Progressive Lawmaker Wants to Water Down Democrats’ China-Competition Bill

A progressive lawmaker is urging colleagues to water down a congressional industrial-policy package touted by Democratic leadership as a counter-China measure. Representative Sara Jacobs, in a letter circulated among House members last week and obtained by National Review, expressed concern about proposals that boost U.S. diplomatic support of Taiwan and counter Chinese malign influence, and called for negotiations to remove “problematic” provisions.

Her outreach surrounding the $250 billion America COMPETES Act, introduced last week by House Democrats, is indicative of how progressives are trying to steer the legislative initiative in a less hawkish direction. Like the version of the legislation that passed along bipartisan lines in the Senate last year, called the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA), this bill would boost scientific-research funding, subsidize semiconductor production, and include a number of proposals relevant to America’s dealings with China. GOP lawmakers, however, say that Democrats cut them out of the process prior to introduction, and that it’s just another Democratic messaging bill.

“The sloppiness in this text is further proof that Speaker Pelosi’s COMPETES Act is nothing more than a political stunt rushed out the door in order to distract from President Biden’s failed policies and cratering poll numbers,” said Representative Michael McCaul in a statement to NR.

With the House bill unlikely to get support from Republicans, and the Biden administration eager to jump-start the president’s stalled agenda, House speaker Nancy Pelosi might need to accede to demands made by the progressive wing of the party to get the bill across the finish line and into bipartisan conference negotiations with the Senate. Jacobs’s letter indicates that progressive lawmakers are already focused on shaping those negotiations.

A key component of the House package represents “a major improvement on the Senate bill, as it discards some of its most problematic provisions and adds important provisions on climate, human rights, and diplomatic engagement,” wrote Jacobs, in the draft of a letter to Pelosi and House majority leader Steny Hoyer that she’s asking her colleagues to sign.

Jacobs also wrote that she opposes certain Senate-passed provisions making it easier for U.S. diplomats to interact with Taiwanese diplomats because they would “endanger the United States’ longstanding One China Policy.” USICA includes provisions that remove guidelines preventing U.S. government officials from interacting with their Taiwanese counterparts — expanding on steps under the Trump and Biden administrations to do away with diplomatic restrictions — and barring officials from displaying the Taiwanese flag at government functions or on social media. The Taiwanese-flag measure was introduced by Senator Ted Cruz after a controversy in which the Biden administration deleted a tweet on Covid-vaccine donations that featured an emoji of the country’s flag. Press secretary Jen Psaki called the post an “honest mistake.” While the House bill was not introduced with either section, Representative John Curtis proposed an amendment that would add the flag provision.

Jacobs has previously positioned herself as a supporter of the island’s democracy, meeting with Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen during a trip to Taiwan in November, but in her letter to other lawmakers, she exhibited a misunderstanding of U.S. policy toward Taiwan. The U.S. One China Policy only holds that Washington acknowledges that Beijing claims Taiwan; it doesn’t bar U.S. government interactions with Taiwanese officials. Jacobs’s misstatement of the One China Policy comes amid Beijing’s efforts to conflate that U.S. position with its own One China Principle — the Chinese doctrine which holds that the mainland is sovereign over Taiwan.

The California Democrat also wrote that she opposes measures to counter Beijing’s malign influence because they could “amplify anti-Asian racism.”

“This legislation may contribute to discrimination against Asian-Americans and place undue burdens on U.S. educational institutions,” Jacobs also wrote, citing Senate provisions that provide funding for the State Department to counter Chinese malign influence, commission a report on Chinese propaganda, and boost funding for U.S. independent global media to combat Chinese Communist Party disinformation. She also wrote that a Senate provision that would subject contracts between universities and foreign entities over $1 million to a special national-security review harkens “back to McCarthyism.”

Although there’s no evidence that speaking out about Beijing’s foreign-influence campaigns has contributed to anti-Asian sentiment, progressive advocacy groups and progressive lawmakers have accused China hawks of encouraging hate crimes. They have also successfully pushed that narrative into media coverage of Covid-era attacks on Asian Americans. As NR reported in November, the State Department acknowledged that it has curtailed its use of the phrase “malign influence” referring to CCP misconduct after a progressive think tank claimed that it convinced Foggy Bottom to make the change.

While there is a provision within the COMPETES Act that would create a “China Watcher Program” within the State Department to monitor Chinese malign influence around the world, the idea that addressing Chinese political influence worsens anti-Asian racism has gained popularity among Democrats in Congress. Last year, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ilhan Omar warned about that possibility.

In addition, a top Democratic lawmaker blocked legislation that would result in sanctions on Beijing’s United Front Work Department, the party bureau charged with carrying out political-influence campaigns in China and across the world, saying that it could be “politicized.” Although that lawmaker, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Gregory Meeks, promised Republican lawmakers that he would work on a compromise united-front-sanctions package, he ultimately declined to do so. Three Republican lawmakers — Representatives Jim Banks, John Curtis, and Burgess Owens — have introduced amendments calling for sanctions on united-front-affiliated entities and individuals, teeing up a showdown on the issue.

With progressives preparing a campaign to pressure congressional Democratic leadership to weaken an already-questionable bill, the prospects of Congress producing a serious China-focused package look increasingly dim.