Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 19, S. 96.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 164, S. 123.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 113, S. 88.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 17, S. 19.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, my esteemed colleague from Delaware says that we have plenty to do when we get back, and he is, certainly, correct. I would join many of my colleagues today, though, in pointing out that in the last 3 days, we have actually gotten substantial work done. Perhaps we have crammed into 3 days what using the regular order and the filibuster and the motions to proceed might have taken 3 weeks otherwise. So the leadership on both sides of the aisle are to be commended for this burst of progress we have made, and I hope we can continue that when we get back. Earlier today, this Congress passed a significant piece of legislation offered by the Senator who occupies the Chair, my good friend, Senator Johnson of Wisconsin. It is the Right to Try Act, which seeks to streamline the way people who are willing to take a bit of a chance on a drug in order to save their lives--streamline the way they can have access to perhaps life-enhancing and lifesaving drugs. It is a real achievement. I congratulate my colleague from Wisconsin and congratulate the leadership facilitating this breakthrough. Moments later, the Senate passed a companion bill authored by Senator Klobuchar and me known as the Better Empowerment Now to Enhance Framework and Improve Treatments Act or the BENEFIT Act. This is another win for patients--patients who deserve to have a voice in the drug approval process. This bill, which is a companion bill to the very important Right to Try Act, will do that. The BENEFIT Act calls for a simple amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act--one that could make a big difference to patients whose lives may depend on a new therapy or drug. Specifically, the Wicker- Klobuchar bill would require the use of patient experience and patient- focused drug development and related data in assessing the risk versus the benefit of these particular therapies. The bill also includes information from patient advocacy groups and academic institutions. This is a small but important step forward. If signed into law--and I certainly hope the House passes it and I hope the President will sign it into law--this bill would greatly enhance the data and information available to FDA when reviewing drugs, when reviewing medical products, and when reviewing therapies. It would also add to the progress Congress has made in recent years, reaffirming the importance of patients' perspectives in drug decisions--decisions that can have a profound and lasting impact on the lives of these patients. Ask any American who suffers from a disease or who is watching a loved one suffer, and they will tell us that all information should be on the table when a breakthrough or a cure is at stake. Last year, Senator Klobuchar and I joined together to make the FDA's use of patient perspectives more transparent with what we call the Patient-Focused Impact Assessment Act. This was passed and was signed into law as part of the 21st Century Cures Act. The BENEFIT Act, passed by the Senate today, would keep that momentum going, building on the progress we have made. Now, what progress have we made? Let me tell my colleagues this. For years, I have sought to find a cure for the devastating, fatal disease known as Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I have worked on this issue since my early years in the House of Representatives. Young boys--almost all males--is whom this affects. These young boys face this fatal disease, and they know better than anyone what a drug can do to improve the quality of their lives. Since the Congress passed and the President signed the MD-CARE Act dealing with Duchenne muscular dystrophy more than 15 years ago, research has led to innovative therapies that have added a decade to the lives of these young boys. What an achievement by scientists in America. What an achievement for the government to have unleashed cures and research in this area. We need their voices heard, we need their stories heard, and we need the voices of patients with other diseases heard. I thank my colleagues in the Senate for joining with us on a unanimous consent request to pass this legislation. I thank the leadership on this side of the aisle and our Democratic counterparts on the other side. Particular appreciation goes to Senator Alexander, the chairman of the HELP Committee, and to Senator Murray, the ranking Democrat on the HELP Committee, for their valuable help. Appreciation goes to perhaps a new attitude for the rest of the year in the Senate to join together with unanimous consent and move bills and nominations forward that have widespread support and consensus around the country. I congratulate the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Wisconsin, on an outstanding achievement, and I congratulate the Senate for joining with Senator Klobuchar and me to help out in another way. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dave Zwirblis, Shane Stoughton, and Neal McMillan, congressional fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague from Oklahoma for a very fine statement, and let me associate myself with each and every word and each and every fact he outlined in his very fine statement, and also with the remarks of my friend from Missouri who went before him. I appreciate their leadership on this issue. Let me, at this point, also give a salute to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, to the right of freedom of speech, which we have seen exercised in this building and in this Nation during the course of this debate, and the freedom granted to petition the government for address of grievances. We have seen examples of that. They have been on full display in this healthcare debate, a phase of which will come to a close I hope this evening. Let me give a shout out to our staff members. They have fielded thousands, if not tens of thousands, of phone calls, letters, emails, and visits from Americans exercising their rights under the First Amendment. Americans have come to their Capital City, almost all of them in an appropriate and nondisruptive way--sometimes intense, for sure--expressing their opinions but also in display of their First Amendment rights. After all the debate, all the conversation, and all the exhortation on this issue, we have seen a lot of things said from the floor and a lot of things said on the news media that have amounted to a matter of opinion. But here is one thing I know for a fact. For four straight elections--2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016--Republicans ran on a promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare. We ran on that platform, and for four straight elections Republicans prevailed at the ballot box on the strength of that platform. I know that for a fact, and this I believe. Millions of Americans are at work today or at home or getting home from their offices, from their shops, from their factories. They are turning on the media. They are checking online. They are turning on the radio. They are wondering if a campaign promise is going to be kept by this party to which they have given the reins of government in four straight elections. We are close to keeping that promise. We are closer than we have ever been, and we can take a big step tonight on making good on that promise. That is not just a matter of keeping a promise, but I will say to my colleagues that it is important this platform be honored. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 additional minutes if there are no other people on the other side asking for consent.

Mr. WICKER. So we are keeping a promise, but there is a lot more to it, as my friend from Oklahoma outlined, not only in fact but also in stories from honest-to-goodness Americans. This debate is about keeping Americans from hurting, about relieving the pain that this 2009 ACA has caused people to have. They were told they could keep their doctors. They wanted to keep their doctors, and it turns out they lost their doctors. They were told they could keep their healthcare plans. They liked their healthcare plans, and, in fact, they were not able to keep their healthcare plans. They were told their premiums would go down, and we have seen chapter and verse--as the gentleman from Oklahoma so forcefully outlined--of the dramatic, drastic, unspeakable increase in premiums that Americans have undergone. They were told they would have choice when it came to health insurance, and they have not had that choice. They have lost their freedom to make their own healthcare decisions, and that has been sacrificed in favor of a big government approach. So people are hurting, as has been explained on the floor tonight. Families in my State who do not have employer-based health insurance are paying nearly $3,000 more per year in premiums than they did 4 years ago. In my State, it is a 116-percent increase in premiums under the Affordable Care Act over this short period of time. I guess we should be thankful we are not the 201-percent increase in premiums that our neighbors from Oklahoma have, or the 223-percent increase in healthcare premiums that our neighbors across the line in the State of Alabama have. But still, it is pretty bad wherever you go, and they were told and this program was sold on a promise of reducing healthcare premiums. As has also been pointed out, 6 million independent-minded Americans have just said: I will not purchase this required insurance. I will pay the penalty, instead. The Supreme Court says it is a tax. We know it is a penalty. It comes right out of their pockets. They are doing that many times because they are independent-minded but many times because it is the only thing they can afford. So Americans are hurting. Americans from Missouri, Oklahoma, and Mississippi are hurting, and they are hurting all across America. My Republican colleagues know this. My Democratic colleagues know this. They say: Well, the ACA needs adjustment. It needs some help. But what is their solution? I think we are beginning to know, based on statements made and based on information coming forward, that our Democratic friends really want a single-payer system. That is their solution to the failed ObamaCare system we have now--a British-style, European-style, government-run insurance-for-all program. I don't think we need that in America. I don't think that is what Americans thought they were getting. My wife and I have never moved our family to Washington, DC. We have kept our home on the same street in Tupelo, MS, the whole time. We raised our kids in Mississippi. When the last bell rings this weekend, I will be on a plane back home to my State, moving around the State, talking to Mississippians, speaking to people who gave me this great opportunity to serve in this great body and this great system of government. I want to be able to tell them when I go home after this vote that I have taken a big step in keeping the Federal Government out of the business of deciding healthcare for their families. I want to be able to tell them that they are now going to have more options to choose the plan that works for them. I want to tell people back home who put me in office that we put more power in the hands of the States, not unelected Washington, DC, bureaucrats. I want to be able to tell them we passed a bill that, as my friend from Oklahoma says, answers their concerns about preexisting conditions and takes care of those people with low incomes who need assistance in buying insurance. I want to assure the people back in my home State and all across America, as my friend from Oklahoma just did so eloquently, that the Medicaid Program will continue. As a matter of fact, it will continue to grow, but at a rate that is more sustainable, so we can afford it today and so we can afford the Medicaid Program in future generations. This has taken long hours of give and take. It may take more long hours in debates tonight and in a conference with the House, but we can get there. I see the solution formulating, and I am as optimistic as I have ever been that we will be able to keep this four-election promise we made. These reforms are now within reach. We should take advantage tonight of this opportunity to deliver on what was promised to the American people, to relieve Americans who are hurting from the current ObamaCare system, and to give them a better opportunity for affordable and accessible healthcare. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 4:20 p.m. today and that following the recess, Senator Wyden or his designee be recognized for up to 60 minutes.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, before beginning my remarks about the requirement for a larger Navy, I do want to extend my deepest condolences to the loved ones of those who lost their lives aboard the USS Fitzgerald recently. During Saturday morning's early hours, the USS Fitzgerald--a guided- missile destroyer--collided with a Filipino merchant ship off the coast of Honshu, Japan. The USS Fitzgerald sustained significant damage, including the rapid flooding of three compartment areas, and seven sailors lost their lives. These young Americans were on board because they chose to serve their country, and they are heroes whose names will be added to the list of those who will be forever honored by our country. Questions remain about the collision, and I am hopeful that they will be answered soon. Administrative and safety investigations into this tragedy are already underway, but we cannot change the horrific turn of events that occurred at 2 a.m. off the coast of Japan. Our hearts go out to the loved ones who are dealing with the grief this accident has caused. We wish a quick recovery for those who were injured, and our gratitude goes to the many sailors who acted swiftly and resolutely to save lives and prevent further damage aboard. Does the distinguished majority leader wish me to yield for some business?

Mr. WICKER. I would be delighted. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. WICKER

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.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WICKER

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. 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.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I rise this afternoon to direct the attention of this body to an important national security issue: building and sustaining a larger Navy. President Trump wants a 350-ship Navy, which aligns with the Navy's requirement for 355 ships. Right now we have only 275 ships in the battle fleet. Increasing the size of the Navy by 80 ships, even as older ships retire each year, is a test of national will. It will not happen overnight. However, Congress has the responsibility to lay a firm foundation this year to prepare for a deliberate and responsible buildup in the future. A healthy shipbuilding industrial base is necessary to succeed. Today, I will offer some general comments about the state of shipbuilding. Then I will focus on the submarine industrial base, in particular, because of its unique challenges. Finally, I will make suggestions on how Congress can support the industrial base in general and the submarine yards specifically. Last month, my subcommittee convened two hearings on this matter. The first was with naval officials. This took place in a classified setting because of their expertise and because of sensitive information. The other hearing was with the country's two top shipbuilders--Huntington Ingalls and General Dynamics--as well as the Shipbuilders Council of America, which is the trade association for suppliers. We discussed the industrial base as it exists today and the challenges associated with building up the fleet. Based on my subcommittee's work, here are four general impressions of the state of shipbuilding. No. 1, the yards are turning out most classes of ships on time and on budget. Ingalls Shipbuilding just delivered the newest big-deck amphibious ship--the LHA--13 weeks early. Electric Boat and Newport News continue to deliver Virginia-class attack submarines, or SSNs. Construction time for attack submarines has declined by 1\1/2\ years-- from 84 months to 66 months. There are a few notable exceptions, but, by and large, industry is delivering for the warfighter and for the taxpayer. No. 2, most yards have excess capacity to ramp up shipbuilding. This is very good news for national security. The Navy's accelerated fleet plan concluded that the industrial base can build an additional 29 ships--above projections--over the next 7 years. The glaring exceptions are the submarine yards, which will struggle to meet planned demand as the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine production starts. In terms of capacity, our submarine yards have a ways to go. No. 3, two decades of low-rate shipbuilding have significantly reduced the supplier base. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that ships cost more today than they did during the Reagan buildup, even when adjusting for inflation. Twenty years ago, about 17,000 suppliers served the submarine business. Now only about 3,000 first- tier suppliers are left. Let me repeat this. We used to have 17,000 suppliers. Now we have 3,000. These 3,000 suppliers include large corporations, such as Northrop Grumman and L3, which have tens of thousands of employees. These 3,000 suppliers also include mom-and-pop small businesses with just a few employees. Whether they deal with large corporations or small businesses, the shipyards increasingly buy from sole-source suppliers. In fact, Newport News spends about 65 percent of its budget in buying pieces and parts from single and sole- source suppliers. General Dynamics faces a very similar situation. I have little doubt that this dramatic erosion in the supplier base explains why ships cost more today. No. 4, in terms of my general observations, Congress has a critical role to play in supporting a buildup through advance procurement funding, through multiyear procurement authority, and through block buys. These tools can stimulate the supplier base, stabilize the workforce, and achieve significant savings through producing economies of scale. In addition, incremental funding authority is a tool that Congress can authorize to smooth out peaks and valleys in appropriations. This makes it easier to buy more ships in 1 year without busting the budget. To sum it up, most yards are performing well and have the capacity to ramp up. The submarine yards are doing exceptional work but will struggle because of capacity. All shipbuilders face a diminished supplier base, which undermines competition, and Congress can help improve the supplier situation and stabilize the skilled workforce through using acquisition authorities. That is a snapshot of the overall shipbuilding industrial base. Now let's turn to submarines specifically. Let's begin with the Navy's requirements. In 2016, the Navy set a new requirement. The total requirement for ships is 355. That includes an increase of 47 ships from the previous level. For the Navy's submarine fleet, the new plan calls for 66 attack submarines and 12 ballistic missile submarines. We currently have 52 attack submarines--a number that will eventually decline to 41 over the next decade unless we do something about it. I propose we do something about it. We currently have 14 ballistic missile submarines as part of our nuclear deterrent. Beginning in 2021, 12 of these will be replaced by the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. To reiterate, we need 355 ships. That includes 66 attack submarines and 12 ballistic missile submarines. How does the President's budget request match up? The fiscal year 2018 request includes nine ships and prioritizes readiness more so than modernization. Congress needs to work with the President to reach his goal and to reach the requirement of 350 to 355 ships. I look forward to working with the administration on these budget numbers in order to make them work and to help the President achieve his goal. Now let's talk about submarines. The budget request fully funds R&D for Columbia-class SSBNs to keep the program on track. The budget also funds the procurement of two Virginia-class submarines. We have followed this policy for years. The Navy will struggle to ramp up submarine production because of the industrial base for submarines and how it will be stretched to capacity. The CBO tells us that reaching 355 ships in 15 years is not possible because we lack submarine production capacity. Electric Boat and Newport News are investing billions to recapitalize facilities, workforce, and suppliers, but that recapitalization effort is aimed at meeting current projected demand. Arresting the decline in attack submarines, while maintaining the schedule for the Columbia-class SSBN, will take a significant recapitalization effort. We have done it before, and we can do it again. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, industry steadily delivered three attack submarines per year and added a fourth SSBN on time and on budget. There is no reason we cannot do this again. We must take decisive action now to make this a reality. There are four ways in which Congress can help. No. 1, repeal the defense budget caps. Sufficient and stable funding is the starting point for expanding submarine and shipbuilding capacity. The Budget Control Act-mandated budget caps have damaged military readiness and choked off modernization. While intended as a way to incentivize us to reform mandatory programs, the BCA defense caps have proved to be a self-inflicted wound. We cannot solve our spending and debt problem on the backs of our warfighters and industrial base, much less on the backs of the security of Americans. Congress needs to end the defense budget caps immediately. No. 2, we need to accelerate and fully fund advance procurement. This will help stimulate and encourage new entrants into the supplier base. We need more competition. We need more suppliers. Driving down the cost per ship will free up resources to buy more ships. No. 3, we need to incentivize capital investment. Congress should work with industry to identify responsible and cost-effective ways to incentivize investments in facilities and capital equipment. No. 4, we need to target some appropriations to fund process improvements. I mentioned earlier that Newport News and Electric Boat have shaved a year and a half off Virginia production through more efficient manufacturing. We need more of this sort of thing. Shipbuilding is a team effort, and these are four ways in which Congress can help to constructively participate in this national project. The requirement for a bigger Navy is clear. The Navy needs our help to fulfill its mission. Numbers matter when it comes to projecting naval power in this day and age. The President and the Navy agree that we must build a bigger Navy. To summarize, the shipbuilding industrial base is up to the task. Submarine production will be the most challenging part of this. There is limited capacity for submarine yards, and we need to do something about that, but Congress can take a number of steps now. We must start to build a foundation this year. I am committed--and I hope the entire Congress is committed--to setting this firm foundation, and I certainly intend to use my chairmanship on Seapower for this goal. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on the motion to proceed to S. 722, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only, with Senator Wicker recognized for 12 minutes, to be followed by Senator Merkley for 12 minutes; and that following those remarks, the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.