McConnell Opening Statement at SAC-D Hearing on FY 26 Budget Request for the Navy

Washington, D.C.
–
U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, convened today’s hearing “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for the Navy”. Prepared text of his opening statement follows:
“I’ll begin by welcoming Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, Acting Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James Kilby, and Commandant of the Marine Corps General Eric Smith. I’m grateful to each of you for your willingness to lead at a pivotal moment for the Department, and to the sailors, Marines, and civilian personnel who advance Navy and Marine Corps missions and keep America safe every day.
“I’m particularly grateful to the sailors who have stood watch in the Gulf and the Red Sea over the last 20 months helping to defend Israel, US interests, and freedom of navigation against Iranian-backed terrorists. And to the crews deployed there right now who launched Tomahawk cruise missiles as part of the joint operation to strike what I hope is a fatal blow to Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
“I also want to recognize the Marine Corps, whose fallen comrades were among the earliest victims of Iran’s decades-long war against the United States and Israel — those taken hostage with U.S. Embassy personnel in Tehran and the hundreds killed in Beirut in 1983, before any of us on this dais showed up in Washington.
“Generations of servicemembers carry the scars of Iran-backed attacks on American personnel in the region over the decades. Their sacrifices remind us that ‘Death to America’ is more than rhetoric.
“For too long, Tehran itself faced negligible costs for the actions of their terrorist proxies. Thanks to Israel’s initiative in turning the tables – and the President’s decision to back them up – the Islamic Republic is finally paying a steep price.
“This weekend’s events are yet a further reminder of the challenges facing the joint force today. And my colleagues and I hope to understand the extent to which you think the President’s budget request would provide the resources necessary to meet, deter, and defeat them.
“Each of the Services is grappling in its own way with the reality of renewed major-power competition and with the increasing alignment of America’s adversaries. As you know, major transformations test assumptions and service culture. They test the capacity of the industrial base. And, importantly, they hinge on transparent working relations with Congress and on robust and consistent full-year investments in major priorities.
“I’ll offer just a few observations in this vein. First, the good: Secretary Phelan, I’ve appreciated your recognition of Congress’ role in equipping the Navy and Marine Corps and the collaborative approach you’ve taken with this subcommittee. Your willingness to communicate transparently will continue to benefit our shared mission of restoring the Navy’s preeminence. I also appreciate your persistent engagement with the maritime industrial base. Your travels to see our shipbuilding challenges across the country, firsthand, have not gone unnoticed. We will not solve this problem without the private sector.
“Likewise, General Smith – The Marine Corps spent years developing a clear rationale for major transformation, made tough and deliberate choices, and engaged Congress effectively along the way. Marine Corps Force Design 2030 continues to offer other services valuable lessons as they pursue transformation efforts of their own. I look forward to hearing how the Marine Corps’ own transformation to meet future threats is going: the good, the bad, and the ugly. But, to be quite frank, the decisions this Administration has made on resourcing the Department of Defense – a full-year CR that failed to address rising costs of operations and maintenance and major modernization requirements, a one-time reconciliation investment that risks new cliffs for sustainment, and a base request for FY26 even lower than the previous Administration’s FY25 request – make each of your jobs more difficult.
“At the most basic level, an FY26 base defense topline that doesn’t keep pace with inflation – let alone with the ‘pacing’ threat of the PRC – does not show we’re serious about the tasks before us. Neither does pretending that one-time injections of funding are a substitute for consistent appropriations. For example, none of you needs me to point out the breadth of bipartisan support for accelerating procurement of Virginia-class submarines. If the Administration shares our interest in meaningfully expanding shipbuilding capacity, why are investments like this one not built into the base budget request? Why are we allocating funds under extraordinary parliamentary authorities for capabilities that would otherwise have been funded in an annual appropriation? Will the Navy even be able to complete two Virginia class subs with reconciliation money before the funding expires?
“Leaving aside the color of money, we’ll also want to hear your assessment of the impediments to delivering essential capabilities like submarines, destroyers, and amphibious vessels at the speed of relevance. This subcommittee has been consistently generous, but despite pouring billions more dollars into the effort, the timeline for producing a Virginia-class sub continues to stretch longer. Of course, we don’t just need to build platforms faster. We need to figure out how to make munitions more efficiently – especially the exquisite missile defense interceptors and long-range fires on which current operations are relying so heavily. How has the Navy handled the high operational tempo in the Red Sea? How does the FY26 request reflect the urgent need to deepen our magazines in a more cost-effective manner?
“Finally, I’m curious about the lessons your services are taking from current conflicts. What has the Navy learned from the demands of long deployments and the costs of air wing accidents on the U.S.S. Truman? What lessons is the service taking from Ukraine’s decimation of Russia’s Black Sea fleet? How is the Navy approaching force protection itself? Is it hardening major assets, both in port and at sea? Does it have sufficient resources to do so?
“What is the Marine Corps learning from Russia’s ground war in Ukraine? How does information-sharing at the cutting-edge of modern warfare inform the service’s ongoing transformation effort? To what extent is success in the face of unique Indo-Pacific circumstances dependent on things outside your control, like logistics and transportation provided by other services or commands?
“I will be curious for each of your observations. I would just suggest that any honest accounting of the task at hand will have to reckon with the deficiencies of the defense topline. If our objective is to build a force capable of projecting power globally to deter, fight, and prevail against Chinese aggression, possibly while engaged in conflict in other theatres, I don’t see how this budget request gets us there. So we’ll look forward to your testimony in just a moment.”