For over 40 years, tens of thousands of individuals at a time have been working in our nation's nuclear weapons program. In that time, no leaks have been publicly proven. The fact that so many people - half of them scientists and engineers, and many of them foreign born - can be trusted with such secrets speaks volumes about the effectiveness of a "culture of openness" in dissuading opportunistic individuals from acting. This culture of openness is characteristic of research laboratories. It means that we talk freely on most things, keeping only very specific controlled information to ourselves. This culture leads to everyone knowing everyone's business, a very effective barrier to unusual or unseemly behavior. This culture is effective in a way that a "culture of secrecy" is not. Most espionage convictions are for individuals working in security agencies, in fact.

Export Controls

Export controls were first instituted in the United States in 1949 to keep weapons technology out of the hands of potential adversaries, but have also been used as an economic tool against our competitors. The export of controlled technology requires an “export license" from either the U.S. Department of Commerce or State. In addition, since 1994 the disclosure of information about a controlled technology to certain foreign nationals (even in the United States) has been "deemed" to be the export of the technology itself. Thus, disclosure also requires an export license.

Reports of the inspectors general (IGS) of the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Defense, and State have suggested that the implementation of the rules governing deemed exports be tightened further. For example, they have suggested that the exemption for basic research be altered, and possibly eliminated, and that the definition of "access" to controlled technology be broadened.

Again, the real security of the nation depends upon a proper balance. The university community is rightly concerned that a literal interpretation of the IGs' suggestions would essentially preclude foreign graduate students from participating in research and would require an impossibly complex system to enforce. Further, strict enforcement would undermine the culture that has proven so effective in furthering our security and prosperity. Given that 55 percent of the Ph.D. students in engineering in the United States are foreign born, the effect could be catastrophic. Either universities would have to eliminate these students, most of who historically stayed and contributed to our prosperity and security, or universities would have to stop doing research on potentially defense-related issues - which, of course, includes much of the fastest moving hi-tech technologies. Neither of these alternatives strengthens the United States; both weaken it.

One might ask if these policy changes will improve our security. I would point out that the United States is not the only research-capable country; China and India, for example, have recognized the value of research universities to their economic development and are investing heavily in them. By putting up barriers to the exchange of information about basic research, we wall ourselves off from the results in these countries and slow our own progress. At the same time, the information we are "protecting" is often readily available from other sources. Finally, in a country with an estimated ten million illegal aliens, one must wonder whether onerous visa policies or demeaning practices at boarder crossings will deter the committed, trained spy or terrorist from entering.

We do have important natural advantages.

The 2001 Hart-Rudman Commission, which in February of 2001 predicted a catastrophic

terrorist attack on the U.S., and which then proposed the Department of Homeland Security, said:

66

the inadequacies of our system of research and education pose a

greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century

than any potential conventional war that we might imagine."

The report was written before 9/11; had it been written afterwards, I am sure "conventional war" at the end of the quote would have been changed to include our struggle against terrorism. The essential point, however, is that further damaging our system of research and education, including its relation to foreignborn scholars, is a very dangerous strategy.

The United States still benefits from educating and employing a large fraction of the world's best scientists and engineers. We have great research universities that remain attractive to the world's best and brightest. We are envied for our non-hierarchical tradition that allows young scientists, with new ideas, to play leading roles in research. We have progressed because we fostered a tradition of free exchange of

ideas and information and embraced a tradition of welcoming talented people from elsewhere in the world. But our advantage is eroding under current and proposed policies.

The international image of the United States has been one of a welcoming "land of opportunity"; we are in the process, however, of destroying that image and replacing it with one of a xenophobic, hostile nation. We are in the process of making it more likely that the world's "best and brightest" will take their talents elsewhere. The policies that superficially appear to make us more secure are, in fact, having precisely the opposite effect.

Protecting Americans from threats must obviously be a high priority. But, as I said earlier, real security will be achieved only by a proper balance of excluding those that would harm us and welcoming those that would do us good, by a proper balance of openness and secrecy. With selected, thoughtful changes to U.S. policies, we can achieve both goals, making our homeland safer and our economy stronger.

I would like to close with another quote from the Hart-Rudman report:

"Second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating in an American city, we can think of nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science, technology, and education for the common good over the next quarter century."

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee might have.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. At this time we will turn to questions from Members of the Subcommittee.

Ms. Van Cleave, about 30 percent of American university science and engineering faculty are foreign born, according to your testimony, 40 percent of Ph.D.'s in these fields go to foreign students. You also say that foreign intelligence services place senior scientists and exploit academic activities.

Should there be better reporting of what projects these individuals are involved in; and in the case of students, also what subjects they are enrolled in, perhaps through an enhanced SEVIS system. MS. VAN CLEAVE. Mr. Chairman, it would be extremely helpful to U.S. counterintelligence to have that kind of increased reporting on these individuals.

Frankly, it is difficult to gainsay the statement that was just made by my fellow panel member here, that what we want to do is exclude those who would cause us harm and welcome those that would do us good. The trick is figuring out which is which.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. It is possible that an individual from a country of concern, if they are applying for a degree in music education, for example, if they start taking nuclear engineering courses as electives, that it would probably be good to know that?

Ms. VAN CLEAVE. It would be helpful to get the kind of reporting of changes in emphasis where students coming for one purpose then are switching their majors or emphasis to areas that might have national security implications.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. But they don't have to be major changes, I mean, if an individual takes, through the course of a 4-year degree, 10 classes in chemical engineering, that doesn't necessarily meet the_requirements of a minor in chemical engineering, but it nonetheless will probably be very helpful in their potential work. Ms. VAN CLEAVE. Yes.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you.

Your testimony states that Chinese intelligence efforts exploit our open economic system to reduce the U.S. military advantage and undermine our economic competitiveness. It is actually about the only foreign country you have mentioned by name in your testimony. Knowing this, wouldn't you agree that the Visas Mantis clearance needs better vetting by law enforcement agencies, certainly as it relates to a Chinese national coming to the U.S.?

Ms. VAN CLEAVE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that would be very helpful. I appreciate the opportunity that we had in closed session to discuss in more detail some of the reasons why.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. In your testimony, you state that the top 10 collectors probably accounted for 60 percent of foreign collection at defense contractors last year. Could you tell us what countries you are talking about when you talk about the top 10, maybe in the order of their collection?

Ms. VAN CLEAVE. Mr. Chairman, we did have the opportunity to do that in closed session. I am reluctant to do that in open session. However, I am able to tell you some of the reasons why.

A number of the countries that are on so-called "top 10" lists, there is not unanimity across the community about what countries really constitute the top 10. It depends on whether you are looking at incident reports of information that might be amalgamated by