[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9479-9481]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued


                         Order for Adjournment

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned 
under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Wicker and 
Senator Hassan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.


                 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.

[[Page 9480]]

  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.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. President, I rise today to join my Democratic colleagues in 
speaking out against the dangerous TrumpCare bill which is currently 
being drafted behind closed doors by our Republican colleagues.
  The secrecy around this bill shows that Senate Republicans know they 
cannot defend it to their constituents. That is why Senate Republicans 
are refusing to even hold a single hearing on the bill. In my State of 
New Hampshire, you can't pass a bill if it has not had a hearing, and 
the Senate here in Washington should work the same way. I continue to 
urge my colleagues to hold public hearings on this bill so that we can 
examine the bill for ourselves and get feedback from our constituents 
and stakeholders.
  We do know that this legislation will be very similar to the House 
TrumpCare bill, which President Trump himself called mean, and calling 
it mean is even putting it lightly. TrumpCare threatens to have 
devastating impacts on millions of Americans. Today I am going to 
address three specific ways that TrumpCare is mean to people in New 
Hampshire and across the Nation. First, it undermines the Medicaid 
Program; second, it hurts our seniors; and third, it continues this 
administration's efforts to roll back women's access to healthcare.
  As Governor, I worked to pass and then reauthorize New Hampshire's 
bipartisan Medicaid expansion plan that provides coverage now to over 
50,000 hard-working Granite Staters. And TrumpCare, by proposing to 
repeal Medicaid expansion, hurts many of the hard-working people who 
are served now by that expansion program and whose care depends on the 
expansion program being continued. This includes people like Jo from 
Portsmouth.
  I met Jo at a roundtable earlier this year. Jo has a painful, 
precancerous disease that eats at her abdominal organs. She has had it 
for most of her life. Prior to the Great Recession, she had a job that 
provided health insurance and allowed her to get treatment for this 
chronic health condition. But in 2009 Jo was laid off from her job. 
Then unable to find reliable, full-time work, she worked several part-
time jobs, but they didn't offer health insurance.
  In 2012, she desperately needed surgery. She didn't have health 
insurance. She couldn't get the surgery. Her health declined, the 
recession continued, and her ability to support herself also declined.
  In 2014, after New Hampshire came together and passed its bipartisan 
Medicaid expansion program, she was able to get healthcare coverage. 
The Medicaid expansion program helps her get 8 to 12 prescriptions, 
necessary medical tests, physical therapy, treatment, and specialists. 
This has also meant that Jo is healthy enough to work again. TrumpCare 
would end Medicaid expansion, putting people like Jo at risk.
  TrumpCare also changes Medicaid into a per-capita cap system. That is 
a fancy label for massive cuts to the Medicaid Program that would force 
States to choose between slashing benefits, reducing the number of 
people who can get care, or both. Under TrumpCare, States will be faced 
with cutting services that children, people with disabilities, and 
seniors depend on.
  This brings me to the second point I would like to highlight today 
about this mean bill and whom it impacts. It is clear that TrumpCare 
would hurt seniors across the Granite State. The majority of nursing 
home residents in New Hampshire are served by Medicaid. TrumpCare would 
jeopardize the ability of seniors to stay in nursing homes. It would 
also threaten services for seniors who receive at-home care. And these 
cuts to Medicaid are just one of the ways seniors would be hurt under 
this mean proposal, because TrumpCare would also create an age tax, 
letting insurance plans charge older adults five times more than 
younger people. If you are between the ages of 50 and 64, you will be 
especially hard hit.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, under 
TrumpCare, you could face 20 percent higher premiums in 2018, with 
especially high premium hikes for older Americans. And the AARP opposes 
TrumpCare because it would ``make healthcare less secure and less 
affordable.''
  Finally, my third point is that it is clear that TrumpCare would 
continue this administration's efforts to roll back women's access to 
critical healthcare services. To compete economically on a level 
playing field, women must be able to make their own decisions about if 
and when to start a family. They should not have to pay more than men 
for healthcare, and they should be able to visit providers of their own 
choice who understand their healthcare needs. To fully participate not 
only in our economy, but also in our democracy, women must be 
recognized for their capacity to make their own healthcare decisions, 
just as men are.
  Under TrumpCare, if you are a mother, giving birth could now be 
considered a preexisting condition. TrumpCare would also undermine the 
requirement that insurance companies have to cover essential health 
benefits, including maternity care. And TrumpCare's Medicaid cuts would 
have drastic impacts for women across the country. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, Medicaid pays for nearly half of all 
births in the United States, and it provides healthcare coverage for 
one in three children across our country.
  TrumpCare also defunds Planned Parenthood, which provides critical 
primary and preventive healthcare services to thousands of New 
Hampshire women, including preventive care, birth control, and cancer 
screenings.
  My Democratic colleagues and I are ready to work with anyone who is 
serious about working to build on the Affordable Care Act and lower 
healthcare costs for hard-working people, but what we do not need is 
legislation that even the President himself admits is mean.

[[Page 9481]]

  I will continue working with my colleagues to speak out against and 
defeat TrumpCare, and I urge the people of New Hampshire and people all 
across America to keep making their voices heard and make clear that 
this mean bill is simply unacceptable.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________