Watch Video Here

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today led a hearing on the Department of the Navy’s posture and readiness status.

During the hearing, the committee received testimony from the Navy’s senior civilian leader and the uniformed leadership of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

In his opening remarks, Chairman Wicker raised concerns about the shortfalls in the Navy’s shipbuilding account and emphasized that the Shipbuilder Accountability and Workforce Support (SAWS) initiative can drastically accelerate submarine production and hold industry and the government mutually accountable.

Read Senator Wicker’s hearing opening statement as delivered.

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 are 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 the 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 warfighting and service contributes to these recent recruitment successes.  This positive momentum provides an opportunity to raise recruiting standards and attract the highest caliber of warfighters our nation requires.

In fact, if these recruitment trends continue, we could end up with too few ships for our sailors.  Though we are 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 that am deeply disappointed with the Navy’s fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Navy.  In particular, I am disturbed by the shipbuilding account, which plummeted to $20.8 billion from last year’s $37 billion.  $20.8 billion, down from last years $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 am 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 ship in the odd-numbered year.  The pattern is simple: two ships, then three ships, alternating each year.  This provides orders to the shipyards that 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.  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 procurement.  Here as well, the Navy is relying on the one boat proposed in reconciliation.  This will upend the multi-year negotiations that presume nine boats over five years instead of eight.  It jeopardizes industrial base 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 (SAWS) initiative would enable two Virginia-class and one Columbia-class submarine annually. If we do SAWS, we could do two Viginia’s, and one Columbia-class each year.  Yet OMB opposes this and has created the crisis we now face.  There is 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 and A.  Last year, we halted new procurements because of design instability.  This year, the omission of two frigates signals severe problems with the program. I hope our witnesses clarify the frigate’s future and how the Navy will sustain critical shipyard capacity if the program falters.

Shipbuilding is not our only problem.  The future of naval aviation faces significant challenges.  The Navy continues to rely on the 30-year-old Super Hornet design as the mainstay of its carrier-based fleet, while capability gaps have been exacerbated with reduced F-35 orders.  Compounding this, the F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter, intended to replace the aging Super Hornet, faces funding and schedule setbacks.  The recent loss of three F/A-18s during a single deployment of the USS Truman underscores the operational strain on an aging fleet. There is $750 million proposed in budget reconciliation to jumpstart this program.  An announcement from the Navy will need to be made soon, or we will risk further challenges to the industrial base.

I recognize that the overall budgetary decisions were not made by the Navy, and I am committed to a congressional solution to these shortfalls. This committee expects a clear plan to restore shipbuilding momentum, leverage FORGED Act authorities, and ensure a fleet capable of deterring aggression in an increasingly contested world.