March 11, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 47 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in Senate sectionPrev17 of 48Next
GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 47
(Senate - March 11, 2020)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[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. ____________________
All in Senate sectionPrev17 of 48Next