Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Does the distinguished chairman wish to speak on the motion?

Mr. President, this represents another degree of cooperation. This comes to us by unanimous consent. According to the rules, we must have a vote of the yeas and nays, but we are approaching the finish line, and out of consideration for those who have travel plans later tonight, I hope we can stick to the 10-minute rule.

I urge the passage of this important managers' package.

Vote on Amendment No. 1087

Mr. President, I now would like to congratulate my colleagues in the Senate for passing a very important National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024.

I see that my distinguished chairman has come back to the floor, and I want to thank him for his cooperation. I want to thank every member of the committee and every Member of the Senate for their cooperation. As the public has learned, we do much of this through unanimous consent, and it is a tribute that we have gotten as far as we have and it is July 27, with another full 2 months to go before the end of the fiscal year. I think we are on the right track.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act will help meet the dangerous national security moment we face. It will equip our military with many of the tools necessary to implement the national defense strategy.

Every year, as has been mentioned, we pass the NDAA. This is the 63rd time we have done so, and it is a lasting, continual testament to Congress's commitment to our servicemembers and our security.

To be sure, our threats are much greater than they were back in 1961 when the first NDAA passed. Today, the United States faces undoubtedly the most complex and dangerous security situation since World War II.

This year's NDAA is an important step forward in our quest to build our arsenal. Ideally, we would have an annual 3 to 5 percent boost above inflation to our top line. We were not able to come to an agreement on that, but even without that budget increase, our committee has advanced a strong, bipartisan product that contains numerous important provisions. Let me summarize just a few.

The bill authorizes a 5.2-percent pay raise for servicemembers and includes a host of other quality-of-life improvements for our troops and their families.

The bill also contains provisions that will help the military solve its recruiting crisis.

We include a massive expansion of the Junior ROTC Program, a citizenship builder in our high schools. We also included support for our submarine programs. We need to do more in that regard.

The legislation addresses the ongoing maintenance delays by sending funds to our shipyards. It expands our deterrent capabilities with a sea-launched nuclear cruise missile and allows us to make good on our commitments to the United Kingdom and Australia, commonly referred to as the AUKUS agreement.

The bill makes six more munitions eligible for the all-important multiyear procurement contracts. These multiyear commitments send a clear signal to our industrial base. And we will produce these arms at home, here in the United States, equipping American troops with American-made weapons and ammunition.

Notably, we have fully authorized the construction of the next amphibious ship, the LPD-33.

Our committee realizes military competition in the 21st century will be decided by our willingness to harness emerging technology. This NDAA accelerates the development of artificial intelligence, offensive cyber, hypersonics, and unmanned platforms. Because we intend to lap Beijing in the 100-year innovation marathon, we are authorizing a new Pentagon authority with the Office of Strategic Capital.

As always, partnerships with our allies act as a force multiplier on all the tools we are providing American soldiers. I am glad this bill enhances security cooperation with allies in every part of the free world, from the Baltics to the Pacific.

Starting in January, the Armed Services Committee held countless hearings, briefings, and oversight hearings of the Department. This is one of the most encompassing bills as a result of our work, which began in January. The committee mark included 1,217 provisions. Of that, 504 were the result of member inputs. During the committee markups, an additional 240 amendments were considered.

Throughout the process, my colleague and teammate, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, has been a gentleman in every way and a patriot, as demonstrated by his service in the military and his service in the House and Senate. I thank him for helping to make this process exceedingly smooth.

To take a moment, let me thank the following staff members who were so essential in getting this done smoothly and efficiently: Rick Berger, Brendan Gavin, James Mazol, Greg Lilly, Brad Patout, Olivia Trusty, Eric Trager, Adam Trull, Kevin Kim, Adam Barker, Sean O'Keefe, Katie Magnus, Isaac Jalkanen, Eric Lofgren, Kristina Belcourt, Pat Thompson, Katie Romaine, Travis Brundrett, Jack Beyrer, and Philip Waller. And all of these people on my side of the dais were led effectively by a veteran staff member from the House and Senate, my staff director, John Keast. Thank you to all of these people.

Thank you once again to my colleague Senator Reed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following member of my staff be granted floor privileges until July 28, 2023, Chloe Jackson.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 6 minutes of debate before the next rollcall vote.

Now, Madam President, I think we can move along quickly if we do have order, and I do appreciate that.

I call up my amendment No. 1055 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I ask consent to have 1 additional minute on each side.

I reserve the time of the proponents.

Mr. President, I claim the time.

Mr. President, to close on behalf of the proponents, this is a bipartisan amendment, and it deserves bipartisan support by the U.S. Senate.

Rather than set up a disruptive new bureaucracy, it builds on the requirement for the President simply to select, of the inspectors general, a lead inspector general reporting directly to the Secretaries of Defense and State.

If you want true oversight and you want to put it in the statute, this amendment is necessary. That is what it does. It is simple, it is effective, and it puts it into law with the signature of the President.

I urge a bipartisan ``yes'' vote for this bipartisan amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1055

I ask for the yeas and nays.

What is the pending business?

Madam President, let me say that in just a few moments, we will begin voting on amendments that are subject to unanimous consent requests, and we hope to do five votes today and additional votes tomorrow and following so that we can get this National Defense Authorization Bill enacted and get to conference.

Let me say that this year's National Defense Authorization Act would help meet the dangerous national security moment we face and would equip our military with the tools necessary to implement the national defense strategy.

Chairman Reed will speak later about the ways this bill will help us deter adversaries and reinforce our defenses. It has been a pleasure to work with him and to advance our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. We do this every year. This will be the 63rd time that Congress--the House and Senate--have sent a national defense authorization bill to the President for his signature, and I know we will do it today. This is a testament to our commitment to our country and also to our servicemembers.

Our threats are much greater than they were 63 years ago in 1961 when the first NDAA was passed. Today, the United States faces the most complex and dangerous global security situation since World War II.

China is swelling its military might. Xi Jinping has directed his forces to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. He has actually said this is his goal. He proclaimed it openly. A successful invasion of Taiwan would spell the end of the global security architecture that has helped ensure American peace and prosperity since 1945. Meanwhile, Russia is executing the largest European land war in over half a century. But Vladimir Putin's eyes are not only on

Ukraine and Europe. He seeks influence across the global south and the Middle East.

Amid this resurgence of great power conflict, Iran and North Korea are increasingly bellicose. Their weapons programs and missile tests raise the specter of nuclear conflict to a higher level. The President of Israel mentioned this very effectively in a joint speech to Congress earlier today.

Indeed, our own homeland is no longer a sanctuary. Criminal Mexican cartels have exploited our porous southwest border. This has created a drug and human-trafficking crisis that is killing thousands of Americans each year.

Moreover, two decades after 9/11, our sovereign airspace is vulnerable. We witnessed that earlier this year when China flew a surveillance balloon over our country without any encumbrance. Managing such a complex threat environment requires more resources and smarter approaches.

Senior national security officials have repeatedly told the Senate Armed Services Committee a simple message: American defense capabilities are spread dangerously thin. In fact, our military has not been spread this thin in 70 years. Our industrial base began to hum on the eve of war with the Axis powers. And since then, our worldwide military presence has underwritten our domestic tranquility.

We have succeeded because we followed the doctrine of peace through strength. We believe the best way to encounter today's threats is to deter our adversaries from attacking at all. However, as today's threats increase, our deterrence capabilities have decreased, and they must begin to increase and do so immediately.

For the past few years, our defense industrial base has languished. Anemic budgets created a brittle industry that cannot ramp production to meet the needs of today. This year's NDAA is an important step forward in our quest to rebuild our arsenal. Ideally, we would have an annual 3- to 5-percent boost to our topline above inflation--3- to 5- percent boost above inflation to our topline. Yet even without that budget increase, our committee has managed to advance a strong bipartisan product that contains important provisions.

Let me summarize a few.

Our secret weapon, first of all, has always been our people. So supporting our military personnel is key to any successful NDAA. This bill authorizes a 5.2-percent pay raise for our servicemembers, and it includes a host of other quality-of-life improvements for our troops and for our families.

The bill also contains provisions that will help the military solve its recruiting crisis. I am glad to note we include a massive expansion of Junior ROTC--the JROTC program--an initiative that instills values like citizenship and public service in our young people and, no doubt, increases interest in military service.

A 19th century American Navy captain said:

Whoever rules the waves, rules the world.

Our committee agrees. This year's NDAA supports our shipbuilding programs by fully authorizing LPD-33, the Marine Corps' top priority. The bill decisively rejects the Biden administration's misguided proposal to retire several ships too early. We also included support for our submarine programs. The legislation addresses ongoing maintenance delays. We are sending more funds to our shipyards. It expands our deterrent capabilities with the sea-launched cruise missile, and it allows us to make good on our commitments to the United Kingdom and to Australia, commonly known as the AUKUS agreement.

The NDAA also delivers a host of powerful munitions. The bill makes six more munitions eligible for multiyear procurement contracts, including the highly regarded Tomahawk missile. This missile is one of INDOPACOM's commander's top priorities for deterring Chinese aggression in the western Pacific. The commander said he needed this additional procurement, and this committee bill gives it to him.

These multiyear commitments send a clear demand signal to our industrial base. We have to manufacture this ammunition. We have to manufacture these weapons. They also allow us to replenish our stocks while securing victory for Ukraine against our strategic adversary Russia. And we will produce these arms at home, equipping American troops with weapons made by American workers.

Our committee realizes military competition in the 21st century will be decided also by our willingness to harness emerging technology. So this NDAA accelerates the development of artificial intelligence-- offensive cyber, hypersonics, and unmanned platforms. We intend to lap Beijing in the 100-year innovation marathon. We need to lap communist China. So we are authorizing a new Pentagon authority within the Office of Strategic Capital.

This bill also establishes investments in space launch infrastructure to secure the high ground in the Sino-American space race.

As always, partnerships with our allies act as a force multiplier on all the tools we are providing American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

I am glad this bill enhances security cooperation with allies in every part of the free world, from the Baltics to the Pacific.

The bill also addresses the crisis at the southwest border. And it is a crisis. We do this by requiring the Department of Defense to develop a strategy for countering fentanyl--a DOD strategy for countering the deadly drug of fentanyl. It also authorizes the Department to act against criminal Mexican cartels in cyber space.

Today, the Department unbelievably pays rent to store previously purchased border wall materials. We don't put them up to protect our border, but we pay rent to landowners to store these border wall materials. This legislation, on a bipartisan basis, compels them to use or transfer those materials so that wall construction can continue. This bill focuses the Pentagon on deterring real wars, not fighting culture wars.

Our NDAA sends a signal to the Department of Defense bureaucrats that Congress intends to rein in divisive social policies. This year's bill limits the amount we spend on salaries of DEI staff. It restores a culture of meritocracy and calls our service academies to focus on forming effective officers and not on hosting Berkeley-style seminars.

Time forbids me from listing all the provisions we have included in the NDAA. But before I finish, I should note that we have an all-too- rare chance to return the Senate to regular order today, and it gives us a chance to avoid a costly, wasteful continuing resolution for our military. For the first time in years, the Senate majority leader has put the Defense bill up for consideration with months left in the calendar. Still, we must be mindful of the fleeting time. But we must take this chance to avoid another self-inflicted real cut to defense. And that is what a continuing resolution always does when we have to retreat to that. Let's avoid that and we are doing that today.

We are going to take up five amendments that we have agreed by unanimous consent to bring to the floor. The managers' package contains 50 amendments that have been agreed to by the committees and the leadership--25 amendments sponsored by Democrats, 25 amendments sponsored by my party, the Republican Party. And we have a chance to continue this with votes tomorrow.

I think we should proceed with dispatch, working into the night, if necessary, next week, to get this bill done after having a full debate on ideas submitted from both sides of the aisle.

Let's work thoughtfully to deliver a bill to the President's desk that commits this Congress to a national policy of preparedness.

Let me quote President Theodore Roosevelt who endorsed such a policy of preparedness. Theodore Roosevelt said this:

Never in our entire history has a Nation suffered . . .

because too much care has been given to the Army, too much

prominence given it, too much money spent upon it, or because

it has been too large. But again and again, we have suffered

because enough care has not been given to it; because it had

been too small; because there has not been a sufficient

preparation in advance for a possible war.

We need to heed those words today. And what President Roosevelt was saying is it will cost a lot to deter our enemies, but it would cost a lot more if we do not. We cannot wait a moment longer to consider this year's NDAA.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, to speak for a few seconds in opposition to this amendment, it is absolutely unnecessary. I cannot think of any currently serving elected official of significance who is calling for suspending or withdrawing from NATO.

If I didn't know better, I would think that this amendment might be aimed as a slap at former President Trump, but surely that is not the case.

If it is, however, we should be reminded that the former President was concerned about some of NATO's members not meeting their obligations to spend 2 percent of GDP but that he was fully committed to article 5 of NATO.

You will be pleased to know that this bill, NDAA, addresses the concern of the 2 percent. We adopted an amendment at markup, sponsored by Senator Sullivan, that would require the Secretary of Defense to prioritize NATO members who are meeting or exceeding the 2 percent GDP defense spending target when the DOD is making decisions on basing, training, and exercises.

I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. President, how much time is left on this unnecessary and extraneous amendment?

I urge a ``no'' vote for those reasons.

Vote on Amendment No. 429

A parliamentary inquiry.

Do I understand this will be a 10-minute vote and those Senators who arrive after 10 minutes and a brief grace period will not be allowed to vote? Is that the position of the chair?

I appreciate the clarity.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns from my office be granted floor privileges until July 28, 2023: Shields Armstrong, Dia Chawla, Sykes Connell, Bobby Current, Don Fruge, Christian Fulcher, and Barron Liston.

Mr. President, today, June 13, 2023, Klyce True Value Hardware in Sardis, MS, will celebrate its 100th year of business. It is my pleasure to congratulate William ``Bill'' Klyce, the current owner, on this milestone.

This family-owned local store is a picture of the American dream. In 1923, Fred Walthall Klyce, Sr., opened for

business in downtown Sardis. He never dreamed his shop would become an anchor of the town for the next century. Fred passed the business down to his son John Klyce, Sr., who would then hand it down to his own son Bill Klyce. Through the years, Klyce Hardware has become a repository for the history of Sardis. Visitors will be surprised at the artifacts they find when they walk through the store.

Klyce Hardware has always been characterized by community service. Today, Bill Klyce stocks the nuts, bolts, paints, and brushes his customers expect. But he does even more than that. Occasionally, someone needs an item he does not carry. When they do, he goes out of his way to find it. And sometimes, emergencies happen on a Sunday. When they do, Bill has been known to open the store so his fellow townspeople can repair their homes in a pinch.

Many who hear the story of Klyce Hardware will find it familiar, even if they have never heard of this particular store. They will recognize it because they know and love similar shops in their own towns. They have their own Klyce Hardware and their own Bill Klyce.

Across our Nation stretches a constellation of small businesses that quietly support the American way of life. The entrepreneurs who start them perform a kind of magic. Their enterprises create most American jobs, inject energy into local economies, and meet the practical needs of their neighbors. Without them, the American economy would lack its characteristic strength and optimism.

I want to thank Bill personally for carrying the legacy of his family's dream, and I want to congratulate Klyce Hardware on 100 years of outstanding service to the people of Sardis. The Klyce family represents the best of American enterprise, and I am glad to honor them today.

I can assure my friend from South Carolina that when Senator Cotton reaches the floor, I will yield to him because he is time-constrained.

What I want to say is what I have been saying all along this year since the Biden budget came out. The world is in the most dangerous situation we have seen since World War II, and this Biden budget, which is now enshrined in this debt ceiling bill, is woefully inadequate. It amounts to a cut in defense capability. It sounds like an increase. You can call it an increase. But inflation is running at 7 percent, and so we will have to increase defense spending by that much simply to keep up with what we did last year, and we would have to increase by several billions more in order to give us the capability we need to prevent war in the Pacific. So I just have to say that the

fact that this is being called a victory by some people on our side of the aisle is absolutely inaccurate.

Pundits around the country have called this budget amount inadequate, and now, for some reason, because it is part of an agreement the Speaker has made, it is being applauded. The numbers don't lie.

I will tell you this. I will say this to my friends. We have 3 or 4 years to get ready for the time when Xi Jinping, the dictator President-for-life in communist China, says he wants to be ready for a war against the United States, a war to take over the island of Taiwan.

The decisions we make today can be implemented--if we have the resolve to do them--by 2027, but we need to make those decisions this year. We don't need to put them off until next year, and we certainly don't need to say we are going to go with the Biden cuts in readiness and do 1 percent more next year. That is woefully inadequate.

Let me say this before I yield to my friend from Alaska. It is easy to hide in the budget--one sentence, and then I will yield to my friend from Arkansas.

It is easy to hide inadequacies in a defense budget. People still get their Social Security checks. They still get their paychecks. When it comes home to roost for us is when a conflict breaks out.

We weren't ready for World War II, and when the flag went up and we were in a war, suddenly we were way, way behind. We were ready under President Reagan, and we had peace under President Reagan. When we are ready, we have the ability to avoid conflict, and this budget simply does not do that.

I will yield the floor and let my friend from Arkansas seek recognition.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I come before the Senate this afternoon to discuss the U.S. Navy's ability to deter conflict in the Pacific. As China's navy has grown, ours has shrunk, and we are running out of time to tilt the balance of power back toward the United States and ensure that deterrence does not fail in the Western Pacific.

For centuries, American naval power has proven the decisive factor in our security and prosperity. The U.S. Navy secured our victory in the American Revolution during the 18th century. It enabled our transformation into a world power in the 19th century. It defeated adversaries in two world wars in the 20th century, and it will decide our success or failure this century.

China's rising strength on the seas is a direct threat to international peace and security. Their ability to exercise total control of the major sea lanes strikes at the heart of free and market- based economies in Asia and around the globe. For a few minutes today, I will outline the threat, our lack of preparedness, and what it will take for us to deter China from acting in an irresponsible way.

The Chinese Communist Party understands a truth that 19th century American CAPT Alfred Thayer Mahan summarized when he said, ``Whoever rules the waves rules the world.'' Beijing knows a great navy is a necessary step in their march for regional dominance.

And so, while our own shipyards were closing and downsizing and our shipbuilding budgets shrank, China went to sea.

According to the Secretary of the Navy, China has more shipbuilding capacity in just one shipyard than we have in our entire industrial base. By the end of this decade, China is expected to have a fleet of 440 warships. If the Navy's latest 30-year shipbuilding plan is a guide, we would have only 290. Of course, the statutory requirement enacted by the Congress and signed by the President of the United States is 355.

A Chinese navy of the size I mentioned--440--and a strength relative to our own directly endangers our partner Taiwan, our allies in Japan and in the Philippines, and our military bases in the Pacific. More Chinese ships means more sea-based Chinese vertical launch cells-- missile delivery systems, which are the primary offensive tool of any navy. A recent analysis found Beijing has more vertical launch cells than the United States and our allies combined. Those cells, in addition to China's extensive sensing capabilities on the ground and in space, increase their advantage in the Western Pacific as our Navy plays an away game far from home.

These troubling facts demand a decisive response. Yet our Navy has failed to keep up. The Department of Defense recently delivered another 30-year shipbuilding plan that fails to meet Congress's requirement. Their plan contains three building options, only one of which would grow the fleet to

the legally required battle force size of 355 ships. Even then, it would take two decades to get there.

This is not a blueprint for long-term American command of the sea. Instead, the administration is ceding control of the Western Pacific to dictator Xi Jinping and his Communist fleet. In fact, we are still living off the remains of the Reagan-era defense buildup, retiring ships we built at the end of the Cold War, without replacing them. Our shipbuilding pace has slowed. At the peak of the 1980s production surge, we constructed four Los Angeles-class attack submarines every year. Today, we struggle to build just two advanced submarines annually.

Some put a positive spin on this policy, labeling it a ``strategic pause'' or saying this is a deliberate strategy of ``divest to invest.'' Whatever the catch phrase, it is dangerous. We are shrinking our fleet and leaving our sailors to fight a war without the tools to win.

In some cases, technicians are forced to repair destroyers by taking parts off of other destroyers just to meet deployment requirements. One of our most vital submarines in the Indo-Pacific, the USS Connecticut, sustained damage 2 years ago and will likely not be repaired for another 5 years--another 5 years. Congress has already appropriated $50 million to repair the Connecticut, and we will probably need to set aside more funds. The USS Boise--one of our fast-attack nuclear submarines--has spent 8 years in dry dock--8 years in dry dock--to receive rudimentary maintenance--8 years. This is absolutely unacceptable. It will cost over $350 million to repair the Boise on top of the costs associated with keeping it in port for nearly a decade.

A diminished fleet size is not just about numbers; it has other cascading negative effects, particularly on our sailors. When we have fewer assets and yet ask our Navy to perform the same mission, we make sailors take longer deployments. That means a lower quality of life and higher stress on our ships and on our sailors, both of which impede our readiness efforts--and our recruitment and retention, I might add.

This diminished naval strength leaves us in a dangerous near-term situation with China, whose ambitions to dominate Asia loom large over the next decade.

Time is not on our side. We have promising new military technology set to come online in a decade or more, but China will likely reach its strongest position against us much sooner, well before that new technology of ours is in operation. That, combined with the retirement of ships built in the 1980s, has led some to dub the coming decade as the ``terrible 20s.''

Our Navy struggles to meet basic requirements, while Xi Jinping visits Chinese military installations and tells its sailors to prepare for war. This discrepancy led Director of Naval Intelligence RADM Mike Studeman to say that we have ``China blindness.'' It is no small thing for a one-star to tell us we are blind to the capabilities and urgency of our chief adversary's military.

We are short on time, but we are not out of time. We do not want a conflict with China. China and the United States can prosper and coexist, but the best way to achieve peace is deterrence. To deter China in the short term and restore our long-term maritime strength, I propose three concrete steps that we can take right now.

First, we need to make a monumental investment in maritime infrastructure. Our shipbuilders are ready to build more, but they need the investments in machine tooling, workforce, and materials.

As our Chief of Naval Operations recently testified, our Navy should get a second shipyard for Constellation-class frigate construction, and we should increase investments in our submarine industrial base if we have any hope of implementing the AUKUS deal. The AUKUS deal is a 2022 agreement in which we promised to sell submarines to Australia as fast as we can build them.

Congress can spark a renaissance of shipbuilding by offering a demand signal for a major maritime buildup. Alongside a bipartisan group of Representatives and Senators, I have introduced the SHIPYARD Act to offer just such a demand signal.

The act authorizes $25 billion of investment in our shipbuilding efforts. It empowers our shipyards to build the future of the U.S. Navy fleet and could be immediately implemented into this year's defense funding measures.

Increased funding could push the Department of the Navy's Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program to new levels of efficacy. This would add to the success we are already seeing, and there is no time to waste.

Second, we must immediately give the Navy the capabilities they need to deter a conflict in the next 5 years. This means taking technologies and concepts that are already on the shelf and integrating them into our Western Pacific posture. We should be forging ahead with purchases of sea mines, unmanned platforms, and long-range munitions, which would all be relevant and capable in the near term.

We also need to accelerate our efforts to field maritime target cells to ensure our fleet is properly able to coordinate and target adversarial assets far from our shores.

Third, we should continue to boost the programs within the Navy that are already making major strides toward deterring China. Commandant of the Marine Corps David Berger's Force Design 2030 has transformed the Marine Corps into the cutting edge of our deterrent posture in the Pacific, and General Berger needs a fleet of amphibious ships to complete the job. Congress should step up and add funding for amphibious ships in this year's NDAA. Multiyear block buys would also signal demand to the shipbuilding industry.

These programs will be difficult and will, of course, cost money, but failing to complete them will facilitate China's advance and be much more difficult and much more expensive in the long run.

We are in our most dangerous national security moment since World War II. We are in our most dangerous security moment since World War II, and we must urgently restore our naval deterrent to meet the moment.

Others have recognized this throughout our history. Reflecting on the dark days of World War II in early 1942, Winston Churchill wrote:

The foundation of all our hopes and dreams was the immense

shipbuilding program of the United States.

Once again, the peace and security of the free world depends on our Navy. We need to rebuild it with haste.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Hubert Couch and James Causey--interns in

my office--be granted floor privileges until May 4, 2023.

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

Today, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the effort to rebuild America's nuclear deterrent. For most Americans, this may seem like a relic of the Cold War, but to those of us tasked with funding our national defense, nuclear threats are not a thing of the past; nuclear threats are a present-day issue.

America successfully deterred nuclear attacks during the Cold War. Back then, we had one clear foe, but today's national security situation is the most complex we have faced since World War II. Russia, China, and North Korea are rapidly growing their nuclear stockpiles, and Iran stands on the brink of building its own arsenal. Facing multiple nuclear-armed enemies at the same time requires us to rethink how we plan to modernize our nuclear capabilities.

Let me first briefly outline the nuclear threat posed by our primary adversaries and then list four steps Congress can take in response.

In the past, the Soviet Union and the United States possessed nuclear weapons stockpiles that dwarfed China's. Beijing has set out to change that. China has so rapidly expanded its nuclear arsenal that it may be a match for our own by the end of this decade.

With breathtaking speed, China completed a nuclear triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, long-range bombers, and ballistic missile submarines. China's pace and sophistication took us by surprise, frankly. We were slow to respond as China built hundreds of new ballistic missile silos. Then they developed a fractional orbital bombardment system--orbital. That is as startling as the name sounds. With this system, China can place a nuclear warhead into the Earth's orbit and then drop it anywhere in the world with little warning. This is a fact.

The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated away these types of weapons during the Cold War. Russia and the United States did so in part because of the extreme danger such systems posed to global stability. As Xi Jinping develops this system for China, he makes it clear that causing international instability does not keep him up at night. In fact, Xi seems to thrive on it.

The situation with Russia is hardly any better. Vladimir Putin still owns the world's largest, most modern, and most diverse nuclear arsenal and is willing to threaten the use of nuclear weapons to get what he wants. He did this to try to keep NATO from intervening as he invaded Ukraine and has repeatedly done so since then to register his displeasure with our aid to the Ukrainian people.

On their own, China and Russia represent bad news for our interests, but there is still worse news. Moscow and Beijing have decided to work together. Earlier this year, China purchased over 28 tons of highly enriched uranium from Russia. This will likely be used to produce plutonium for additional nuclear weapons.

Two other nations present significant threats to the United States. North Korea may now possess enough missiles to overwhelm our homeland missile defenses. They have expanded their nuclear forces with little pushback from the Biden administration. Worse still, Iran may be only weeks away from building its own weapons, putting regional stability and our ally Israel at grave risk. The administration has shown little resolve to thwart Iran's nuclear program before it is too late.

Surveying these nuclear threats prompts us to examine our own nuclear capabilities. When we do, we find them lacking.

The last time the United States made real investments in our nuclear arsenal was the 1980s, and almost all the nuclear forces we have today are from that decade. These systems hold together only because of the hard work of our servicemembers. The National Nuclear Security Administration's industrial capabilities for maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile are so antiquated that they are literally falling apart. For example, the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, TN, is in a state of disrepair. Y-12 is a symbol of the broader issue, and the broader issue is this: Because we have not kept our nuclear capacity up to date, we are the only nuclear armed country in the world--nuclear armed country in the world--that cannot build a single new nuclear weapon.

Around 2010, the Obama administration and Congress, to their credit, agreed to begin replacing our aging nuclear forces and revitalizing our nuclear infrastructure, including programs such as the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, the B-21 bomber, and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile. I commend the Obama administration and the Congress for doing that at the time, but I can tell you now, more than a decade later, we are still waiting for these efforts to come to fruition.

The Biden administration has seen the same news we have. We are all watching Russia fully update its arsenal. China continues its historic nuclear breakout. Yet the administration does not seem to take these threats seriously enough and does not hold anyone accountable for missing program development target dates. Instead, every single U.S. nuclear modernization program has been delayed, reduced in scope, or canceled. Amazingly, despite over $500 million in additional funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration last year to help restore our ability to build plutonium cores for our weapons, we see no real progress.

Considering the rising threats from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, our complacency is unacceptable. I want to commend Senator King and Senator Fischer on both sides of the aisle, chairman and ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. They have led bipartisan efforts to advance our overdue modernization programs, and I applaud them for their leadership--Senator King from Maine and Senator Fischer from Nebraska.

Now Congress needs to come together to take even stronger actions to ensure the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration urgently prioritizes the modernization of our nuclear forces. Specifically, I believe we should take the following steps:

First, increase investments to accelerate the building of our nuclear forces and restore the basic capabilities needed to maintain our nuclear stockpile and do this as soon as possible.

Secondly, remove regulatory barriers hindering the success of our nuclear modernization programs, and also hold the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration leadership accountable for performance.

Third, immediately commit to expanding and diversifying our nuclear forces. An essential first step is establishing and funding a formal program to build the sea-launched cruise missile.

Fourth, reposture U.S. forces to bolster deterrence and reassure our allies in NATO and Asia of U.S. commitment to deterring Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

These are significant but necessary steps.

In today's world, we must deter multiple adversaries at once. That is just the reality now. This demands the preparation and investment I have just outlined.

During the Cold War, we understood what it meant to face down existential threats. We prevented nuclear conflicts then by remaining true to President Reagan's ``peace through strength'' doctrine. We would do well to return to that vision today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I come before the Senate this afternoon to address the disturbing matter of Vladimir Kara-Murza and to call on the State Department to act and act decisively now on behalf of Mr. Kara- Murza.

Vladimir Kara-Murza is a courageous Russian leader and outspoken opponent of the dictatorship of President Putin there in Russia and a leader in the democracy effort in his home country of Russia.

Many colleagues, myself included, know Vladimir Kara-Murza personally. I admire him. I consider him a friend. Other Senators will remember who Mr. Kara-Murza is after I remind the Senate of his history.

Mr. Kara-Murza was the right-hand man of the late Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov. I say the late Russian leader because he was assassinated within the shadows of the Kremlin in 2015, after a career of courageous, outspoken opposition to the dictatorship in Russia. That was Boris Nemtsov.

His assistant and right-hand man, Kara-Murza, was just this week sentenced to a 25-year prison term in Russia, having already served 1 year in prison for the simple offense of speaking out on behalf of freedom and democracy in Russia.

Over the years, Vladimir Kara-Murza has spoken up against President Putin's invasion of Ukraine. He has spoken out against the suppression of human rights in Russia.

He has worked with members of Congress. He has worked with Senator Cardin. He has worked with Senators like me and with former Senator John McCain. And he has been instrumental in getting us to pass and getting the administrations to sign important human rights legislation, like the Magnitsky Act, which has now been signed by 35 or more countries internationally, to crack down on those individuals within a dictatorship regime who have benefited from the violations of human rights.

How has Mr. Vladimir Kara-Murza paid for this offense of speaking out on behalf of democracy and freedom? He is the one who has twice been poisoned by the Putin regime--on two occasions. And they fumbled it twice. Now they have a third chance to kill him, and it may be that, unless the State Department acts quickly, the Putin regime may finally get their wish and see the obituary of Vladimir Kara-Murza.

His life is in danger now. Because of his previous poisonings, both of which he recovered from, he has suffered already from polyneuropathy. After a year in prison, he has lost 40 pounds. He has lost feeling in both of his feet now and is losing the feeling in one of his arms. That is the situation he finds himself in, the week when he was sentenced to a 25-year prison term simply for speaking out on behalf of freedom. Even under Russian law, a statutory scheme that none of us would approve of--even under Russian law--a diagnosis such as this would lead to the release of any prisoner, but not, apparently, for Vladimir Kara-Murza. Predictably, the Russian courts have violated their own law to keep him detained.

Today, we read about many victims of Russia's despotism. We have been talking this week about former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, who has been sitting in a Russian prison since 2018 under fabricated charges, and then the recently detained Wall Street Journal reporter, Evan Gershkovich.

Those two individuals need our support and are getting the support of the State Department--the same support that Mr. Vladimir Kara-Murza needs now and that the Senate should demand of the State Department.

The State Department has the capability, as they have done for these two other prisoners, Gershkovich and Whelan. They have the ability to designate Mr. Kara-Murza as ``wrongfully detained'' under the Levinson Act. This classification would make the release of Vladimir Kara-Murza a top U.S. Government priority.

Granting this designation would be a major step forward and would raise this case to the highest level of attention within the State Department and with regard to their negotiations with the Kremlin. It would give negotiators new tools to act strongly and quickly. Strong action and quick action is needed now to save the very life of Vladimir Kara-Murza.

Efforts on his behalf could be conducted alongside the efforts that are being initiated for Mr. Whelan and Mr. Gershkovich, which I very much support.

I implore the State Department to elevate this case also and save the life of Vladimir Kara-Murza, and I implore all Members of Congress to join me in urging our government to take immediate action to support all three of these gentlemen.

Let's resolve that our government and our State Department act in every way possible to gain the release of these prisoners and in particular this prisoner whose life is hanging at the very moment by a thread.

I met with Vladimir Kara-Murza's wife only yesterday. She had met with the State Department, along with her attorneys, along with some advocates. Clearly, she fears for the life of her husband.

She is a resident of Northern Virginia, by the way, with two small children.

She fears for the life of her husband, and she worries about the future of herself and her children, but also she wonders why the State Department would not act in the most forceful way possible, and that is with this designation of ``wrongfully detained.''

Senator Cardin and I will be speaking to Members of the Senate and the House about this. We will be passing around a letter to sign to the Secretary of State urging that this matter be given the highest consideration. And perhaps we can diplomatically obtain the release of this courageous person who has committed no crime and save the life of Vladimir Kara-Murza.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss, again, a key constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. The Constitution lays this weighty task at the feet of Congress. We hold the purse strings, and today our task is to provide for sustained growth in the capacity and capability of our Armed Forces. For 30 years, we have lived off the military investments of the eighties and these investments have kept China and Russia and others from attacking us. They have kept us safe.

Today, those investments have largely expired, and both Beijing and Moscow are acting increasingly adversarial. In particular, China's military is growing so quickly that we will not long deter them unless we invest more in our military too. It will cost a lot to deter Beijing, but it will cost a lot more if we do not.

In February, I delivered a speech on our most dire national security challenge: preventing the Chinese aggression against Taiwan. Defending our security and prosperity means defending Taiwan. If the island falls, the global balance of power tilts for decades. Our children and grandchildren would then not live in an American-led 21st century.

Today, I will focus on the Chinese Communist Party's rapid military buildup and the U.S. ability to boost our military capability. I will show how both demand sustained real growth in our defense budget alongside increased reform and prioritization. Inexplicably, in the face of these facts, the President has proposed another military cut. Twice now, he has proposed cuts and twice Congress has replied with an emphatic and bipartisan no. Instead, Congress has added, over the last 2 fiscal years, $70 billion of targeted investments to our military to help us catch up with China. I am confident, on a bipartisan basis, again, we will do this for the next fiscal year.

Let's begin by outlining the rising threat of the Chinese Communist Party. As Congress considers this year's military spending commitments, we need to consider what we are up against. The U.S. military investment must counter Chinese military investment. If we do not, history may one day bestow on our moment--on this time--the ignominious title of a ``prewar period.'' I hope we are not in a prewar period. If we are prepared, there is a much greater chance that we can avoid a war in the future.

We know China intends to dominate the Pacific. They boast about it in public speeches, and they are building a military capable of turning their rhetoric into reality. We have debated what year we should be worried about. Some say 2023, 2025, 2027; some say 2035. Secretary Blinken says China wants to seize Taiwan on a much faster timeline than we have previously thought. The 2027 date, what some call the Davidson window, is based on Xi Jinping's orders to his military about when he expects them to be ready. We would all do well to remember that dictators start wars of aggression before their militaries are ready. Look no further than Germany and Japan in World War II and look at Putin's Russia today. If Putin's invasion of Ukraine taught us anything, it is that the plans of dictators are often driven as much by delusions of grandeur as by honest assessments of relative military capabilities. This is what makes the next few years so dangerous.

Last year, Xi Jinping fully consolidated his control over the Chinese Communist Party, beginning a historic third term which lasted through 2028 with very few restraints on his power, and it shows. As the People's Liberation Army grows more capable and the Chinese Communist Party faces growing domestic turmoil, Beijing may soon decide that its power is peaking. That may prompt them to act sooner rather than later.

China is certainly signaling a sinister intent. Last August, they concluded unprecedented military drills around Taiwan's most trafficked waterways and flight routes. They did so arguably to project strength in response to Nancy Pelosi's visit to the island, when she was then Speaker of the House. They build replicas of U.S. Navy ships, aircraft, and air defense systems, and they regularly practice striking these replicas.

Their military buildup is the strongest signal of their intent to dominate the Pacific. I, along with many other Senators, have seen the sobering classified reports, but the public picture is grim enough. The Chinese Communist Party just announced the expansion of its defense budget by 7.2 percent for this year, about six times the increase the Biden administration proposed. Beijing has increased its military spending every year for more than 20 years, and we know that they actually hide many portions of their defense budget. By simply looking at Beijing's quantitative and qualitative improvements, we see that Beijing spends freely on its military.

China has expanded its nuclear forces faster than anyone thought possible. Already, they have more ground-based nuclear weapon launchers than we do. This changes our entire nuclear readiness calculus. For seven decades, we focused on matching the Russian nuclear arsenal. But we experienced a new Sputnik moment when we watched the Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle perform maneuvers we had never contemplated.

China has also rapidly expanded its conventional sea, air, and rocket forces.

Their Navy outnumbers ours. They will have more than 460 ships by 2030. U.S. naval intelligence indicates these ships may already be as high quality as our own. Yet our senior Navy leadership continues to underestimate Chinese capabilities. China's civilian fleet is expanding also, and the People's Liberation Army has used it in mock amphibious invasions--the civilian fleet.

The Chinese Air Force has shed its third-generation, Vietnam-era fighters and built an impressive fourth-generation fighter force. They are building fifth-generation fighters at scale today, just like we are. And their air-to-air missiles have greater range than U.S. missiles. China's air warfare training has advanced beyond anything we thought possible 5 years ago.

The Chinese rocket force points thousands of short-range ballistic missiles at Taiwan and hundreds of long-range missiles at U.S. bases in Japan, Guam, and elsewhere.

China has not restricted its advances to traditional military domains either. It is a major player on the cyber battlefield. Top U.S. cyber commander, General Nakasone, says the increase in Chinese cyber warfare capabilities has been unlike anything he has ever seen--unlike anything General Nakasone has ever seen. Earlier this year, our top nonmilitary cyber official told us the Chinese would combine an attack on Taiwan, if that occurs, with broad attacks on U.S. cyber infrastructure. And that certainly makes sense.

Beijing has also overtaken Russia in space. Russia is now the junior partner to communist China, not only in space communications and intelligence satellites, but also in space warfighting capabilities.

Finally, China is building a multinational syndicate of bad actor nations. Beijing envisions itself as the central character in an anti- U.S. coalition that includes junior partner Russia as well as North Korea. Xi Jinping took a significant step in that direction last week when he visited Vladimir Putin, a man he has described as his ``best, most intimate friend.'' As China's military rises, regrettably, the U.S. military treads water.

I will identify five areas of improvement to help our military catch China.

First, we have not focused nearly enough on honing our capabilities in a set of key areas we need to win. Our efforts to build a series of modern and flexible command-and-control networks are just now gaining steam. We still possess no relevant mine warfare capabilities. After three decades of neglect, we are just beginning to rebuild core competencies in electronic warfare. We have finally begun to build the right bases in the right locations in the Western Pacific. We have Senators Reed and Inhofe, the authors of last year's NDAA, to thank for that. I issue my thanks to this bipartisan team.

Our munitions industrial base is in woeful shape, and we have only begun to scratch the surface of our production capacity. I am pleased to see the Pentagon moving in the right direction, but it remains clear to me that Congress can take additional actions--should take additional actions this year to accelerate and expand production.

Secondly, we should rapidly work to expand our naval fleet. As I said, China's fleet has eclipsed ours, and yet the Department of Defense proposes ship decommissionings. The Marine Corps was unable to assist victims of the earthquakes in Turkey just a few months ago because the Navy lacked enough amphibious ships. Yet President Biden's budget proposes to end an entire amphibious ship production line--an entire production line. I do not believe this Congress will allow that to happen.

Our Navy Secretary recently noted that one Chinese shipyard--one Chinese shipyard--has more capacity than all of ours combined. For many years, we tried to wring more efficiency out of our shipbuilding industrial base, and for many years we have largely failed. Without a massive change in direction and an infusion of funds, we are unlikely to grow the fleet beyond 300 ships over the next decade. I would remind my colleagues that the statutory minimum requirement enacted by this Congress and signed by the President of the United States is 355 ships at a minimum. It is time for the U.S. Congress to lead the Nation in expanding the shipbuilding industrial base.

Third, our Reagan-era Air Force fleets grow older. For years, we have known we need to purchase 72 tactical aircraft each year to have a healthy fleet--72 each year. For years, we failed to do so. Our next- generation fighters are still nearly a decade away, as are significant numbers of autonomous wingmen for them. And the Air Force remains almost 2,000 pilots short this year.

Fourth, we are on the leading edge of a recruitment crisis. By the end of this year, the Army could be 40,000 soldiers smaller than it was just 18 months ago--40,000 soldiers short. Even as its missions continue to increase, the Navy and Air Force are not far behind. The recruiting crisis is a complex problem that will require a multifaceted solution. We had the Chief of Staff of the Army before the Armed Services Committee, along with the Secretary of the Army, just this morning to discuss this and other important issues. However, the budget can, right away, provide one solution. We should set aside funds for barracks and facility improvements. Potential recruits have frequently cited poor living conditions as one reason not to enlist.

Fifth, we must boost our defense infrastructure. Almost 2 years ago, I led an amendment on the infrastructure bill--not the Defense bill, the infrastructure bill--along with Senators Shelby and Inhofe, that would have devoted $50 billion to begin boosting this foundational infrastructure.

We never got a vote. Unfortunately, that amendment was blocked. Our shipyards, military family housing, hypersonic test ranges, ammo plants, and other sites are key in enabling our military to be ready and capable.

Perhaps such an amendment would pass today with broad bipartisan support. The facts certainly call for it.

And, finally, we must link increased investment with accelerated reform in the Pentagon. The Department of Defense's audit championed by former Deputy Secretary David Norquist progressed more in the last 5 years than in the last 25 years before that.

The Marines may become the first service to earn a clean financial bill of health this year. That is good news.

Deputy Secretary Hicks has also embraced and accelerated efforts begun by Deputy Secretary Norquist to bring 21st century data-driven management practices to DOD. This work has already saved us tens of billions of dollars.

Congress will continue to lead and partner with the Pentagon in ongoing and new reform efforts. This year, experts with the Pentagon budgeting commission will help Congress to innovate more quickly and improve the relationship between Congress and the Department of Defense.

I also believe the Office of Strategic Capital will help us partner with American private capital. American capital is an advantage we have. Yet we do not leverage it often enough in the national security space. The Office of Strategic Capital can help diversify our defense industrial base to compete with the People's Republic of China in a cost-effective manner.

Cost-saving measures, though necessary, will not be enough. Counterintuitively, many reforms cost money up front. Senator Inhofe, my predecessor, as ranking member of the committee, was correct when he said: We cannot spend our way out of the challenges we face, but we can spend too little to give ourselves a chance.

The United States has not faced national security challenges of this scale, scope, and complexity since World War II. This moment is a fork in the road. Neither the peace we have enjoyed nor the war some predict are inevitable. Decisions we make will determine whether that occurs.

Effective deterrence will be a complex operation, but its starting place is simple: We must, once again, for the third year, increase the military budget.

And, as we grow the budget, we will save where we can, prioritize the most effective purchases, and share the load with our allies and partners and insist that they do their share.

Again, it would cost a lot to deter China, but it will cost a lot more if we do not.

Madam President, I rise this evening with a simple and sober message: The United States has entered a very dangerous period, a dangerous national security moment the likes of which we have not seen since the height of the Cold War. Although alarming, the moment is clarifying. The job of the Department of Defense and Congress is and always has been to provide for the common defense, as provided in the Constitution. We must stay focused on American military might and so prevent our adversaries from changing the course of our future.

An American-led 21st century is a peaceful and prosperous century. That is not what a century led by the Chinese Communist Party would look like. It is no surprise the pariah states of Russia, Iran, and North Korea are growing closer to Beijing and to each other. A free world is actually something that threatens them.

As the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, it is my hope that we will decide not just to compete in this dangerous era but that we win. To that end, I have identified three priorities: deterring conflicts, winning technological competitions, and investing in our military's personnel.

First, deterring conflicts. In American history, one foreign and defense policy has succeeded above all others: a national policy of preparedness.

President Washington said:

To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means

of preserving peace.

Theodore Roosevelt called it ``wielding a big stick.'' President Reagan called it ``peace through strength.'' Indeed, we ought to listen to those great captains of American purpose. We should rearm and strengthen the United States so no adversary dreams of acting against our interests.

With that in mind, I want to start with Taiwan and Ukraine. Without a doubt, there is no greater challenge than deterring Xi Jingping from taking Taiwan. Failing to defend Taiwan would plunge the globe into an economic depression and end our hopes for an American-led century.

To ensure that never happens, Congress should pursue four priorities with Taiwan this year.

First, we should pressure the Biden administration to exercise the $1 billion of drawdown authority we provided them in the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act last year.

Second, we should match Taipei's growing investment in critical capabilities. I am disappointed that the Biden administration has once again failed to request foreign military financing money for Taiwan. Congress will have to act.

Third, we should fix the foreign military sales backlog and pursue real reforms to the process. Right now, it takes us too long to get crucial weapons to our allies. For example, unless something changes, Taiwan will wait nearly a decade to get a recent order of Harpoons.

Fourth, we should expand our work with allies and partners to help Taiwan defend itself with military and nonmilitary tools of power.

Yet, when it comes to deterring conflicts in the Western Pacific, helping the Taiwanese defend themselves is only part of the puzzle. The U.S. military itself must also be ready.

First, Congress and the Department of Defense should act this year to accelerate the most important short-term capabilities for our forces in a Western Pacific scenario. As in prior years, we will focus on a concise list of near-term joint capabilities, such as advanced naval mines, munitions, nonkinetic cyber and electronic warfare techniques, space capabilities, and a range of battle management software technologies related to the Joint All-Domain Command and Control effort.

Second, we should accelerate the innovative work in the Army and Marine Corps to reestablish their presence in the first island chain and expand our alliance partnership networks. Specifically, I look forward to continuing the committee's focus on the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. This initiative seeks to enhance our basing and logistics infrastructure west of the international dateline.

Third, we should focus on our munitions industrial base this year. Congress and the Department of Defense will expand the efforts in the Reed-Inhofe amendment, which has actually cut bureaucratic redtape and has pushed the Pentagon to sign multiyear contracts for 17 different munitions. We must promptly provide the industrial base with resources to expand production of key munitions, such as the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile and Standard Missile-6.

Fourth, we must tackle structural supply chain and workforce issues that hamper our munitions production. These activities are key to expanding our magazine depth, and they will significantly add to deterring China.

Even as we seek deterrence in the Western Pacific, we note that deterrence did not work in Ukraine. Our goal now should be to maximize U.S. interests through Ukrainian victory and deter further Russian aggression, including against our NATO and our non-NATO allies.

I will continue to focus on providing the Ukrainians with everything they need to achieve battlefield gains faster and hasten Ukraine's victory. As General Kellogg testified to our committee 2 weeks ago, Beijing is watching our actions in Ukraine. They are weighing whether to join the fray in this conflict.

That brings me to my second priority: investing in our competitiveness. While our fundamentals remain strong here in America, the Chinese are outcompeting us in multiple arenas. The Chinese are running the so-called 100-year marathon. To them, victory in that race means toppling American global leadership. We need to make the long- term investments to compete in the coming decades in this marathon. The Chinese Communist Party is working overtime to achieve what they call ``the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation'' by 2049. Their goal is to be the global center of economic, political, and military power.

China has pulled off the fastest military buildup in history, and they are still building. Beijing has achieved real growth in its defense budget every year for two straight decades--every year for two straight decades. It is quite likely they already spend more than we do, particularly if we count only our China-focused military spending. These investments are paying off for Xi Jingping.

Quite honestly, in many areas of warfare, China's military already exhibits greater quantity and sophistication than our own. I am particularly concerned about the rapid advancement of the Chinese navy compared to ours. The Secretary of the Navy recently shared a troubling fact: In one shipyard alone, the Chinese now boast more productive capacity than in every American shipyard combined.

I had the privilege of leading Congress to pass the SHIPS Act, which requires the Navy, in statute, to achieve a 355-ship fleet as soon as practicable. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has shirked its responsibility to enforce this statute and to maintain American naval superiority.

The administration has repeatedly sent Congress requests to actually shrink the fleet. This is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable on both sides of the aisle.

Thankfully, we took important steps in last year's National Defense Authorization Act to prevent the Navy from retiring 12 ships. We now need to make sure the Navy's battle force inventory grows each year instead of shrinking. I will push to make sure we build three destroyers per year, maximize the production of amphibious ships, and restore a healthy submarine industrial base.

For centuries, naval power has been the cornerstone of American defense policy. When we defeated the Axis Powers in World War II, our victory took place just as much in the steam and sweat of our shipyards as it did on the shores of Normandy or Iwo Jima. It validated George Washington's words from a century and a half earlier when he said, ``Without a decisive naval force, we can do nothing definitive.'' So let's do the most definitive thing we can: make a monumental investment in American command of the seas.

It is also critical that we revitalize our capabilities in the air and in space. In many ways, our challenges in aircraft production mirror those of our shipbuilders: Years of anemic budgets have created a brittle industrial base. We need to expand our orders of tactical fighter aircraft above 72 per year to get our combat air forces healthy. We need similar actions in tankers and other aircraft. We cannot continue to buy fewer aircraft every year while our older aircraft costs more to maintain. This is a death spiral. The same problems hold for our nuclear weapons production infrastructure, which my predecessor, Senator Inhofe--along with Senators Fischer, King, and others--has worked for years to rectify.

Our defense industrial base should focus less on efficiency and more on effectiveness. Again, it is helpful to look back to World War II to understand what I mean. In the beginning of 1942, the Nazi war machine controlled all of Western Europe. Japan's empire spanned from the borders of India to our smoldering fleet in Pearl Harbor. The forces of liberty were not on the march but on the defense. It took what one author called ``freedom's forge,'' or American industrial capacity, to defeat evil. We need to unleash our forge of freedom again--complete with all the 21st-century technologies that make it superior. Pentagon bureaucracy cannot keep getting in the way of this goal.

To that effect, we must also focus on improving the Department of Defense's ability to develop, integrate, and purchase innovative technology at scale. It is time for a culture shift at the Pentagon and here in Congress, one that prioritizes speed and effectiveness over compliance and efficiency. We may have to assume a bit more risk together, but we can and must accelerate innovation--accelerate innovation--while also improving oversight if we have the right tools.

We will win by deterring conflict, by winning the tech race, and thirdly and finally, by investing in our military personnel. We have long had cutting-edge technology, but our secret weapon has always been our people.

As a veteran myself, I know how important it is to attract the best personnel to serve our country in uniform. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the worst military recruiting shortfall in 50 years. The injection of a hyperpolitical culture into our fighting forces I think takes a sledgehammer to military readiness and recruiting. I think it is part of the problem with our recruiting.

I will partner with any Member of Congress to expand the population of Americans eligible for military service. I will also promote solutions in this Congress, including increased support for Junior ROTC and ROTC programs and expanded incentives for servicemembers. As we recruit, we must never lose sight of our current troops. We will continue to care for servicemembers and their families.

All this will take hard work, new ways of thinking, and new partnerships between Congress and the executive branch. It will also require additional funding.

We must achieve continued real growth in the defense budget. Significant real growth is absolutely required to strengthen deterrence against the Chinese Communist Party to an acceptable risk. Any additional investments in our national defense should have the best return possible, and we should innovate in new ways that will result in real savings to the taxpayers over the long run.

In conclusion, the challenges we face are significant. Our adversaries are testing us every day, and we cannot afford to make mistakes in our defense policy or to try to do defense policy on the cheap. Legendary columnist the late Charles Krauthammer reminded us often that ``decline is a choice.'' But I am confident we can choose to pass this generational test of American resolve if we work together in the spirit that has so long defined the work of this Congress and the Armed Services Committee.

To my colleagues on the committee and across this Chamber, I say: Let's get to work.

I yield the floor.