I wanted to share with you an article I wrote that was published by National Review, regarding China as a military competitor.  We must acknowledge China’s military ambitions and their potential consequences for U.S. interests in the region.  By assessing the intentions of the Chinese, the United States will be better prepared to evaluate our interests in Asia and act accordingly.  

As Chairman of the Congressional China Caucus, I want to hear your thoughts on how the United States should address China’s military modernization. 

Time to Admit China Is a Military Competitor

By J. Randy Forbes

May 17, 2013 1:56 PM

The early-May release by the Defense Department of its annual report to Congress on China’s military developments is a prime opportunity to reevaluate how the United States frames the future of its security relationship with Beijing. For too long, politicians and pundits of both parties have refused to clearly state the obvious: The U.S. and China are engaged in a long-term peacetime competition with economic, diplomatic and, yes, military components. The sooner Washington begins speaking honestly about our relationship with China, the sooner we’ll have policies that adequately address the challenges facing our two countries.

As China’s economic development continues and its regional aspirations expand, its military modernization has continued apace. This reality, and the necessity of the United States’ remaining a force in Asia-Pacific for the sake of regional stability, makes many in Washington uncomfortable. Indeed, the pressure to refrain from speaking openly about the issue has led some U.S. officials to begin referring to China as a national “Voldermort.”

It’s immensely counterproductive to avoid speaking openly and truthfully about the Sino-American rivalry and its future trajectory. By failing to acknowledge China’s military ambitions and their potential consequences for U.S. interests in the region, American policymakers are choosing timidity when resolute leadership is required.

The reality is this: Over the past decade, China has been developing military capabilities designed to deny the United States access to the waters and airspace of the western Pacific. Through the acquisition of anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to target American aircraft carriers, advanced aircraft capable of hitting U.S. and allied bases around the region, and large numbers of modern submarines, Beijing has clearly signaled its intention to subvert the balance of power that has anchored peace in Asia for six decades, and to do so in ways inimical to American interests.

This is not simply the case of a rising power seeking a military befitting its economic might; rather, China has specifically geared its military development to areas of perceived American weakness with the objective of restricting U.S. action in East Asia.

Speaking clearly about Beijing’s actions and intentions is not a fatalistic acceptance that Sino-American conflict is inevitable, or even likely. Instead, by realistically appraising Chinese intentions, the United States will be better prepared to assess our interests in Asia and act accordingly.

With 80 percent of global trade traveling by sea, a substantial amount of that through the waters of East Asia, allowing the United States to be pushed out of the region is simply unacceptable. American military power, particularly our navy, has ensured the peaceful, liberal order that currently predominates in East Asia. As our fleet has slowly atrophied from the nearly 600 ships of the Reagan era to 283 today, the ability of the United States to uphold its obligations and interests around the world has become sorely tested. Even as the Chinese are developing sophisticated systems to target our perceived vulnerabilities, the U.S. is expected to experience major shortfalls in areas from attack submarines and surface combatants to Air Force long-range bombers. Understanding, and speaking clearly about, our interests in Asia and the challenges we face is critical to fixing the military gaps we have incurred over the last decade.

The Pentagon’s latest report on Chinese military modernization is an excellent opportunity for leaders in both parties to begin the process of speaking honestly about the China challenge. Our future relations with China are not preordained. Sound policy based on American strength and rooted in longstanding American interests is achievable only through recognition that China is a long-term competitor of the United States across a range of areas, including the military. The sooner we are comfortable admitting this fact, the better our chances of marshaling the resources to maintain a free and prosperous Asia.

I wanted to share a recent article from AEIdeas, the American Enterprise Institute blog, further highlighting the destructive nature of the health care law.  The article notes that, according to a recent Gallup poll, 48% of small business owners believe that the law will be bad for their business.

The increased taxes and regulations are bad enough, but when you add in the uncertainty surrounding implementation of the health care law, businesses are not expanding. Even worse, they are closing their doors.  

Access to health care should not come at an unacceptable price to our small business community.  I will continue to support the repeal and defunding of this law, and promote policies that encourage, not stifle, economic growth. 

• 4 Americans dead in Benghazi  under the watch of Secretary Clinton
• U.S. Agent Brian Terry and over 150 Mexicans dead because of Fast and Furious under the watch of Attorney General Holder
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released over 2000 criminal illegal aliens, some convicted of aggravated felonies under the watch of Director Morton
• IRS agents targeted conservative groups and used government positions to act as political operatives working to influence the electoral process under the watch of Commissioner Miller                 

Watch the exchange here: 

These senior officials have one thing in common – they all have said there’s nothing they could have done to prevent these things from happening. 

Now, the IRS is preparing to implement over 30 tax related provisions of the President's healthcare law.  I have introduced legislation - "The Prevent IRS Overreach Act"- to get the IRS out of healthcare. Read more about the bill and weigh in with your thoughts below.   

At the end of April, the Treasury Department announced that it would pay down $35 billion of the nation’s debt for the first time since 2007.  In February, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal government would run a deficit of $845 billion this year, 24 times the amount the Treasury is paying down. 

Earlier this year, Congress passed the No Budget, No Pay Act, which required the House and Senate to pass a budget, but also suspended the debt limit until May 18th.  Last week, the Treasury Department said, “If Congress fails to increase the debt limit by May 19, Treasury can use extraordinary measures to create additional borrowing room."

Today, the House will consider the Full Faith and Credit Act, H.R.807, to direct the United States Treasury, in the event the debt ceiling is reached, to pay the principal and interest due on debt held by the public before making any other payments. 

As the Heritage Foundation said, “to see significant reductions in the national debt, lawmakers need to show greater fiscal discipline…” 

Paying off some of the debt is a good first step, but we cannot continue on the same path of reckless spending and repeated debates over further increasing the debt ceiling. I introduced the Congressional Accountability Pay (CAP) Act, H.R.284, to address situations like this.  The more Washington spends, the less Members of Congress should receive in their paychecks.  Read more here.

As Congress moves closer to considering immigration reform, an L.A. Times article discusses the different approaches the House and Senate are taking.  The House is planning to move individual bills; however, the Senate is poised to take up one large reform package. 

Which approach do you prefer?