What is the endgame for the new U.S. House committee on competing with China?

Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) is the ranking member on the U.S. House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, a committee formed by the House last January. The committee represents perhaps the purest instance of Congress’s growing hostility toward China, and the harsh rhetoric emerging from the group’s first hearing drew sharp criticism from some prominent figures in Washington.

Krishnamoorthi has stressed many times the importance of addressing “the economic, security, and technology challenges [the U.S.] faces from the Chinese Communist Party.” But he’s also cautioned that such efforts must not lead to discrimination or violence against Asian-Americans, and that the U.S. must continue to attract top talent from all over the world, including China.

In a brief interview with Rep. Krishnamoorthi, we asked about what’s next for the Select Committee, the risks that come with an emerging consensus on China, and more.

— Eduardo Jaramillo

I think that we’re going to be diving in on some other issues, for instance hardening supply chains, for instance how do we actually intend to work with our partners and friends and allies on other issues to deepen our partnerships, but at the same time create rules of the road with regard to engagement for the P.R.C. Because the CCP is constantly looking for differences and wedge issues to divide us from our partners and allies.

That’s one of our great strengths, that we can act multilaterally in a way that they cannot. And we have to continue to explore that issue. I’m sure there are others, but I think now we’re starting to dive deep into some of the topics we surveyed initially in the committee.

What outcome would you say would show the Select Committee has been a success, or what do you and the other members see as the major goal you want to achieve?

What is the end game?

The end game is to do what the authorizing legislation required of us and more. In other words, we have to report back to Congress what are our findings with regard to the challenges that the CCP poses on the topics of technology, national security, the economy, but also what do we do to counter those challenges? How do we address those challenges?

We are trying to build this plane as we fly it because it’s never been done before in Congress. And so, I think it’s a work in progress, but so far we’ve tried to approach it in a bipartisan manner because that’s the only way that we can actually address these problems seriously.

At the Committee hearing last night, you spoke about improving vocational training in the U.S. and how that can help in competition with China. Can you sketch out in a bit more detail your thoughts on vocational education and how exactly it could help the U.S. compete with China?

Thank you, I think that’s such an important topic. It doesn’t get enough focus, coverage or attention in the U.S. We need to upgrade the skills of our workforce in order to compete with the CCP. And as I said last night, the number one most common post-secondary education attainment or degree in China is what they call the short-term vocational degree. And they know, just as we do, that there are going to be a lot of people who complete a four-year college degree or more, a graduate degree, but for the vast majority of people, we need them to have a skill or certification with regard to preferably a STEM subject, but others as well, to be able to lead, innovate, work, and essentially grow technologies in the future.

Whether it’s in robotics, artificial intelligence, maybe even quantum computing, or in commercial drone technology, nanoscale manufacturing, or biosynthetics — we need to have people who can actually innovate, lead, and work in those fields.

I happen to have been a small businessman before I came to Congress. We made and sold infrared night vision technology for space and military applications. And the majority of the people that worked in our company were technicians, and they were also, by the way, immigrants. And so we need a workforce that’s ready to deal with these technologies, and we don’t want to say, “Oh, you’re going to need a Ph.D. in order to work in that field.” Because A, that’s not true, and B, that will really be limiting for our potential to grow and excel in those fields.

You’ve also spoken about the importance of the bipartisan aspect of countering China, but some in Washington have voiced fears that as China becomes one of the few areas of bilateral consensus in Congress, there’s a risk of groupthink verging on mob mentality — and that this could actually make for worse policymaking. How do you think Congress can best avoid this kind of dangerous groupthink?

I think [we need] to have a variety of viewpoints represented at the table, so to speak, when these issues are discussed. As you can see from our hearings, we have a wide variety of viewpoints even on our committee. And I think making sure that we have a diversity of opinion, even at the same time that we’re trying to find a way forward is essential in arriving at the right decisions and the right conclusions about what to do next.

Recently, Governor DeSantis in Florida signed a bill that bans Chinese citizens from buying land in his state. There are other states that have proposed similar legislation, and other bills proposed that would ban Chinese citizens from attending universities. Are these legitimate measures to counter Chinese influence in the U.S.?

No. I think that the fact that he would even deny home ownership, full-home ownership rights to permanent U.S. residents and green card holders reminds me of the alien land laws of California.

I think that yes, are there concerns about certain land purchases, maybe near sensitive sites, near military bases by organs of the CCP, entities affiliated with the CCP, or others who seek to undermine our national security? Yes, we have to deal with those, and we have to deal with them in a way that is appropriate to the situation.

But these types of laws, these blanket laws, such as what DeSantis is trying to put in place, smack of partisan, political exercises designed to play on people’s fears of Chinese origin people, rather than measures targeted to solve national security problems, which we absolutely need to address.

Do you think President Biden, and his administration have enough room to maneuver to make sensible China policy?

Given the level of hostility to China in Congress right now, perhaps epitomized best by the Select Committee, it must be very difficult for the White House to act without fear of censure from both Democrats and Republicans. So, do you think Biden has the room he needs to make good China policy?

I think that Congress is going to do and is trying to do a good job in this particular area. Just take the export control, for instance, with regard to high-end semiconductor chips, the GPUs. I think that that has won a lot of praise from people on both sides; that’s smart policy. I think that they have to continue to go down that path where they’re figuring out ways to have tailored and smart solutions to these challenging problems and working with their allies, partners, and friends to make sure they’re effective and informing Congress about the same. And then also telling us what additional authorities they might require to deal with complexities that arise.

I think the key is, [they’ve got to work] with us, having an ongoing dialogue. Making sure that we understand what they need and we communicate to them what we believe is necessary as well.

People have talked about a potential field hearing for the committee in Taiwan. Is that still in the works?

No, that’s not going to happen.