The House Armed Services Committee has adopted an amendment to the proposed United States’ defense budget calling on the Pentagon to present it with a plan spelling out how it would impose a naval blockade on China.
Despite objections from Democrats and reservations voiced by several Republicans about publicly—and potentially, provocatively—discussing what amounts to an act of war, the measure was among 800 amendments approved by the committee in advancing the $874.2 billion Fiscal Year National Defense Authorization Act (FY24 NDAA) to the House floor for full chamber adoption during a marathon hearing that began June 21 and ended early June 22.
More than two dozen of the approximately 50 amendments debated by the 59-member committee, led by 31 Republicans, addressed critical race theory (CRT), diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and remedies for service members discharged for defying vaccine mandates.
The proposed “study of an oil naval blockade of China,” sponsored by Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), was among amendments approved in partisan votes amidst often intense debate.
Among other “13th hour” proposals was a failed amendment to boost the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) from $300 million, as requested by President Joe Biden, to the $800 million approved for this fiscal year.
Two such prospective amendments filed by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)—one seeking to suspend Ukraine funding until the Pentagon ensures it is “following the law,” the other demanding Biden “take out China’s assets in Cuba”—were both withdrawn after animated discussion.
China Blockade Study
Jackson said his amendment calling for a study into how to foil China’s growing navy—projected to be about 500 ships within two years—in blockading China “does not call for war or for aggression” and is merely prudent “preparedness.”Committee ranking member, or lead Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) called the amendment “deeply troubling” and said it would be perceived by China as provocative.
“I can guarantee you if China issues a plan tomorrow about how it would blockade the United States, we’d consider that very provocative,” he said, dismissing claims that such public declarations of “consequences” would ensure perceived “weakness” under the Biden administration doesn’t encourage Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aggression.
“The other thing that invites aggression,” Smith said, “is aggression.”
Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) said the amendment only asks “for a report” and said it was long past time to be concerned with how planning for war with China would anger China.
“China is openly talking about being ready to invade Taiwan by 2027, maybe by 2025,” he said. “We must think about this strategically, and that should include energy and what we should do to cut off China’s supplies.”
The Pentagon shouldn’t care what China thinks as long as it makes the CCP think twice about going to war with the United States and its allies in the western Pacific, Alford said.
“We need to quit being fearful of China, of what China might do,” he said and make it worry about what the United States can, could, and would do in a conflict.
“We are not going to provoke China into anything” by requesting a blockade study, Rep. Carlos Giminez (R-Fla.) said. Adding that he had “no problem” discussing a blockade plan in public.
He asked if anyone on the panel believes “China doesn’t think our military isn’t already planning this, and that they aren’t thinking of things they’d do us?”
“I think the military is already doing this,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said, suggesting the committee “get a briefing in a vault' if the Pentagon determined a classified discussion would be more appropriate.
Reps. Andy Kim (D-NJ) and Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said any such discussion should be held behind closed doors.
Presenting such a plan “in a public, unclassified forum” would be “impossible and irresponsible,” Kim said. “It is certainly not something we want in any kind of public unclassified” setting.
“There is a narrative out there that there are people in the United States, including in Congress, trying to egg on a war with China. None of us want a war with China,” Moulton said, meaning the nub of the conversation should be “how we better pursue deterrence” without threatening a nation the United States is not at war with.
“Military planners are already doing this” anyway, he said, adding if such a report is delivered, “it would be better handled behind the scenes. Let’s not give [China President] Xi [Jinping] an excuse.”
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) and Jackson said recent events indicate there is no guarantee the Biden era-Pentagon is doing due diligence in war gaming and planning.
“After the debacle in Afghanistan,” Jackson said, “I don’t know what planning is going on.”
Deterrence or Provocation?
Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) called the discussion on the amendment perhaps “the most important debate” of the day.He said a Democratically elected legislative body having such an “open discussion” of what the ”consequences” of war with the United States “would look like” would “send a message to China.”
It is “perfectly reasonable for them to also know publicly” about a blockade plan, Waltz said, claiming opponents display “a fundamental misunderstanding of deterrence” and that not wanting to be provocative is what encouraged Russian President Vladimir Putin to launch the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
“Making consequences very public is exactly what we should do to make the CCP understand this should never happen,” he said.
Smith wasn’t convinced.
“If we don’t want war with China, we shouldn’t be openly talking about how we want to engage in that war. There is a fine line between deterrence and provocation,” and an example of crossing that line is “openly discussing the need to block China’s access to oil,” he said.
The United States and its allies need to find a way to “peacefully co-exist” with China, Smith said. “We can’t afford to fight a war with China, and they can’t afford to get in a war with us,” he said.
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said openly discussing a blockade is not going to help the United States sustain relationships it needs to share burdens and challenges with allies and partners.
“Our power comes from our ability in building international collations. If you do a study of an act of war, that goes against that very thing, our ability to bring everybody else along,” she said.
The more it “seems like we are the ones provoking, the less we’ll have that coalition,” she said. “Deterrence is what made us strong in Ukraine. That was possible because it was very, very clear Russia had started the war.”
“Deterrence failed in Ukraine,” Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) said. When former President Donald “Trump was in office, Putin didn’t do anything.”
Gaetz, reminding panel members he is adamantly opposed to entangling the United States in wars, said he had prepared an amendment calling on the Biden administration to “take out Chinese assets in Cuba.”
He said under Biden, the CCP is “functionally turning Cuba into an aircraft carrier right off the coast of Florida,” so giving the current administration the authority to launch a military strike to remedy the matter “might be the very best thing to avoid a war.”
Gaetz said successive administrations “have allowed these types of encroachments by China” in Central and South America that would never have occurred “if we really cared about the Monroe Doctrine.”
The amendment was withdrawn. He never explained why he did so, nor did he say why he was tabling his proposal to scrutinize the DOD’s and Biden administration’s constitutional authority to allocate funds to Ukraine.
