[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 4, 2001)]
[House]
[Page H1463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              SHIPBUILDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, events are once again turning the world's 
eyes to the Pacific. Indonesia continues to be unsettled. North Korea 
is abandoning its move towards conciliation. And every American is 
aware of the provocative actions recently undertaken by China in 
holding 24 Americans captive.
  Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that this administration will put a new 
emphasis on the Pacific. That is wise. But to carry out that intention 
across such a broad expanse of water will require ships.
  Demand for naval forces has not gone away with the Cold War; it has 
increased. Yet, at current build rates, the overall fleet will sink 
below 300 ships before the decade is out, on a course for Davy Jones' 
locker. We are already missing missions today. How dire will the 
situation be with a 200-ship fleet?
  I am not much given to dramatic statements, Mr. Speaker, but let me 
say this clearly: America should rebuild its Navy, and we should begin 
now.
  To rebuild requires far more than simply stabilizing the size of the 
fleet. The Navy does not get anywhere by treading water. Instead, we 
have to reverse the trend in shipbuilding. A wise man used to say that 
the Navy is moving to a smaller fleet to meet its worldwide 
commitments, but the world is just as wide. That man's name was Norman 
Sisisky, and nobody in this House, nobody was more dedicated to 
reversing the trend in shipbuilding than our good friend from Virginia.
  By the way, I believe that ``Norman Sisisky'' would make an excellent 
name for a capital ship.
  Why build more ships? Because it is presence, American presence, that 
helps avoid war: presence in peacetime, at pierside, showing our allies 
tangible proof of American support; and presence in the theater, 
exercising, working with allied navies, and serving notice to all that 
America is not thousands of miles away, it is just over the horizon. 
Naval presence is an open hand that can quickly become an iron fist 
should the need arise.
  We can focus on the Pacific all we like, but maintaining a strong 
naval presence there requires more ships than we have now. Then, what 
of our commitment to Europe, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the 
Middle East?
  Ships require sailors. Sea duty is hard and challenging. It can be 
heartbreaking. The sailor is the backbone of the Navy. While some 
question whether sea duty is still that service's highest calling, 
there is no doubt in the mind of this son of a sailor that it should 
be.
  It is not just the duties at sea that make the sailors so valuable, 
it is their presence in foreign ports, showing citizens around the 
world that Americans are open, friendly, and interested in their 
country. That is as much a benefit of naval presence as the speedy 
response to crises that may emerge.
  A rebuilt Navy should be able to operate from shoreline to shoreline, 
on the surface, above, and below. That will require a range of ships: 
small ships, to operate in close; medium ships, to provide cover for 
the smaller ships in shore, but able to keep station with battle groups 
as needed; submarines, capable of operation in all waters and able to 
carry land attack missiles and support special operations forces; and 
heavy capital ships, to maintain freedom of the seas.
  Ships do not just happen, we must build them. We must equip them. We 
must provide a trained and ready crew. That all takes resources and 
commitment, resources from Capitol Hill and a commitment, beginning 
with the CNO and including every sailor in the fleet.
  That is why a larger Navy must be in the budget from the start, 
particularly this year. The Navy cannot rely on Congress to add money 
above the top line to make up for its own budget shortcomings. For 
years, we in Congress added money to the administration's defense 
budget. I do not believe that we will so readily revise the new 
administration's plans.
  But I do not doubt that with support in the administration budget, 
Congress will follow. As Members of Congress, the purse is our 
responsibility. Without a doubt, ships are expensive. Building more 
ships is more expensive, but not being where we are needed when we are 
needed there is the most costly of all.
  I believe in my heart that one ship flying the American flag 
alongside one foreign pier makes friends, warns enemies, and ultimately 
reduces the need to send many more ships out on the high seas.
  To provide presence, we need hulls. To engage in littoral, we need 
hulls. To do the job we ask the Navy to do, we need hulls.

                          ____________________