National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, and I want to commend my friend from Wisconsin for correctly identifying one of the strategic challenges that China poses, but I am concerned this effort to amend section 1252 will make flawed language even worse.

The bill currently requires the President to provide a report to Congress that outlines a strategy to respond to competitive and, at times, malicious actions by China. In fact, my friend from Wisconsin has outlined several instances where we have been successful in ferreting out these actions all without his amendment being law.

So let me be clear, though, on the strategy. The strategy cannot and should not always be only responding to China. The U.S. needs to develop a proactive, assertive agenda to contrast with and to compete with China. Rather than setting up actions that could restrict student visa programs or suggesting that Chinese visitors are in the U.S. to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party, Congress should be taking a proactive approach consistent with our national security interests and, importantly, our values.

Now, I don't want to dwell too much on what is called the Confucius Institute in that issue, except to say that part of our response to something like the Confucius Institute ought to be U.S. programs to support Chinese language and culture programs for students in this country, instead of outsourcing it. There is an example where we can go on offense, instead of always responding or reacting to actions by China. Schools that wish to have Chinese language instruction should not have to rely on China for funding, as an example.

So I am deeply concerned the language in the underlying bill takes a reflexive and a narrow-minded view of the real challenge posed by China. Closing off our country is the wrong approach.

To use a football metaphor, closing off our Nation to foreign investment and to students is thinking like a defensive coordinator and not a particularly creative one. Instead, we need to think like a head coach, developing new offensive and defensive strategies, a new playbook revamping the old one.

So let me clarify. Going on offense is not just a reaction to China. It represents a strategy to keep the U.S. engaged in the global community. We should focus on multiple aspects of public policy: education, foreign trade, investment, immigration, military capabilities, innovation, and, of course, our bilateral relationship with China. A smarter strategic plan would demonstrate to the world and to the Chinese people the superiority of the U.S. model: democracy, free and open elections, diversity, open markets, and a free press. We should be exposing Chinese students to these values, making sure they understand that they have a different choice.

This is what Congress should be working on, not adding new provisions to an already flawed report. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gallagher amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time both parties have left.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Gallagher's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

This harmful amendment would add language to the NDAA that specifically targets Chinese foreign nationals who receive U.S. employment or student visas for extra scrutiny by our Federal Government. If this amendment were to confine itself to the serious issue of safeguarding American interests against foreign political influence, industrial acquisitions, and regional global capabilities, it might be supportable. But this amendment specifically targets an ethnic population in this country by singling out the Chinese who participate in student visa programs and who are receiving employment visas.

While there is no doubt that we must take national security threats from foreign countries seriously, including Russia, this amendment assumes that there is widespread abuse of our visa program from China alone and attempts to paint all Chinese students, scholars, and employees, en masse, as potential spies for China.

This underlying bill already includes elements to address interstate strategic competition and does so without creating a precedent for singling out individuals because of their country of origin. We have seen how our government's policies and actions towards foreign nationals have the ability to impact Americans of certain ethnic backgrounds.

We need to look no further than the examples of Sherry Chen and Dr. Xioaxing Xi, two Chinese-American scientists who were wrongfully accused of being spies for China, only to have their charges dropped with no explanation. In fact, just this month, Sherry Chen was exonerated by a judge who said that her case was a case of gross miscarriage of justice.

It is reckless to categorize an entire country of people as a threat to our national security, and I reject these overly broad and dangerous attempts to build a case that all Chinese students and employees should be viewed with more suspicion in this country than others.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source