threat is very real. If universities expect to continue to receive 
billions in taxpayer research dollars, Congress has to ensure the 
academic community is taking basic, commonsense steps to secure the 
research. I believe our legislation is a balanced way to ensure that 
will happen.
  We talked earlier about the actions by college professors who have 
now been in the media. They have been charged by the FBI and others. 
One thing we do in this legislation, as well, is that we establish a 
new criminal law with regard to defrauding a university or defrauding 
the U.S. taxpayer.

[[Page S1693]]

  Again, the reason these charges that we talked about earlier were 
able to be brought is not because of the fraud that was committed but 
because, in one case, someone lied about the reason they were looking 
for leave, and, in the other case, someone lied to the FBI about 
whether they were involved in the program or not. So these were perjury 
issues, really, not in terms of the fraud. Our legislation also 
tightens that up.
  I think we all agree that the relationship we have with China is 
complicated. There is some good, and there is some bad. In my view, it 
is in both of our countries' interests to have a healthy relationship 
and have an exchange of new ideas and have the ability to collaborate 
where appropriate, but we cannot allow this continued theft of 
taxpayer-funded research.
  My hope is that this legislation will send a firm but fair signal to 
China to change their behavior, respect our laws when it comes to 
research, and see the wisdom of our research values here in the United 
States of openness, transparency, reciprocity, integrity, and, most 
importantly, merit-based competition.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a look at that legislation. We hope 
to introduce it the week after next, when we are back from recess. We 
believe that this legislation will be incredibly important to ensure 
that we can protect this research that taxpayer dollars are funding.
  With that, 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.
  Mr. CRAMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
offering support for improving the way our government runs. What we are 
doing is we are fighting for a government that is led in an open, 
transparent way by elected leaders--elected leaders--who are 
accountable to the people who elect us.
  Reining in a bureaucracy that has run rampant has been a top priority 
of mine ever since coming to Congress. In fact, last year when I 
outlined my vision for serving in the Senate in my maiden speech, I 
vowed to take on the bureaucracy. Since coming to Washington, it has 
become abundantly clear to me that the bureaucracy has evolved into an 
unelected, unaccountable creature.
  When constituents back home reach out to my office for help, there is 
a good chance it has to do with an intransigent, unresponsive, or even 
an aggressive--an aggressive--confrontational bureaucrat who has 
forgotten that a public servant is actually supposed to serve the 
public; that is, the public made up of people--people who elect 
officials.
  In many cases, the Federal Government has codified the corruption, 
transforming from a group of civil servants carrying out our laws into 
a rogue body consumed with defending and in many cases expanding their 
power. This bureaucracy has turned internal guidance documents into 
infallible law, placing the creation and implementation of their 
policies and processes above the American people's needs--in fact, in 
many cases, changing the actual laws they are supposed to be enforcing. 
This is something I look to address at every given opportunity because 
it is a problem I discover in almost every issue we seek to solve.
  I am going to start by talking a little bit about the Army Corps of 
Engineers. My efforts to take on this bureaucracy began almost 
immediately when I came to the Senate. President Trump, in fulfilling 
his promise to secure our border and keep America safe, declared a 
national emergency in order to expedite the construction of physical 
barriers along our southern border. Unfortunately, the agency charged 
with executing the building of this wall--that is, the Army Corps of 
Engineers--is not known for expediency or responsiveness.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, both of which have direct jurisdiction over the 
Corps of Engineers, I exercised my congressional oversight 
responsibilities and role by conducting a study of the Army Corps' 
procurement process: how it awards contracts, how those companies have 
performed since being selected, what they are paid for in their bidding 
or RFP process. My findings, simply, were horrifying.
  In a letter to President Trump, I detailed how the Corps' procurement 
process fails to foster competition--particularly when it comes to 
price and schedule--and disfavors new entrants and innovators into 
their process.
  As I was conducting the investigation that led to these findings, I 
was met with bureaucratic obstruction at almost every step, from bad-
faith promises, to empty vows of cooperation, to bureaucrats actually 
leaking my personal--my personal--emails to the media. Army Corps 
bureaucrats failed to meet even the most basic standards of good faith 
and cooperation in dealing with a Senator who sits on the committees 
that oversee them, as though their agency runs us instead of our having 
oversight over them. The correspondence they leaked was not even 
salacious or informative, really. It said nothing that I wasn't already 
saying out loud. But I think that was what bothered them the most, is 
that I was saying it out loud. This was a coordinated attempt to 
discourage me from continuing to dig into the bureaucracy. As I told 
them then, if you are counting on 99 out of 100 people to walk away 
exasperated because of your delays, consider me the other 1.
  Such intimidation and such a breakdown in proper government action 
should be infuriating and horrifying to any civically minded person who 
believes in checks and balances and the ability to hold the bureaucracy 
accountable.
  It is not my first encounter with bureaucratic overreach, with an 
executive agency dipping its foot into the water of activism. During my 
time in the House of Representatives under the previous administration, 
the conservation advocacy group Ducks Unlimited was providing staff to 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, embedded right in their offices. This meant that taxpayer 
funds were supporting the work of advocacy staffers campaigning for a 
State ballot measure to establish a slush fund that would benefit their 
organization. The Federal Government was funding political activists 
while those activists worked to pass a measure that would give them 
further funding. If that is not corruption, then nothing is, whether or 
not it is intended. If not for our efforts to shine light on such 
obvious corruption, their abuse would have gone unchecked, and their 
power would have only grown.

  Somehow, the issue with the Natural Resources Conservation Services 
is not the most obvious example of bureaucratic abuse that North 
Dakotans have experienced. Over the years, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service has increasingly encroached on the rights of landowners who 
have perpetual wetland easements on their property.
  One particularly egregious case is the story of Mike Johansen, a 
farmer from Hope, ND. After a heavy rainfall year, the land flooded, 
leaving him unable to harvest and seed for the next planting season. He 
asked the Service for help, but due to poor guidance and enforcement, 
the Service offered him nothing. In fact, after he dug a drain, the 
Service cited him and dragged him to court. The legal fees and fines 
caused by these vague regulations written without clarity, oversight, 
or an appeals process forced Mike to quit farming, sell his equipment, 
and borrow money just to get the funds he needed to defend himself in 
court against his government. Thankfully, he won in court. He proved 
his case against the government. But the cost was bankruptcy--
bankruptcy.
  I had the privilege of hosting Interior Secretary Bernhardt so he 
could meet with Mike and North Dakota landowners who have experienced 
similar abuse. Since then, the Interior Department has begun issuing 
updated guidance to give our landowners clarity and a right to appeal 
overzealous bureaucratic action.
  I appreciate the Secretary's timely action and his emphasis on being 
a better neighbor, but this will only be successful if Fish and 
Wildlife Service employees follow the spirit of the Secretary's actions 
to actually work with

[[Page S1694]]

landowners versus ruling over them. We are working closely with the 
Department to make sure these regulations work for our constituents, 
and I am hopeful this example concludes with a positive ending. But 
after every election, there is a new set of leaders.
  Frankly, I have been appalled at the reaction the bureaucracy has had 
to the Trump administration's moving of the Bureau of Land Management 
from Washington, DC, to Grand Junction, CO, or a couple of USDA 
agencies moving from Washington, DC, to Kansas City, only so they can 
be closer to the resources they manage and the people they are supposed 
to be serving. The backlash has been incredible; the outcry, 
unbelievable. It is as though the bureaucracy is entitled to whatever 
they think is important as opposed to the people they work for being 
entitled to good service.
  Sadly, there is one glaring example to me that is far from reaching a 
conclusion or a positive ending anytime soon, although I will never 
give up. I will never give up.
  Over 50 years ago, during the Vietnam war, the USS Frank E. Evans 
battleship collided with an allied aircraft carrier and sank, killing 
74 deployed sailors. The USS Frank E. Evans had served multiple tours 
off the Vietnam coast and was scheduled to return after completing this 
exercise about 100 miles outside of the official combat zone. They were 
exercising with other American ships, as well as other allied ships, 
during the Vietnam war. Because of a geographic technicality, the names 
of those ``Lost 74'' sailors are not memorialized on the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial wall, as if they didn't die in the service of our 
Nation's effort in Vietnam. The honor and gratitude owed to them is 
long overdue, but the only objections I have ever heard--remember, this 
was just about 51 years ago now--the only objections I have ever heard 
are from the people whose job it would be to add their names to the 
wall. In other words, I can't find anybody who opposes adding the 74 
names to the wall except the people whose job it would be to carry out 
this task. We are working on sending a man to Mars, but somehow it is 
too much to add 74 heroes' names to the Vietnam Memorial wall.
  It is inexplicable to me that bureaucrats in Washington could 
determine that these sailors' ultimate sacrifice is unworthy of being 
memorialized simply because they were on the wrong side of an arbitrary 
line. The exclusion of these veterans is a disservice to those who gave 
their lives for our country. A technicality is not an excuse for 
inaction, a previously issued memo is not a reason to express 
disapproval, and an objection from Washington's bureaucracy should not 
stop us from honoring these heroes, these veterans.
  Last year, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced a bill to force 
the bureaucracy to make this a reality. Yet it remains stuck here in 
the Senate. Let me repeat that. The bureaucracy's excuses have found 
welcoming ears here, and the bill remains stuck, with no explanation or 
reasoning. It has equal bipartisan support. Yet it remains stuck in the 
bureaucracy of this body.
  If we do not see movement soon, I am going to return to the Senate 
floor to attempt to pass the bill by unanimous consent. I have spoken 
to the chairmen of the two committees of jurisdiction. They see no 
objection. Yet, somewhere in this big place, objection clearly exists.
  I hope that between now and then, we are able to see real progress on 
this important issue. The people fighting to have these fallen soldiers 
memorialized are also heroes. They are their shipmates. They are the 
survivors, the spouses, and the children of these heroes. I am not 
going to join the bureaucracy by standing in the way, and I hope none 
of my colleagues do either.
  These are just a few of the many examples of what I call bureaucratic 
abuse, obstruction, and overreach that I have witnessed since coming to 
Congress just 7 years ago, and I think we should call them out. The 
opinion of Federal career staff is not sacrosanct; it is advice. It is 
counsel, but it is not a decision.
  Without further action, complacency will only empower the 
bureaucracy. People elected us to have their power, the people's power. 
So now is the time to remind this city who holds that constitutional 
responsibility and authority. The people hold it. Our constituents 
elected us, the President, and every elected official, but they have no 
say in the bureaucracy except through us. That is our job as elected 
officials--to give the people we work for their voice in the 
bureaucracy. We must dedicate ourselves to doing so, so that we can 
define this era as a time that we, the elected representatives, stood 
up to the bureaucracy and reclaimed the true power of the Federal 
Government for the people, not the bureaucracy.
  With that, I yield my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________