[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.