[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Page S3654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 Building and Sustaining a Larger Navy

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, let's talk about the size of our Navy's 
fleet.
  The current fleet has 276 ships, but the Navy's requirement is now 
for 355 ships--a figure supported by congressionally mandated future 
fleet architecture studies.
  Last week, I spoke on the floor about the national imperative to 
build a larger Navy. I outlined the critical missions that our Navy 
performs every day to help secure the country's vital interests. I also 
described an intense naval competition with our real and potential 
adversaries. This is a competition America cannot afford to lose.
  America needs a bigger Navy. How do we get there? Related to that 
question is when we get to a 355-ship fleet. According to the Chief of 
Naval Operations, ADM John Richardson, we should reach our 355-ship 
objective in the mid-2020s. To do that, we should have started 
yesterday. Building and sustaining technologically advanced ships is a 
long-term national project. It cannot happen overnight. It takes years.
  As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I intend to lay a firm 
foundation this year to help support a buildup. Based on my 
subcommittee's work, I am convinced that Congress has a critical role 
to play in determining how we get to 355. All options should be on the 
table. Here are four ideas to consider.
  No. 1, ramp up hot production lines.
  The Navy's accelerated fleet plan states that over the next 7 years, 
the shipbuilding industrial base can support building more ships than 
are currently planned. The Navy plans to build 59, but the shipbuilders 
can actually complete 88. We should do this. Many hot production lines 
have excess capacity. Congress should authorize the Navy to ``buy in 
bulk,'' using multiyear and block buy contracts. These contracts would 
help solidify the skilled workforce, stimulate suppliers, and drive 
down costs. We can also authorize advance procurement funding to buy 
long-lead-time pieces and parts.
  No. 2, extend the service life of ships in the fleet.
  A quarter century ago, the Navy had 450 ships and deployments that 
averaged 167 days. Now the average deployment exceeds 200 days. In 
other words, the Navy is smaller, but the tempo of its operations has 
accelerated. An extra month of deployment puts additional wear and tear 
on ships, and this can force early retirement and ultimately squander 
taxpayer dollars.
  Better maintenance can extend ships' service lives, delay retirement, 
and help us reach the 355-ship goal faster. I applaud the President's 
budget request for fully funding ship depot maintenance. We must build 
new ships and maintain the current fleet better.
  In a recent speech to the Naval War College, the CNO, Admiral 
Richardson, noted that extending the lives of Arleigh Burke-class 
destroyers could help the Navy reach the 355-ship objective 10 to 15 
years earlier. The commander of Navy Sea Systems Command, VADM Thomas 
Moore, agreed with the CNO in a recent speech in which he stated that 
proper maintenance would extend service lives and help grow the fleet 
more rapidly.
  No. 3, reactivate ships in the Ready Reserve fleet.
  During the Reagan buildup, the Navy brought ships out of mothballs, 
including battleships with massive guns, to help grow the fleet size. 
The Navy should look at the Reserve fleet ship by ship to determine if 
any can be restored to operational status.
  In his Naval War College speech, the CNO revealed that he is 
considering bringing some retired Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates 
out of mothballs. Vice Admiral Moore also suggested examining the 
merits of returning some logistics ships to the force.
  Reactivating retired ships does not simply mean bringing back less 
capable ships. Jerry Hendrix and Robert C. O'Brien wrote in POLITICO in 
April that reactivated ships could be outfitted with modern missile 
systems and potentially cutting-edge electromagnetic railguns and 
directed energy weapons. In other words, reactivated ships could 
perform completely different and relevant missions at a fraction of the 
cost of new construction.
  No. 4, develop and deploy unmanned maritime systems.
  The fleet of the future will include new types of ships. Again, 
according to the CNO, ``There is no question that unmanned systems must 
also be an integral part of the future fleet.'' Unmanned undersea and 
surface ships can offer significant advantages, such as the ability to 
conduct persistent operations. We have seen drones revolutionize combat 
from the skies. The same is possible on the seas.
  I believe the Navy needs a dedicated range to test unmanned systems 
with other manned and unmanned platforms, while also training new 
operators and maintainers. I applaud the Navy for including substantial 
R&D funding for unmanned underwater vehicles, UUVs, in its unfunded 
priorities list. I am hopeful that Congress will provide the resources 
that are necessary to rapidly develop and deploy new unmanned systems.
  To conclude, we should be considering all options for building up our 
naval capacity. I do not dismiss the fact that these options cost money 
and some are controversial, but they deserve to be explored. It would 
be irresponsible for Congress not to do the work now to ensure that the 
Navy of the future has what it needs to respond to challenges and 
fulfill its missions. That means 355 ships, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to set this imperative national project into 
motion.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for 
his remarks about the brave men and women in the Navy and their need 
for support.