[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 102 (Thursday, June 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3530-S3532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Building and Sustaining a Larger Navy
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise to continue my discussion about the
case for a bigger Navy, a bigger fleet, and to endorse the requirement
of the experts in the Department of Defense that we move to a 355-ship
Navy.
When a crisis strikes around the world, the President asks his
national security team: Where are the carriers? Where are the aircraft
carriers?
Each of our carriers is a 100,000-ton giant, accompanied by an entire
carrier group that consists of mighty warships and aircraft. The
carrier, itself, represents 4.5 acres of sovereign U.S. territory.
In early January of this year--and Senators do not know this--a
strange and profoundly disturbing thing happened. The answer to the
Commander in Chief's question, had it been asked at that point--where
are the carriers?--would have been that none of them had been
deployed--not a single one. For the first time since World War II, the
United States had no carriers deployed anywhere--not in the Persian
Gulf, not in the Mediterranean, not in the Western Pacific.
There is a gap in our global carrier presence, and there is a gap in
our fleet. This comes from years of complacency. Also, it comes from a
different set of facts that we are faced with and a different set of
challenges that we are faced with in our quest to make our presence
known and to protect our national security interests on the open seas.
We have ignored the great naval competition that is taking place
elsewhere--the fact that it is accelerating. We have taken our Navy and
our sailors and marines for granted.
Simply put, the Navy we have today is too small. We cannot accomplish
the critical missions that we have by preserving the status quo. Right
now, we have 277 ships, and we need to get to 355 ships. That was
reiterated today by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of
the Navy in a hearing before the full Armed Services Committee.
I will reiterate to my colleagues and to the American people what the
Navy does for America and why the current fleet is too small to meet
current and emerging challenges.
First, the global presence of the Navy ship matters to American
prosperity--to the quality of life of Americans. Ninety percent of
global trade is seaborne. Maritime traffic has increased by 400 percent
over the past quarter century. In addition to commerce, nearly all
intercontinental telecommunications transit via a web of undersea
cables. Undersea cables are responsible for nearly all of our
intercontinental telecommunications.
Second, a strong Navy deters aggressive behavior and reassures our
allies as the Nation's first-on-the-scene force. A strong Navy can help
keep bad situations from spiraling out of control and getting worse.
For example, the President recently dispatched multiple carrier strike
groups to the Sea of Japan following North Korea's missile tests. The
President asked where the carriers were, and he dispatched them to a
place of crisis. A mix of ships gives our Commander in Chief a range of
military options, and their deployments to areas of instability can
send a message of resolve to our friends and foes alike.
[[Page S3531]]
Third, if deterrence fails, our naval forces can provide a decisive
response to aggression. Surface ships, submarines, and the aircraft on
the carriers can launch missile strikes, control air and sea traffic,
and intercept missile threats. The recent U.S. action in Syria is a
good example, as the Presiding Officer knows. In using destroyers in
the Mediterranean, the Commander in Chief delivered precision strikes
against Syrian airfields. He enforced the redline against outlawed
chemical weapons, and President Assad has not crossed that redline
again.
Accomplishing these missions as the Nation's sentinel and first
responder requires a big Navy. Admiral John Richardson, the Chief of
Naval Operations, put it best in ``The Future Navy'' white paper that
was released last month. He said:
Numbers matter. The number of ships in the Navy's fleet
determines where we can be, and being there is a key to naval
power.
Again, the current fleet of about 277 ships is way too small. It is
important to remember that not all ships are deployed or deployable. In
fact, only about 100 ships out of the 277 are currently deployed. The
other two-thirds are undergoing heavy maintenance, routine sustainment,
or are training to deploy. The Navy recently validated its requirement
for 355 ships--a 47-ship increase over the previous requirement.
The lack of ships has created coverage gaps all over the world. I
will give two examples.
First, the commander of Pacific Command, ADM Harry Harris, recently
told Congress he has only half the submarines he needs. Admiral Harris
is responsible for deterring China and North Korea, but he is missing
half of the submarines he needs. Closer to home, the commander of
Southern Command, ADM Kurt Tidd, has zero Navy ships permanently
assigned to his area of operations. These are just two of the many
alarming instances where the lack of ships is having major
consequences.
While we watch our edge erode, America's real and potential
adversaries are building the size and capability of their fleets. They
are on the field competing while, in America, many of our players are
still in the locker room.
China is building a modern navy capable of projecting global power.
China is modernizing every type of ship and submarine in its fleet.
China commissioned 18 ships last year. In April, China launched its
first domestically built carrier and plans to build at least six more
carriers. By 2030, China will have more than twice as many attack
submarines and four times as many small surface ships as the United
States. Beijing is developing its first overseas naval base in the Horn
of Africa. China's naval buildup may attempt to push the United States
first out of the Western Pacific, away from critical trade chokepoints
and our allies in South Korea and Japan.
I would call the attention of Members to the poster that I have, and
I hope it is printed large enough for my colleagues to see. In terms of
five types of ships, it compares where we were in 2000, where we are
today, and where we are projected to be if current trends continue.
For example, on the farthest column shown on the chart, in attack
submarines--and the black portion of each circle represents China's
capability, and the blue represents our capability in the United States
of America. In 2000, it was 64 to 55 in favor of the Chinese. In 2016,
as we can see, 56 to 57. But under current projections, by the year
2030, when it comes to attack submarines, the Chinese will have 87 and
the United States will have only 42--a disturbing trend which the Navy
would like to reverse if we have the ability and the wisdom to give
them the requirement they have said they need.
With regard to ballistic missile submarines, in 2000, quite a
mismatch--only 1 for China as compared to 18 for the United States;
then, only last year, 4 for China and 14 for the U.S. Navy; and then
projected for 2030--and really that is in only 13 short years, which is
hard to believe--there will be more Chinese ballistic missile
submarines than American ballistic missile submarines unless we take
the Navy's requirement to heart and take action beginning this year to
rectify that situation.
With regard to small surface ships, as we can see, there was a 79-to-
62 advantage in sheer numbers in 2000 and a 103-to-23 advantage of the
Chinese in 2016. In 2030, there will still be a mismatch, in terms of
numbers, of 123 small surface ships compared to only 40 for the United
States of America.
With large surface ships, it was 20 to 79, then 19 to 84, and by the
year 2030, as we can see, the Chinese are projected to have 34 large
surface ships.
With regard to aircraft carriers, as I pointed out, they were not in
that game at all in 2000. They delivered their first last year, and
they are projected to go to four by the year 2013.
It all adds up to 260--a 260-ship fleet for China and only 199 for
the United States unless we act, and act responsibly, in response to
what the Navy and the Marine Corps and the best military minds in the
Pentagon are telling us, and I hope we will do that.
An increasingly aggressive Russia is also modernizing. The Kremlin is
pouring money into new attack and nuclear ballistic missile submarines.
Russian submarine patrols have doubled, and those patrols are
stretching closer to the U.S. homeland. The Russian Navy's operating
areas have expanded to include regular operations in the Baltic, Black,
Mediterranean, and Caspian Seas. Russia is also exploiting new
opportunities in the Arctic by building naval bases in the High North.
So both China and Russia are investing heavily in their fleets and in
new ballistic and cruise missiles that can target U.S. naval forces.
And, of course, we need to turn to the subject matter of North Korea.
Kim Jong Un will stop at nothing to develop a nuclear weapon that can
strike our allies and that can strike deployed U.S. forces and
eventually our homeland. A nuclear ballistic submarine would
essentially make North Korea impervious to threats of preemption. North
Korea is building fortified submarine bunkers and began testing
submarine-launched ballistic missiles within the last year.
Iran is another rogue state developing a massive fleet of fast attack
boats and mini-submarines to deny the free passage of ships through the
vital Strait of Hormuz.
Naval competition is a fact. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran
have clearly been building up the size and the sophistication of their
fleets. The Chief of Naval Operations has a word to describe the pace
of competition, and that word is ``exponential.'' The CNO puts it this
way:
Time is an unforgiving characteristic of the maritime
[environment]. Things are moving faster, including our
competitors.
So let's start competing again. Building a larger fleet is a national
project. It will require sustained commitment by the President, the
Congress, and the Department of Defense. As chairman of the Seapower
Subcommittee, I intend to begin laying a firm foundation this year for
a significant buildup in the future, and I hope my colleagues will join
me.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Thoughts and Prayers for the Victims of the Congressional Baseball
Practice Shooting
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to start this afternoon with a
reflection on what happened yesterday. We are thinking today of the
individuals who were hurt in the attack during the baseball practice in
Virginia, and, of course, we are praying for those who were injured. I
will list them. Many of the names we already know, but it is important
to list them.
Of course, Representative Steve Scalise from the State of Louisiana--
we are thinking of his family and praying for them, and we hope for his
speedy recovery. Matt Mika, who works for Tyson Foods, was also a
shooting victim like Representative Scalise. Zack Barth, who works for
Congressman Roger Williams, was a shooting victim, and Special Agent
Crystal Griner, of course, of the Capitol Police, who exhibited such
courage in the line of duty. We are thinking of Crystal at this time as
well.
We know there were individuals injured at the scene, including
Special Agent David Bailey of the Capitol Police, who was not shot,
apparently, but suffered an injury and was released from the hospital.
We are happy to hear he has been released. Representative Roger
Williams, who was hurt at the scene as well--not a shooting victim but
hurt--and, of course, two of
[[Page S3532]]
our colleagues were there at the time, Senator Rand Paul and Senator
Jeff Flake. We are thankful they were not injured in any way.
On these days, we come together as a family to remember those who
have been the victims, and we are thinking of them and their families
and praying for them.