Opening Statement (As Prepared)

Click here to stream the hearing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good afternoon and thank you to the witnesses.

As a Member of this committee for the last 20 years, I want to preface my remarks with the observation that there is a lot to like in the budget sent over by the Department which I will layout. I have to say though, the insistence of the Office of Management and Budget to once again splinter the budget in two, via a reconciliation bill, undercuts the goal of procurement stability, which is the worst way to supercharge the industrial base. 

Starting with the positive, the request for $34 billion across Columbia, Virginia, and next-generation submarine programs will enable our shipyards to continue their momentum, growing the undersea fleet which today still dominates the undersea, and further enabling us to fulfill our AUKUS commitments. U.S. submarine tonnage output is at Cold War levels, and Columbia’s first-of-class submarine, the USS District of Columbia, actually moved up its delivery date to 2028. Wage improvement funding, which Congress first appropriated for FY25, is also integral to our ability to increase submarine production. At Electric Boat in my district, attrition is now below 8%, which is the lowest the yard has seen since the pandemic. I am pleased that the Navy has continued its commitment to these wages in this year’s discretionary budget request.

I am also pleased to see the significant request in our auxiliary and support vessels, including submarine tenders, oilers, and strategic sealift. It is not possible to revitalize the U.S. maritime industrial base with combatant vessels alone, and I am glad to see that this subcommittee’s long-held belief is finally getting some traction with the Navy.

The robust request for 12 P-8s is a needed boost. P-8s are critical assets to our Navy and also to those of our Allies and partners who help defend our homeland from adversaries’ subsea capabilities. The recent news that the news of the MQ-25A completed Milestone C and will move the program to Production and Deployment, which will provide the Navy with more diverse aerial refueling options and greatly improve naval aviation readiness.

As I said at the outset, the entire Department of the Navy, $38.8 billion is locked behind the Administration’s insistence on using reconciliation process for $350 billion of the $1.5 trillion request. This bifurcated funding request created confusion in the industrial base, because the Office of Management and Budget controls the money, rather than Congressional line items. It is a guessing game trying to game out the final demand signal, which created shortfalls and gaps.

It also came to my attention yesterday that there is concern about a potential ambiguity in the FY26 appropriations process and how it relates to the FY24 multi-year authorization from FY24, and that this concern may hold up the Virginia Block VI contract. This last-minute development is yet another example of the need to follow regular appropriations order and stop relying on endless CRs and reconciliation packages, which could allow boilerplate language to fall through the cracks. 

Under the purview of this subcommittee, $5.6 billion of shipbuilding funds are locked behind reconciliation, perhaps 4.0, which doesn’t appear to have made progress and has an uncertain path ahead. Chief among my concerns is the six Medium Landing Ships. It is critical that we continue to grow our amphibious fleet, and the Department should not jeopardize strategic priorities behind risky funding gimmicks.

I also disagree with the decision to procure only one Arleigh-Burke destroyer, which is a staple of our fleet, especially while vanity projects are being pursued. The battleship has gone from a posterboard to a $1 billion request in 6 months, $610 million of which is going towards long-lead items and outfitting despite not having a design anywhere close to finished. What’s more, we’re being told to expect a $17.6 billion request in FY28. This is a ridiculous amount of money for any program in one year, let alone one with a disputed need and no detailed design. The shipbuilding plan released last week states that this ship will be nuclear-powered. Nuclear propulsion components are some of the earliest items procured in a ship’s construction, needing 2-to-3 years ahead of a typical ship procurement and it can take 4-to-8 years to manufacture a shipset, timelines which would probably increase with a first-of-class vessel and new design. Sufficient to say, there is a long road ahead of us in determining what the next large surface combatant will be and what will be the plan to ensure we address looming shortfall in vertical missile tubs.

Lastly, I would like the subcommittee to continue working with the Navy on resourcing unmanned capabilities. While these program lines received significant funding last year, there is minimal funding in this year’s request. This sector is rapidly evolving, and last year’s NDAA—and the Pentagon—have done good work to facilitate improved acquisition. However, scenarios like the cancellation of the MASC competition sends mixed signals to a market that is increasingly investing its own capital. A long-term and sustainable strategy is required from the Navy, and that will be one of the focuses of this subcommittee for the FY27 NDAA.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.