Hearings to examine the posture of the Department of the Navy in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2026 and the Future Years Defense Program; to be immediately followed by a closed session in SVC-217.

Armed Services Committee

2025-06-10

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

The committee convened a hearing to examine the U.S. Navy's current posture, shipbuilding challenges, and recruitment trends. Witnesses, including Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, Admiral James Kilby, and General Eric Smith, testified on the Navy's progress in recruiting, which has improved significantly, and on persistent issues in shipbuilding, including delays in the Columbia and Virginia-class submarine programs and the shortfall in the FY 2026 budget. The panel highlighted concerns over maintenance shortfalls, the aging Super Hornet fleet, and the critical need for increased funding and industrial investment. Key topics included the Navy's efforts to modernize with forward-looking initiatives like the FORGED Act, readiness goals for amphibious forces, and the importance of industrial base resilience. The hearing also addressed the use of active-duty Marines and National Guard in domestic law enforcement, raising concerns about constitutional and public trust implications. Ultimately, the committee emphasized the urgent need for congressional action to strengthen the Navy's capabilities and ensure it meets its mission readiness and strategic objectives.

Participants

Transcript

Thank you.   Thank you.
This morning, the committee welcomes John Phelan, Secretary of the Navy, Admiral James Kilby, Acting Chief of Naval Operations, and General Eric Smith, Commandant of the Marine Corps.  We're grateful for their presence here today.   I want to congratulate the Navy for turning a corner.  Recruiting numbers are up significantly and the Navy is on track to meet its fiscal year 2025 recruiting goal.  This is especially significant because the goal is higher than it has been in 20 years.   Notably, the department has shifted focus from divisive policies such as climate change and DEI.  Renewed focus on war fighting and service contributes to these recent recruiting successes.  This positive momentum provides an opportunity to raise recruiting standards and attract the highest caliber of war fighters our nation requires.  In fact, if these recruitment trends continue, we could end up with too few ships for our sailors.   Though we're making some improvements, Navy shipbuilding remains in an abysmal condition overall.  And we're going to talk about that today.  The previous administration tended to scapegoat industry.   But the current administration is problem solving, canceling redundant contracts and reducing bureaucratic layers.  President Trump's executive orders on federal acquisition reform, drawing from proposals in the FORGED Act, are streamlining procurement to maximize every defense dollar.  The FORGED Act   would empower the Navy to buy smarter and innovate faster, and I expect to see these provisions in this year's National Defense Authorization Act.  The request falls far short of what we need to protect our country, though.  I must say I am deeply disappointed with the administration's fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Navy.
In particular, I'm disturbed about the shipbuilding account, which plummeted to $20.8 billion from last year's $37 billion.  $20.8 billion.   down from last year's $37 billion.  This shortfall reflects efforts to game the budget in anticipation of congressional reconciliation funds, which were intended as supplemental, not a substitute.  I'm alarmed that this budget request does not include the procurement of a new destroyer.  For several years now, it has been the practice to request two destroyers per year,   with Congress adding a third in the odd-numbered year.  The pattern is simple.  Two ships, then three ships, alternating each year.  This provides orders to the shipyards to get us closer to the statutorily required 355 ships required by statute.  This year, funds were meant to cover the odd year.   from reconciliation, additional third ships for 2027 and 2029.  They were not meant to replace the regular annual two-ship request.  This budget ignores this congressional intent.   Intent failing to include two destroyers in this year's budget request destabilizes industry, shows bad faith, and slows our shipbuilding efforts.  Equally troubling is the omission of any Virginia-class submarine procurements.  Here as well, the administration is relying on the one-boat approach.   proposed in reconciliation.  This would upend the multi-year negotiations that presume nine boats over five years instead of eight.  It jeopardizes industrial-based recovery.   Moreover, the Columbia-class program, critical for strategic deterrence, is underfunded by $4 billion.
The number relies on unapproved authorities for incremental funding.  The Shipbuilder Accountability and Workforce Support Initiative, SAWS, would enable two Virginia-class and one Columbia-class submarine annually.   If we do saws, we could do two Virginias and one Columbia class each year.   Yet OMB opposes this and has created the crisis we now face.  There's still time to implement SAWS, and I urge action to avoid further damage.  The absence of Constellation-class frigates in the budget also raises serious questions.  We'll discuss that during Q&A.  Last year, we halted new procurements because of design instability.   This year, the omission of two frigates signals severe problems with the program.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up