Budget Hearing - The United States Navy and Marine Corps

Subcommittee will come to order. Yeah. Jeez. Today the subcommittee will receive testimony from the Honorable Hung Kau, uh Acting Secretary of the Navy, Admiral Darrell Caudill, Chief of the Naval Operations, and General Eric Smith, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps. This hearing comes at a consequential time for the Navy and the Marine Corps. Since last fall our naval forces have operated at high operation tempo in support of counter-narcotic efforts in the Western hemisphere, today in the Middle East our sailors and marines continue to demonstrate their unmatched ability to protect or project power to terror aggression, and protect American interest in one of the world's most complex and consequential theaters. It is critical that the Iranian government never possess the ability to produce nuclear weapons and have profound respect for the bravery and professionalism of our sailors, and mariners, and marines. However, these operations are not without cost. Our munition supply uh stockpiles are depleted, our fleet has deferred maintenance uh critical maintenance uh and our service members have been operating on an extended deployment schedule. Despite our focus in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe, China still remains our pacing threat. Today, China surpasses the US Navy in total number of warships in their fleet, and its ship building capability and capacity is estimated to be over two hundred times greater than our own. By most assessments, China now holds a considerable advantage over the United States in munition stockpiles and production capabilities. and capacity. It is against this backdrop we will discuss the Navy's FY twenty-seven budget request today. The Navy's FY twenty-seven request totals three hundred and seventy-seven point five billion, which represents a twenty-three percent increase over FY twenty-six. The request is split between three hundred and thirty-eight point seven billion in discretionary funding and thirty-eight point eight billion in mandatory. I think it's worth noting that the mandatory funding is subject to legislative dynamics outside the department's and this subcommittee's control. I'm concerned that many priority programs are funded on Navy's mandatory side of the ledger. The Navy's FY twenty-seven request makes a significant down payment toward growing the fleet through the department's ambitious Golden Fleet initiative, including over sixty billion in discretionary funding for ship building. This is kind of historic investment uh that required uh to re- re-invigorate our US ship building capability. However, funding alone does not guarantee on-time delivery, and is no substitute for sound program management and rigorous oversight. Speed without accountability is how programs go sideways. The Navy's cost to complete request for ship building totals two point six billion in FY twenty seven. Delayed contracts now rival the cost of the ship's themselves. Despite significant investment in submarine programs and industrial base, Columbia class and Virginia class programs are delayed by as much as eighteen to forty-two months, respectfully. Carriers, destroyers, amphibs all face growing delays to future ship deliveries. Shipyards that will be essential to delivery delivering Navy's golden fleet are plagued by workforce challenges and high attrition rates. I'm concerned that significant funding for the maritime industrial base has been requested in the mandatory funding side of the ledger. It's not enough to add ships to the budget. We must uh uh appropriately invest in the growing workforce, increasing cap uh capacity, and supporting innovation for the industrial base to support production. The budget proposed is twenty-two point six billion for navy weapons procurement, of which eleven point eight billion is requested in discretionary funding. Critical munitions such as the Tomahawk, standard missile, and other air-launched weapons are mostly budgeted for in the mandatory uh budget process. Procurement dollars for low-cost hypersonic weapons are funded exclusively in mandatory. Once again, I'm concerned by this approach. I have long advocated for supplemental funding to address the munition shortfalls and hope we could receive a request from the department soon, real soon. Naval aviation remains America's most powerful and responsive strike instrument. Operations in the Middle East have once again demonstrated what carrier-based air power can accomplish when properly resourced and led. The Navy's request makes critical investment in aviation, proposing to to procure one hundred and twenty-three aircraft in FY twenty-seven, including six additional E t E s uh E do t uh E two Ds, a platform that has proved indispensable. in CENTCOM operations. I'm concerned, however, that the significant funding for the F thirty-five program, our only fifth generation fighter in production, is heavily budgeted, once again, and mandatory. That said, I'm happy to see that your budget documents note the Navy's commitment to a sixth generation fighter. I understand that the department intends to make a long aw uh a weighted down select for the Navy's FAXX program this summer. My support for this capability and its fleet's for a sixth generation fighter remains unwavering. I look forward to see this program move forward. Finally, turning to the Marine Corps. The FY twenty-seven request reflects continued forced design transformation, with priorities centered on fielding marine littoral regiments accelerating the medium landing ship, modernizing long-range precision fires, and anti-ship capabilities to operate inside contested maritime spaces. The request also includes investments in marine aviation, barrack modernization, and counter drone capabilities. As the Marine Corps seeks to field new capabilities under force design, it is critical that the acquisition programs are built on sound requirements and realistic schedules. Before we hear from our witness, I'd like to, witnesses, I'd like to recognize the distinguished ranking member, Miss McCollum, for any opening comments.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Um, Mister Secretary, Mister Acting Secretary, good to see you, uh Admiral, good to see you again. This is your first hearing at to the committee, so very welcome, and General Smith, it's always a pleasure to see you. Look forward to working with all of you. I am pleased that this year we have a comprehensive conversations with the Navy and the Marine Corps on the budget. And once again, shout out to the Marine Corps for the audit, good job, thank you. Waiting for everybody else's. Um, so we do have your justification documents and the staff has received several briefings on your request. But to be clear, the size of the overall request for the defense uh spending is shocking. In a base budget, the Department of Defense requests over two hundred billion dollars over last year's enacted level. And when combined with the mandatory funding for defense requested through reconciliation it's an increase of over four hundred billion dollars. That's nearly a forty-four percent increase in spending over the last two years. And this request does not include the cost to cover the war in Iran. In essence, along with the upcoming supplemental, we will see the department's request approaching one point six trillion dollars. We review the Navy's budget amongst the ongoing war in Iran now. And I understand the USS Gerald Ford is finally on her way home, but the Lincoln and the George HW Bush are still deployed with their groups in CENTCOM. And at least five thousand Marines are also deployed on amphibious assault ships in the region. In addition to the threats that our sailors and Marines face, I'm concerned about the broader cost of the war. The skyrocketing cost of fuel uh will limit the Navy and the Marine Corps' ability to conduct exercises for the rest of the year. We just had a hearing with Secretary uh of Defense, Hegg Sestis, and uh We pointed out to him that the standard fuel price for the services is increased from one hundred and fifty-four uh dollars to one hundred and ninety-five dollars a barrel. The Department of the Navy's also facing fiscal holes in their military personnel budgets, and these holes require a reprogramming request that will leave

Right.

other programs without the necessary funds for them to be successful. Clearly this war has been very costly and we need to and it needs to come to an end. Our Navy and Marine assets need to return home and train for the peer-to-peer threats we face. Mister Secretary, I continue to be concerned about the ability of the Navy and the in- and the industry to provide the ships and submarines we purchase on time and importantly on budget. I know the administration has ded- uh uh designated Admiral Guithar uh to oversight the first submarine director, reporting uh Portfolio Manager, but as Secretary, this challenge now falls to you. And I look forward to hearing for your plans on this subject. I'd also like to b- understand better the request for the guided missile battleship. Sixteen billion dollars for the first ship and approximately forty-three billion dollars for a total of three ships over the next five years. That's another extraordinary cost for the Navy, and frankly, it seems un-fortable. With this year's one point um almost as I said six trillion dollar budget is a high watermark for the next few years. But in the next year we will also have another pay raise for the troops, which they deserve. But I wanna add that I hopefully hope that there's a pay raise for civilian personnel which also deserve increased costs for their inflation and possibly fuel, that they and their families are facing. You can see that cost for personnel, exercise and exercises and maintenance do not decrease. Large procurement bills for the Navy cannot come at the cost of the health and safety of our personnel. Mister Secretary, I know that health and safety of sailors and Marines under your watch is important to you, and I know that you're going to prioritize it. So, once again I look forward to working with you all to ensure that everyone has what they need to execute their mission successfully and return home safely. Again, welcome you all to the committee. I look forward to your testimony. I yield back, Mister Chair, thank you.

I thank you, gentlelady, uh gentlemen, your full written testimony will be placed on the record. Uh please give a brief summary of your statements. Uh Secretary Cowell, uh the floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, uh Ranking Member Delano, Delano, um Ranking Member McCollum, ladies and gentlemen of the House Appropriations Committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify American sailors and marines are currently on the front lines of freedom, in operations to protect our republic. Lincoln and Bush carrier strike groups and Tripoli amphibious ready group with the thirty-first marine expedition are un- are in the Arabian Sea, protecting merchant ships and stopping illicit shipping by our terrorist regime. Destroyers Arleigh Burke, Bokley, Oscar Austin and Gonzales are protecting our allies in the Mediterranean against cruise missile attacks from Iran. In the Caribbean, Iwo Jima ARC-MU is stopping narco-terrorists from poisoning Americans with illegal drugs. In the Pacific, Boxer ARC-MU and Destroyer Squadron seven are enforcing the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. At home we're preparing Macon Island ARC-MU and USS Dwight D Eisenhower, a forty nine year old nuclear powered aircraft carrier for deployment. And on the southern border our sailors and marines are standing watch tonight saying " Nothing will hurt you, not on my watch."

There's some very fancy people.

Three weeks ago I was tasked by President Trump to lead the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. My three priorities are to take care of our sailors and marines, build ships, and protect our homeland. A hundred and twenty years ago the great white fleet extended America's reach across the globe. We're currently at the forefront of history with a budget that will create the golden fleet, which renews that maritime dominance. We have an obligation to give our sailors and marines the very best equipment to do their jobs. In our historic budget of three hundred and seventy-seven five billion dollars. We're adding thirty four new ships, varying from small to large combatants, a hundred twenty three new aircrafts, along with five unmanned ships. In five years we will add a hundred and twenty two manned and sixty three unmanned ships. We're funding the readiness of our fleet to ninety five percent. We're procuring exquisite munitions to keep our forces outside the weapons engagement zone, while investing in r- research and development for the fight of the future. More importantly, we're increasing their service member pays, investing in family and unaccompanied housing, child development centers so that our sailors and marines have a safe, clean, and comfortable place to live, and not have to worry about their families when deployed in harm's way. We've greatly exceeded recruiting and retention goals, and that is due solely to the sheer leadership of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth. Last week I was aboard USS Gerald R. Ford, USS Winston Churchill, and USS Bainbridge as they returned from an eleven month combat deployment in two theaters. Do not believe the fake news that claims food shortages, backed-up toilets, and low morale. What I witnessed were motivated and young, young, happy mar- uh Americans pushing the boundaries of performance for their country. It is imperative that we pass this budget. Ship construction and readiness were bill pairs for Iraq and Afghanistan for twenty years. While our industrial base atrophied, America's peer competitors grew stronger and threatened our sovereignty. Their hundred year plan was had one goal, total global domination. Only one thing stands in their way, that is the United States of America. The Navy and Marine Corps are America's nine one one force, capable of being anywhere as a carrier strike group or marine air ground task force with overwhelming firepower, as we saw in Absolute Resolve and Epic Fury. A year ago I testified in my confirmation hearing that I would create the most lethal Navy and Marine Corps team the world has ever seen. I will keep that promise, having worn the cloth of our nation for thirty-two years, most of which was in combat. I also do this because I will not allow my oldest son, who will be commissioned as a second lieutenant in United States Marine Corps in ten days to go to war to war the way I did without the equipment that we needed. I will not allow this to happen to any of America's sons or daughters. They signed a blank check to this nation, up to include in their lives, and we owe it to them to do our due diligence to fund a historic budget that will care for them and their families, while giving them the tools to answer the call. I have seen firsthand what communism and authoritarian regimes have done to thriving nations. Members of my family were murdered by communists. In nineteen seventy-five we had no flag to stand under or a country to call our own. But the United States gave us a home. It gave us hope and a future. I have dedicated my entire adult life to defend this nation under God, so this would never happen to my children, your children, or grandchildren. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you. I'm ready to answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I'll recognize uh Admiral Caudill f uh for your remarks.

Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, Ranking Member DeLauro, and distinguished members of the committee, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify on the posture of the United States Navy. I'm honored to be joined by Acting Secretary of the Navy Cal, my good friend General Smith. We appreciate the committee's steadfast support for our sailors, Marines, civilian workforce, and their families as well, for the resources you provide to defend our nation. This past year our Navy celebrated two hundred and fifty years of America's sea power. Today our founding fathers would scarcely recognize the modern fleet. Ballistic missile submarines deterring strategic attack, nuclear powered aircraft carriers projecting power across the globe, and an all domain naval force delivering precision lethality at scale. And while the platforms have changed, one truth has not. The sailors' remains the sailor remains our greatest competitive advantage and the heartbeat of our fleet. This July, on our nation's two hundred and fiftyth birthday, our sailors will carry that legacy forward, wherever our nation requires pres presence, power and resolve. Since assuming the duties of Chief of Naval Operations, I have been focused on one central objective, ensuring the Navy never loses its differentiated value. In February we released the United States Navy fighting instructions, which is designed to operationalize my priorities of foundry, fleet and fight, and to provide clear guidance on how we build, generate and employ naval combat power, For conflicts, we must be prepared to win. These instructions reflect a simple reality. The Navy's value lies in our ability to generate decisive combat power from the sea. With tailorable formations, sustain them forward and deliver lethal effects across every domain at the time and place of our choosing globally. Operation Epic Fury is proving in real time what the Navy delivers. Forward, persistent combat power from the sea. Sovereign options, independent of basing, resilient under pressure, and able to strike decisively. That is our differentiated value on full display. To preserve that advantage, we are executing a hedge strategy to ensure the fleet we built today is ready for the fight we face now and adaptable and scalable to the one we will face tomorrow. That strategy is realized through the Golden Fleet Initiative, a fleet design that blends high and lower-end combatants. integrates robotic and autonomous systems, and enables scalable formations to outpace emerging threats. This approach increases our ability to scale combat mass, distribute risk, and maintain escalation dominance against the operational challenges our combatant commanders face globally. It also requires integrating technologies like artificial intelligence in advanced manufacturing, directed energy, and containerized systems as operational capabilities. that expand reach, persistence, and lethality across our kill chains and kill webs. Our FY twenty-seven budget request is strategy driven, and aligned to the Department of the Navy's priorities and the objectives of the national defense strategy, leveraging the concepts outlined in the United States Navy fighting instructions, to ensure our investments directly strengthen the foundry, the fleet, and the way we fight. It reflects disciplined choices to ensure we first Always feel to credible and highly effective sea-based strategic deterrent. And second, we invest in the right capabilities that preserve our war-fighting advantage. To do that, we focus on four priorities. Sailors first. Quality of service is not a luxury. It underwrites combat readiness and must always be our first priority. Second, the foundry. The foundry is where combat power is forged and we must not use it as a bill payer. A hollow foundry results in a hollow navy. Third, the fleet. The fleet is the most flexible, decisive military instrument in national power. Therefore, we must feel the right mix of forces to realize the Golden Fleet's full potential through a smart application of the head's strategy. And fourth, the fight. Winning will depend on the strength and adaptability of our kill chains and kill webs. From robust counter-targeting, to leveraging new stealth technology, to an abundance of longer range munitions, to enhanced mission command, We must integrate and synchronize our capabilities seamlessly, where there are joint force teammates, our partners and our allies. It is the honor of my lifetime to serve as your Chief of Naval Operations. With your continued partnership, we will ensure the United States Navy remains the most capable, most ready and most lethal maritime force in the world. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Thank you Admiral uh, Commandant Smith, you're recognized for your remarks.

Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, Ranking Member DeLauro. I'm honored to appear before you today alongside Acting Secretary Cowell and Admiral Caudill to represent your Marine Corps. I would like to focus on answering your questions, so I'm gonna keep my comments very brief. First, I'd like to emphasize the significance of this year's President's budget. It is a generational investment that supports the Marine Corps's top four focus areas. One, restoring a three point O amphibious ready group marine expeditionary unit presence. Two, setting the theater for potential future conflict. Three, accelerating modernization and lethality and four, building and sustaining a lethal force. Restoring a three point O amphibious ready group marine expeditionary unit presence is our North Star. It consists of three continuously forward continuously forward deployed amphibious ready groups marine expeditionary unit teams. one source from the East Coast, one from the West Coast, and one episodically deployed from Okinawa, Japan. Each embarked on three amphibious warships, one big deck and two small buoys. The amphibious ready group with the Marine Expeditionary Unit is the most agile versatile and responsive formation of the joint force. It's how our nation's leaders sustain forward posture, deter aggression, and respond to crisis or conflict across the globe. Today we have three amphibious ready group Marine Expeditionary Unit presence. it is a strategic value, and its strategic value is clear. The twenty-second Marine Expeditionary Unit is combating narco-terrorism operations in the Caribbean, while the thirty-first Marine Expeditionary Unit and the eleventh Marine Expeditionary Unit are providing operational flexibility to maintain security and stability in the Middle East. But this is not something we can sustain. We need to enhance our amphibious warship readiness and increase the size of our amphibious force. I want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Secretary of War, the Department of the Navy and my shipmate, Darrell Cottle, for their unwavering support towards our shared goal of restoring a three point O amphibious ready group marine expeditionary unit presence. Our second focus area is setting the theater. We're committed to protecting our interests, deterring adversaries, reassuring allies, and creating a more agile and resilient global sustainment network, one that seamlessly integrates with the joint force. To achieve this, we're ensuring an optimized force posture while also investing in littoral mobility, pre-positioned equipment and supplies, digital manufacturing and additive manufacturing, and enhanced installation resilience. We're refining our approach to logistics, prioritizing resilience, speed, and adaptability to generate and sustain forces. Our third area of focus is accelerating modernization and lethality. Forced design underpins everything we do. We remain committed to modernizing everything from our marine expeditionary units to our marine expeditionary forces, focusing on precision fires, air defense, unmanned systems, resilient command and control, and electromagnetic warfare. We're gaining momentum, but we have to accelerate to ensure our Marines are more lethal, survivable, and resilient the day before a conflict starts. And finally, we're building and sustaining a lethal force. The quality of life of Marines and their families directly impacts readiness, retention, and lethality. We are deliberately investing in Marines and their families to improve living conditions institutionalize Marine Corps total fitness and to insure support for family resources cuz they say you recruit the Marine, but you retain the family, and I can guarantee you that is true, in my case anyway. Before I close, I wanna take a moment to recognize the members of this committee and other committees with jurisdiction over our national defense who will be retiring. On behalf of all Marines, thank you. Thank you for your dedicated service to our nation. Thank you for your leadership and for your partnership. Your constant and steadfast support has ensured the readiness of our Marine Corps, of your Marine Corps. We wish you the very best in the next chapter of your service. I'd like to close by stating your Marines are ready. Your corps is a globally responsive, lethal, combined arms naval expeditionary force that is capable of projecting power from sea to land and from land to sea. and maneuvering across multiple domains in contested environments to deter, deny, and defeat adversaries. Thank you again for your trust and support, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, uh, Combinant. We'll go on to questions. Um, I'll start out. Uh, the FY twenty-seven budget request includes thirty-eight point eight billion of the department's Navy's uh department of Navy's three hundred and seventy-seven point five billion request in mandatory funding including Thirty-nine of the forty-seven requested F-thirty-fives. One point five billion out of two point four billion requested for F-thirty-five modernization, all the radars required for the F-thirty-five program. Two billion out of three billion requested for the Tomahawk missile procurement. Three point six billion out of four point three billion, or nearly eighty-five percent, requested for the standard missile. One point nine billion for six medium landing stri ships for the Marines. And nine point seven billion for facilities, sustainment, restoration, and modernization. The Navy has significant budget shortfalls in critical programs that this committee had to fix in FY twenty-six, because the department's pursuit of reconciliation funding. Uh, Mister Secretary, many high-ranking or high-priority items are included in the department of the Navy's mandatory request. We know reconciliation funding isn't exactly a slam-dunk around here, so What is the risk of long-term health and stability of these programs from this funding strategy? We've been beating the drum for industry to ramp up production and talking about the need to revive the defense m- industrial base. What kind of message do you think this approach will send to the industry, where more than half of the F- thirty-five budget and nearly eleven billion in critical navy munitions is requested in mandatory funding?

General Calvert, we need all of this. Uh there's it's really hard to dif uh to differentiate between mandatory and and discretionary, cuz we need it all in order to to make these changes for the Navy. We we've taken such a hit over all the years, uh fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, all that money was going to fund the army and we took we bow-waved everything from from ship uh repair to you know, where we went from six years for dry docking all the way to ten years for dry docking. And that took a toll on our our ships, which takes a toll on our sailors and our family. So we had to write a budget that includes both of those, because we we need all one point five trillion dollars.

Yes, I understand that, and and having got into the supplemental, which we'd love to have, but if if uh department needs to to submit that to the committee as soon as possible, 'cause uh we need to get to work on that, but um uh 'cause it it seems the appropriations process

Chairman, I mean I am concerned. I mean uh I think Acting Secretary put it well, we need both and I think we need a supplemental as well. And uh because the the discretionary mandatory bills were not done with Epic Fury in mind, so all three are important. Uh I do have concerns in the mandatory lines with munitions, F thirty five and FISRAM. And uh those three would be the concern areas for me. I think there's some ships that concern me too, with LSM being there, hospital ship and some other ships that are in mandatory. So uh uh without both being passed, I am deeply concerned.

Yeah. Well, uh, a number of us are in favor of of obviously increasing the the uh the top line, and we're obviously interested in the supplemental, I it's needed. I, you know, we've been going through a number of conflicts of late and uh I know we've uh eaten up a lot of our O and M accounts in order to to fund this and we need to get this done as quickly as possible that's why we need the supplemental then lastly, the reconciliation part of this, and uh, you know, we haven't done reconciliation

Thank you, Mister. I think at our, if I'll take a second, at our meeting we as a committee made it very clear to the secretary that doing um budgeting for you for our services through reconciliation is is is not it it it just doesn't work. The authorizers authorize it um and then uh then there's the Navy went through all this broken glass as they called it last year and then we had to go in and we had to open up our budget again and and cut other things and um you know I know the Senate has its rules in the way that it does things but it is not in my opinion sustainable or any thing that i have a lot of confidence in after it passes that it's really gonna serve the needs of what you need to have done because we have to go back in and readjust everything else that doesn't get funded because it's mandatory versus discretionary and it needs to be built into your base so um just we i just want you to know that we had that very serious conversation with uh the the secretary of defense uh the administration has requested a total of forty three uh forty three billion dollars over future years of defense programming for its new guided missile battleship which is part of President Trump's golden fleet. This includes one billion dollars in per procurement for long leads for fiscal uh for fiscal year uh twenty twenty seven. However, the concept design is still underway in this year, twenty six. And right now we have no idea the length of the ship, how it will be fueled, what munitions it will carry. And it's concerning that the Navy's asking committee for funding without the full understanding of what the final concept or true construction schedule will look like. So, Mister Secretary, given the cost of this new fleet, which I believe may be between ten and twenty-five ships, we don't even know that yet, what is the plan for how they will be used? And also, if you would please, how will the Navy absorb the cost of this new fleet with ov with its overall budget for defense expected to decrease after the coming year. In other words, the tails that go with these ships. Given the delays we've seen in the submarine and destroyer and frigates, what is this new met methodology that's going to be used with the Navy to insure that this ship comes in on time and on budget? But before we do that, we have to know what the ship is.

Ranking member I I c- uh understand your concern. We've always had a requirement for as long as I was in uniform for a large combatant. What we called a C G X back in the days, but we need something with high capacity, two hundred VLS cells, that includes conventional prompt strike, and something that can move fast, even with nuclear power. I mean we saw when Ford, the USS Ford was able to move from Venezuela to uh the Mediterranean in five days. That you can't do that on uh on gas turbine, I mean this is what we need nuclear power and that's why we're investigating on the uh power for the battleship.

I I I I understand that, but you don't have the plans completed for these ships yet, correct or am I am I incorrect? You you know how long they're gonna be, you know what k what kind of payload they're gonna carry,

Well this is

you know all that?

Well we we have an idea of what what it is because of uh again the C G X design, again I will refer to uh Admiral Cottle for the requirements that the fleet has but Like I said, one as long as I was in uniform, we needed a C G X, which is a large combatant and this this ship would be a lot larger than the uh the C G X, and that's why we call it a battleship.

Um um ranking member McCollum, the the need for a large combatant is is pretty clear. We need significant payload volume for all future fights. We need that payload uh payload volume to scale, not only with the munitions we're gonna have today, but future munitions we don't know. We need high electrical power density for directed energy, rail gun type technologies that only that ship w can produce. I'm thrilled that we finally landed on the fact it's gonna be nuclear. That was the initial idea, and we batted around to deliver it sooner to make it conventional, and we came back around full circle to make it nuclear, and that's the exact right answer. As a command and control ship that I can forward posture and run surface action groups out of, this is exactly the high-end of a capital ship in the high-low mix that my fighting instructions call out for.

Well thank you, I don't doubt for a minute your need. I don't. But here's what I need. A billion dollars in procurements for long-lead items. We have no idea what the ship design is, how it will be f- now we know how it will be fueled, nuclear, right? What munitions will it it it carry? How many people are gonna be, you know, crewed on it? all all the things that you're gonna have to put on the ship. And so I don't doubt that you don't need it, but I, as the fiduciary person that I'm supposed to be on this committee that's my constitutional responsibility, I need to know what I'm buying. Um because I don't I I don't know I can I can I can speak t what it is yet, we haven't we haven't seen it. You know, is it gonna, can we buy ten? Can we buy twenty-five with all the cost overruns with everything else we said? So it's a concept. I don't deny that that you don't need it. But with a budget this large and with what we're facing in shipbuilding, which I know you're all working on correcting, not taking that away from you, you're all working on correcting it, it's just a lot of money to put out there when the inflation increase came out today, it's three point eight, gasoline at at you know the pumps is really high, people back home are gonna ask me show me the design, show me the product, show me what you're buying with my tax dollars. So any additional information you can give the committee between now and the eleventh of June would be very, very helpful. Thank you.

Just a a point what the General Lady is making. I think one of the issues that we'd like to understand is why uh large combatant ships versus more, say, a new destroyer design that they've been talking about for some time. It's people say around here, you know, quantity is a quality all of its own, so uh if we're gonna be these large combatants, I you know, I've been these down the line on these new programs, they end up costing a lot more than we expect.

Ah.

So we need to get a better understanding of this before we dive into this, because it we don't wanna get into this and then two three years from now, you it gets cancelled out and we

Right.

waste a lot of money. So we wanna get to the understand this process a little bit better. That, Mister Wollmack. Oh, Mister Laurel,

Oh.

sorry. Do you wanna go ahead?

I'm happy to go after Mister Wollmack, though.

Oh, thank you. That's nice.

He's going to you.

He's a gentleman, he's letting you go first.

That he is? Thank you. Thank you very much, Admiral Cottle. Um, you and I had the opportunity uh to tour the submarine p- uh production facility at uh Groton. Uh, it was a a a great trip. I enjoyed the trip a lot, enjoyed being with you. What was clear for me from the visit is that submarine delivery depends on people as much as funding. We have welders, pipefitters, electricians, engineers, planners, supervisors. What is your assessment of whether the submarine industrial base has the workforce it needs to meet Columbia and Virginia class production requirements?

Oh, Rankin, Murm- uh, Deloro, thanks again. It was a great visit. It's good seeing you.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, I enjoyed it a lot. Um, And thanks for what you do for this committee and the Navy, especially for our submarine program. Um, you've hit on a point that matters. I mean, everything ties to workforce. It is extremely important. And uh, so there is not an initiative that we're trying to do that that going forward in which the workforce is not a keen part of that workforce development, recruiting, retention. We see these briefs at our shipyards, you've attended some, where we talk about how are we actually getting after the number of people we need to do this. What are the new initiatives of how we train them? How we do coop with local, you know, vocational schools and uh expanding some of the training pipelines,

Right.

uh things like in Danville and some of the things in Connecticut, and expand on those those ideas to actually develop and create more workforce. So you've hit on it. Um I think, you know, Electric Boat in particular, you know, on our visit, I'm seeing great efforts there where they're gonna hit their recruiting mark. And with the retention levels improving because compensation, has improved much from the work that this committee has done. And then some of the ways that we're actually able to train using virtual technologies and uh and actually matching that with the capabilities of modern times, I think we're gonna hit the mark on that much better.

Mm-hmm. Thank you. And that gets me into wanting to get um wha- in the in the workforce, what are the gaps that are having the greatest effect on submarine delivery today? How does the Navy measure whether its workforce investments are improving the schedule performance.

You know, I think it's easy to think it's we're short on vocation, and it's easy to think it's short on welding, and short on, you know, maybe pipe fitting and that type of work.

Mm-hmm.

But what I found actually when I told to the leadership of the yards, it's really the uh the first-year, second-year type engineers that actually oversee work, that do a lot of the planning and design work, and actually convert drawings into production drawings, do the technical work documents, And because of that, I don't think we're leveraging artificial intelligence and large language models to compensate for that effectively. And I think that's the workforce I'm most concerned with,

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

is retaining that level of talent.

Okay.

And uh I actually think the vocational side is actually seeing an upswing.

Mm-hmm. I I I I thank you for that, and I think that that leads us to where we need to go with investments is what what what we are trying to do to have um, uh y you know, the workforce that is necessary to look at how we're improving schedule, uh uh uh you know performance and and getting us to where we need to be. Thank you. Uh Secretary Cowell, um the uh uh twenty twenty seven request includes major funding for Columbia and Virginia class submarines. Congress has already provided significant submarine industrial base funding uh in prior years. The programs are central to strategic deterrence and attack submarine availability, but funding alone does not deliver submarines. Um, I I was disappointed to learn that there is a proposal to include language in the Block six contract for Virginia Columbia class submarines that would enable the government to remove two submarines for underperformance. There are many factors of that have increased the delays uh to the provision of the subs to the fleet. Uh most are are are are really being addressed, uh which we've heard about. uh by both the Navy uh and and and by the industry. Well, Mister Secretary, how does the language like the proposal stimulate the submarine industrial base and not create more delays?

Thank you, member, I I hear your concerns. We we need leverage points, but again we have this amazing uh Admiral, Vice Admiral uh Rob Gaucher who have I known for thirty six years who is laser focused on submarine building, whose whole job is as a direct report program manager for submarines that oversees all of these uh the the construction all the way I mean he's also uh dual handed to me as a portfolio acquisitions uh um uh uh executive that will help move forward the submarine building he's he's found a lot of uh efficiencies that he's able to move the the uh timeline to the left uh a lot too.

Well it's of concern to me that language Um, I, language that's out there, v what kind of a a a a negative effect may it have on moving forward, and not create more delays. If we're saying, you you know, you've got the the the the government can remove two submarines for for underperformance, I that just uh uh sounds like a uh a threat level um that r uh really um uh cr creates um more of a reticence uh uh a and and and the y y you know uh or a a um uh an incentive to try to uh to you know to to move forward. I'm I I I just think we need to take a hard look at this language and see, you know, um what kind of an effect this will uh have overall and I and I hope we'll uh that that

Sorry, I can remember. We we'll look at it.

that we uh do that. Uh will you provide a committee with a spend plan for prior year and twenty twenty seven submarine industrial base funding, including obligation rates, major project categories, timelines, performance metrics, tied to supplier performance, uh shipyard throughput, and submarine delivery. Can you provide us with that information?

We we will provide whatever you need, if you remember.

Okay, that would be very, very helpful, I think, to to the committee. Let me just say um uh the twenty twenty seven request makes major investments in submarine procurement and the submarine industrial base. Uh, Congress, my view, should support the undersea mission, but the department has got to show that this funding is, uh, uh, executable. The committee needs clear answers on workforce gaps, supplier capacity, obligation rates, schedule performance, so that the investments will result in delivered submarines, and not just larger budget lines. So.

We we are obligating again, uh I don't know if you're talking about the FY twenty six. We I know right now we're at twenty three percent uh execution. And uh I I just uh funded two destroyers and one oiler. So by July we will be at sixty four percent obligation. And and with the FAXX down select in the end of summer,

Mm-hmm.

we will be at ninety eight percent by the beginning of uh September.

Mm-hmm.

Well, if uh if uh you what we need to do is to uh you know, to provide us with this with the spend plan that's gonna be very, very important uh for us as we move forward as uh both the uh chair and ranking member have mentioned uh uh uh June June eleventh.

Absolutely.

Um, I thank you, Mister Chairman.

I thank you, General Lady, and I agree with you, we need to get the uh Virginia class submarine program back up to a at least two Virginia class submarines per year uh very quickly, I would hope. With that, Mister Womack.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. And uh my thanks to the gentlemen uh appearing before us today in your testimony, uh but more importantly your service to your country and you secretary, uh your family's story is a pretty special story and um it should inspire all of us uh for the work that uh that we do. And I know it's been a quick transition for you, uh but I admire the work that you're putting in and um and the command of the subject that that uh we're talking about here today. Admiral, I wanna begin my line of questioning uh regarding our ongoing conversations on priorities particularly when it comes to ship building. I'm a fiscal conservative, firm supporter of our armed forces, trouble sometimes reconciling our ship building issues. We've seen uh extensive delays in battle force ships under construction and um our twenty-seven budget requests, a hundred and fifty billion in procurement That's a forty-two and a half percent increase from last year, procuring eighteen battle force ships, this year seventy-five over the FIDEP. That's a, that's an enormous commitment uh for the taxpayers. There seems to be a significant amount of requirement, creep, as I call it, that emerges between the drawing board and delivery. All the good ideas people seem to get in the way, and when that happens, costs escalate. What is your concrete and forcible plan to ensure that requirements remain stable during this acquisition cycle?