Ranking Member Courtney to the Navy: What is the plan to support all suppliers?
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, at an Armed Services Committee hearing with Secretary Del Toro and Admiral Franchetti, Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-02), Ranking Member of the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, discussed the importance of maintaining steady Virginia Class procurement to support the entire supplier base and maintain our undersea supremacy.
Mr. Courtney: “Secretary Del Toro, we had good news last night on AUKUS, where the State Department issued their ITAR regulations to implement the optimal pathway that you and I witnessed out in San Diego.
“It's great to see Admiral Franchetti, congratulations on your first hearing and really want to welcome General Smith back into the fray and really glad you're back in the saddle leading the Marine Corps.
“Mr. Chairman, before I begin my question, I request unanimous consent to enter in the record two letters, from the Machinist Union and the Metal Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, urging sustained investment in the two per year cadence of the Virginia class submarine. They represent the welders, electricians, painters, and boilermakers who are hard at work right now delivering three Virginia class submarines in this calendar year and on track to deliver two more in 2025 and are part of that job training initiative that the Secretary mentioned in New England. 5,300 hires last calendar year with an 8[8]% retention rate.
“I also request unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter that myself and 119 other house members submitted to the Appropriations Committee [this morning] in support of restoring the second Virginia class submarine.
“Admiral Franchetti, we've had our posture hearings over the last month or so, as the Chairman mentioned. We heard from Admiral Aquilino at INDOPACOM, General Guillot from NORTHCOM, and General Cavoli from EUCOM that the requirements for attack submarine missions extend beyond what the Navy currently has in its inventory. Again, the Navy's shipbuilding 30-year plan has a requirement for 66 attack submarine and at this point we possess about 50, maybe 51 with the NEW JERSEY that was delivered last week. Is that still the Navy's position that that's the target in terms of what should be an adequate attack submarine fleet?
Admiral Franchetti: “Yes, I can’t speak highly enough of our attack submarine fleet, really our asymmetric advantage. And as you said, 66 is our requirement.”
Mr. Courtney: “So, Mr. Secretary, during the budget briefs back in March, Navy officials said ‘we were going about the submarine cut in a strategic way, because we're simply not taking a submarine out. We're also continuing investment in advanced procurement to make sure that the supplier industrial base is fully funded.’ Unfortunately, Committee staff has dug deeper into the budget books, and it's clear that many, many suppliers are not included in the advanced procurement phase of construction and are not protected by this strategic way. Our staff determined that it would cost an additional $1 billion to achieve the goal that was stated with the Navy's budget brief. When this enormous shortfall was raised at the Seapower Subcommittee two weeks ago, Assistant Secretary Guertin replied, ‘Well, we'll have to take a closer look and see what we can do to help.’
“Does the Navy today have an answer to these supply chain companies, which again the analysis shows are not going to be protected the way it was intended.”
Secretary Del Toro: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first also reaffirm our complete commitment on the part of the entire Department of the Navy to the 66 attack submarines. We currently have 50. We have 11 that are actually under construction and four additional ones under contract, and I'm confident with the ‘26 budget we will eventually get to the 66 that are required. Of course, we need to have them built faster and have those production rates increase regards specifically to these vendors.
Regarding specifically to these vendors, we’re in constant contact with these vendors. The purpose of advanced procurement money, however, isn't to fully fund all the vendors that are in the supply chain. It's to fund those vendors that are most critical to the supply chain. I don't think there's ever been a confirmation that we can support, you know, full funding of all the vendors across the entire spectrum.
Mr. Courtney: “I know some of those critical supply chain companies. They are left out with the plan that was submitted by the Navy. They're picked up through full funding phase of the submarine program, not advanced procurement, long-lead items and again this is a real problem, which, again we now have dollars and cents in terms of what it would take to fix that. Not a penny of that would go to the general contractor – of that $1 billion. That was all, again, to make sure that all these fabricators and parts manufacturers are actually going to be protected, as Mr. Raven had indicated in his opening statement. And, again, at some point, to really protect them, we should just go forward with what was in the plan, the FYDP, last year to have two submarines included in this year's budget.
“We are going to work really hard with your team to try and accomplish that goal. We've done it in the past. We did it in 2013 when the Obama administration eliminated a submarine and then 2020 when the Trump administration eliminated a submarine. Sometimes it was in the UPL list, sometimes it wasn't, but we -- using our Constitutional duty Article One, Section Eight, Clause 13 to provide and maintain a Navy -- stepped forward and filled that gap, and it's a good thing we did.”