Taiwan Conflict Deterrence Act of 2023

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 554, the Taiwan Conflict Deterrence Act of 2023, sponsored by Representative Hill. I am pleased to be the chief Democratic cosponsor of this legislation.

As China contemplates the possibility of an invasion or blockade of Taiwan, keeping in mind President Xi has told his military to be ready for an invasion by 2027, they faced from the United States strategic ambiguity as to what our military response would be.

Mr. Speaker, President Biden has announced that he would respond militarily, but President Biden will be leaving office in a few months. Any decision by the executive branch to deploy our forces is actually something that would be decided upon at the time and given the circumstances that exist.

We in Congress, while I don't think, by statute, we could compel the deployment of our military forces, we can lock into statute economic responses that should not be ambiguous but should be very clear to Beijing.

Mr. Speaker, I have a bill that goes beyond the legislation we are considering here today that would remove most-favored-nation status from China if it invades or blockades Taiwan and lock that in so that Beijing knows that a military action against Taiwan would result in that enormous economic consequence.

This bill, I think, is a step in the right direction. As the bill's title suggests, it is designed to put the government of China on notice that the United States is closely watching its increasing threats toward Taiwan, and it serves as a warning that the U.S. will respond economically and that that is locked into statute should its aggression amount to a violation of section 3(c) of the Taiwan Relations Act.

I will point out that a violation of section 3(c) would include an invasion or blockade, but could also involve other aggressive actions of a less significant nature.

This is a tangible concern given the Chinese military activity in the region appears to be escalating as demonstrated by daily incursions undertaken by the Chinese military into Taiwan's air defense identification zone or across the median line of the Taiwan Strait.

In May, China conducted a large-scale military exercise near the island of Taiwan, intended to intimidate the Taiwanese people as they celebrated the inauguration of a new democratically elected President.

This bill would put pressure on China to not go further by requiring a response of the U.S. Government if its intimidation and coercion go to the point of triggering section 3(c) of the Taiwan Relations Act.

Specifically, if there is a notification by the President under section 3(c) of a threat resulting from the actions of the People's Republic of China and a danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom, the bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to create and to make public the findings of a report on financial institutions and accounts that are connected to a select group of Chinese Communist Party officials.

This bill does not focus on retaliating against the Chinese Government per se, but rather on individuals who are in that government. The report is intended to raise public awareness of the hidden and corruptly gained funds that are directly or indirectly controlled by such individuals. It is designed to undermine the support of the Chinese Communist Party and its level of support inside China once we publish the corrupt gains of some of its high-ranking officials.

For those listed in the report and their immediate family members, the bill would also restrict U.S.-based financial services, intending to limit the financial options for these officials and to extend the deterrent or punitive impacts on those officials and their families. For assets in the United States, it is a freezing of those assets.

I will underscore again that these actions as set forth in the bill occur only if the President exercises his, or soon, her, authority under section 3(c) of the Taiwan Relations Act.

Now, no President in the past has ever triggered section 3(c), and I hope that such a triggering is never necessary. I don't expect that a triggering will ever occur, but it is important to put Beijing on notice of what would happen if their threats against Taiwan raise to that level. The Taiwan Relations Act has been in effect for 40 years, and as I have said, no administration has triggered section 3(c). It did not even occur during the third Taiwan Strait crisis of the 1990s.

Democrats have worked on this bill. We have seen changes in the original bill, including the addition of Presidential waivers for national security, intelligence, and other purposes. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I join the gentlewoman from California in a parallel career. She is our chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. I was once chair of that subcommittee, and we both serve on two committees: Financial Services, Foreign Affairs. She has reflected an understanding of our situation with China, and that situation is that we don't want to respond to an invasion or blockade of Taiwan. We want to prevent an invasion or blockade of Taiwan.

The way to do that is on three levels. Most important and most expensive for the United States is that we have very substantial military capacities in the South China Sea and the Pacific in general. We have spent much time on this floor and literally hundreds of billions of dollars developing that capacity.

Second, and an element that Congress should explore, is that we need to have locked into statute broad-based and immediate economic consequences to the entire Chinese economy if, God forbid, their government invades or blockades. That is why I am seeking cosponsors for legislation that would say in the case of such an invasion or blockade, China would lose its MFN status.

Third, in addition to the military and the broad economic, we need the focused, personal economic consequences. That is what this bill does. It provides that if China were to take such action against Taiwan as to trigger the section 3(c) of the Taiwan Relations Act that we would take two actions against their top officials.

First, we would name and shame. We would publicize their assets, wherever they may be in the world. Then, second, we would deny them and their immediate families access to the American financial system.

It is time for China to give up the idea of intimidating the people of Taiwan and to recognize that America's response will involve the military, will involve broad-based economic response, and will involve very personal economic disclosures and response.

That is the way to prevent what could cause an incredible disruption in the world and even possibly a world war. That is why Beijing needs to look at this bill and everything else that America would do and decide to put aside the idea of invading or blockading Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source