Lawmakers offer contrasting views on how to compete with China in science | Science

Is investing in research the best way for the United States to compete with China, or would imposing additional sanctions to prevent the rival superpower from stealing U.S. technology be a better strategy? This week, two committees of the U.S. House of Representatives debated those two approaches to dealing with the increasingly tense U.S.-Chinese relationship.

Speaking hours apart during hearings on 28 February, Representative Frank Lucas (R–OK), the new chair of the House science committee, and Representative Mike Gallagher (R–WI), who leads the new House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), agreed that the United States can’t afford to lose the technology race with its chief economic and military rival.

But Lucas and most Democrats on both panels think the best way for the United States to prevail is to run faster, by providing more funding for research and for training the skilled workforce needed to turn that research into new technologies. In contrast, Gallagher and his Republican colleagues on both panels generally oppose investing more in research and favor hobbling China through trade and other sanctions designed to hinder its access to U.S.-made technology.

Lucas said the science committee chose China as the topic of its first hearing since Republicans regained control of the House because of the threat its investments in technology pose to the nation.

“If the CCP becomes the global leader in scientific discoveries and technology development, we should expect less privacy, less transparency, less access, and less fairness in how these systems operate,” Lucas predicted in his measured opening statement at the morning hearing. “It [would] mean fewer opportunities for American companies to compete in the global economy [and] increased risks to sensitive national security tools, critical technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum information sciences, and cybersecurity.” 

In contrast, Gallagher opened his panel’s primetime evening hearing—its first event since its creation in January—with an emotional appeal.

“The CCP is laser-focused on its vision for the future—a world crowded with techno-totalitarian surveillance states where human rights are subordinate to the whims of the Party,” Gallagher declared. “We may call this a ‘strategic competition,’ but this is … an existential struggle over what life will look like in the 21st century.”

The science committee’s four-member panel included science policy experts, among them former President Donald Trump’s onetime science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier, who argued for a 25-year vision to guide U.S. research investments.

Declining to make additional investments would put the United States at a competitive disadvantage, witness Kimberly Budil, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told the panel. And she reinforced that point in speaking to Science after the hearing.

 “China is going to continue to innovate,” Budil said. “And we can’t stop them. But we can run faster, and be smarter, in making discoveries that could lead to new industries.”

Democrats on the science committee repeatedly cited Livermore’s National Ignition Facility (NIF) as evidence that basic science can contribute to both economic growth and national security. In December 2022, NIF, built to help maintain the continued viability of the nation’s nuclear stockpile, used a high-energy laser pulse to trigger a fusion reaction in a tiny capsule that generated more energy than the laser provided. That groundbreaking result, Budil told lawmakers, brightens the long-term prospects for fusion as a clean, carbon-free, and sustainable source of energy.

Inertial fusion won’t be contributing energy to the nation’s grid by 2032, Budil cautioned in response to a legislator’s question. But a multibillion-dollar investment in the technology, she told Science after the hearing, would accelerate work on overcoming the scientific and engineering challenges to making it a dependable source of power.

In contrast, there were no scientists on the select committee’s roster of witnesses. Gallagher instead chose to hear from a manufacturing lobbyist, two former senior national security advisers to Trump, and a Chinese human rights activist. The testimony was supplemented with videos showing speeches by Chinese leaders and past and present human rights atrocities.

As the only member of Congress to sit on both committees, Representative Haley Stevens (D–MI), used both hearings to make the case for increased investment across all areas of science. At the select committee’s evening hearing, she won support for her argument in an exchange with H.R. McMaster, former national security adviser to Trump and a proponent of severe economic sanctions against the CCP and its allies.

“Would investing more of our GDP [gross domestic product] in research and development pose any threat to national security?” Stevens asked him, taking an implicit jab at legislators who vote for larger defense budgets while demanding cuts in domestic spending. “No, it would not,” McMaster replied.

Speaking the next day with Science, Stevens said she hoped future hearings by the select committee would provide fodder for legislation to beef up U.S. manufacturing that she hopes to move through the science committee later this year. “I’m more optimistic than I was 5 years ago about the bipartisan willingness to invest in our nation’s scientific enterprise,” said Stevens, referring to last year’s enactment of a bill to bolster the U.S. semiconductor industry and promote innovation that she helped craft.

But Republicans on both panels weren’t buying her argument. “The United States should not mimic the Chinese industrial policy and should not copy the Chinese command and control system,” said Representative Andy Barr (R–KY) during the evening hearing, referring to China’s top-down investments in research. “We should not try to counter China by becoming more like China.”

Representative Darrell Issa (R–CA) expressed similar concerns during the science committee’s hearing. “China doesn’t play by the rules” when it comes to following international laws on fair trade and intellectual property, he asserted, seeing those violations as a reason to impose tighter trade and financial sanctions to hinder China’s access to U.S. technology.

“We’re also out of money,” Issa added, a reference to the looming partisan fight in Congress over raising the government’s ability to borrow money to pay its debts, which now total $31 trillion. “We have a massive deficit, and it’s unlikely we’re going to be able to dramatically increase our spending.”

Is investing in research the best way for the United States to compete with China, or would imposing additional sanctions to prevent the rival superpower from stealing U.S. technology be a better strategy? This week, two committees of the U.S. House of Representatives debated those two approaches to dealing with the increasingly tense U.S.-Chinese relationship.

Speaking hours apart during hearings on 28 February, Representative Frank Lucas (R–OK), the new chair of the House science committee, and Representative Mike Gallagher (R–WI), who leads the new House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), agreed that the United States can’t afford to lose the technology race with its chief economic and military rival.

But Lucas and most Democrats on both panels think the best way for the United States to prevail is to run faster, by providing more funding for research and for training the skilled workforce needed to turn that research into new technologies. In contrast, Gallagher and his Republican colleagues on both panels generally oppose investing more in research and favor hobbling China through trade and other sanctions designed to hinder its access to U.S.-made technology.

Lucas said the science committee chose China as the topic of its first hearing since Republicans regained control of the House because of the threat its investments in technology pose to the nation.

“If the CCP becomes the global leader in scientific discoveries and technology development, we should expect less privacy, less transparency, less access, and less fairness in how these systems operate,” Lucas predicted in his measured opening statement at the morning hearing. “It [would] mean fewer opportunities for American companies to compete in the global economy [and] increased risks to sensitive national security tools, critical technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum information sciences, and cybersecurity.” 

In contrast, Gallagher opened his panel’s primetime evening hearing—its first event since its creation in January—with an emotional appeal.

“The CCP is laser-focused on its vision for the future—a world crowded with techno-totalitarian surveillance states where human rights are subordinate to the whims of the Party,” Gallagher declared. “We may call this a ‘strategic competition,’ but this is … an existential struggle over what life will look like in the 21st century.”

The science committee’s four-member panel included science policy experts, among them former President Donald Trump’s onetime science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier, who argued for a 25-year vision to guide U.S. research investments.

Declining to make additional investments would put the United States at a competitive disadvantage, witness Kimberly Budil, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told the panel. And she reinforced that point in speaking to Science after the hearing.

 “China is going to continue to innovate,” Budil said. “And we can’t stop them. But we can run faster, and be smarter, in making discoveries that could lead to new industries.”

Democrats on the science committee repeatedly cited Livermore’s National Ignition Facility (NIF) as evidence that basic science can contribute to both economic growth and national security. In December 2022, NIF, built to help maintain the continued viability of the nation’s nuclear stockpile, used a high-energy laser pulse to trigger a fusion reaction in a tiny capsule that generated more energy than the laser provided. That groundbreaking result, Budil told lawmakers, brightens the long-term prospects for fusion as a clean, carbon-free, and sustainable source of energy.

Inertial fusion won’t be contributing energy to the nation’s grid by 2032, Budil cautioned in response to a legislator’s question. But a multibillion-dollar investment in the technology, she told Science after the hearing, would accelerate work on overcoming the scientific and engineering challenges to making it a dependable source of power.

In contrast, there were no scientists on the select committee’s roster of witnesses. Gallagher instead chose to hear from a manufacturing lobbyist, two former senior national security advisers to Trump, and a Chinese human rights activist. The testimony was supplemented with videos showing speeches by Chinese leaders and past and present human rights atrocities.

As the only member of Congress to sit on both committees, Representative Haley Stevens (D–MI), used both hearings to make the case for increased investment across all areas of science. At the select committee’s evening hearing, she won support for her argument in an exchange with H.R. McMaster, former national security adviser to Trump and a proponent of severe economic sanctions against the CCP and its allies.

“Would investing more of our GDP [gross domestic product] in research and development pose any threat to national security?” Stevens asked him, taking an implicit jab at legislators who vote for larger defense budgets while demanding cuts in domestic spending. “No, it would not,” McMaster replied.

Speaking the next day with Science, Stevens said she hoped future hearings by the select committee would provide fodder for legislation to beef up U.S. manufacturing that she hopes to move through the science committee later this year. “I’m more optimistic than I was 5 years ago about the bipartisan willingness to invest in our nation’s scientific enterprise,” said Stevens, referring to last year’s enactment of a bill to bolster the U.S. semiconductor industry and promote innovation that she helped craft.

But Republicans on both panels weren’t buying her argument. “The United States should not mimic the Chinese industrial policy and should not copy the Chinese command and control system,” said Representative Andy Barr (R–KY) during the evening hearing, referring to China’s top-down investments in research. “We should not try to counter China by becoming more like China.”

Representative Darrell Issa (R–CA) expressed similar concerns during the science committee’s hearing. “China doesn’t play by the rules” when it comes to following international laws on fair trade and intellectual property, he asserted, seeing those violations as a reason to impose tighter trade and financial sanctions to hinder China’s access to U.S. technology.

“We’re also out of money,” Issa added, a reference to the looming partisan fight in Congress over raising the government’s ability to borrow money to pay its debts, which now total $31 trillion. “We have a massive deficit, and it’s unlikely we’re going to be able to dramatically increase our spending.”