[Senate Hearing 119-297]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-297
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF MR. JOHN
C. PHELAN TO BE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-905 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JACK REED, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
JONI ERNST, Iowa RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota TIM KAINE, Virginia
RICK SCOTT, Florida ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
TED BUDD, North Carolina TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JIM BANKS, INDIANA MARK KELLY, Arizona
TIM SHEEHY, MONTANA ELISSA SLOTKIN, MICHIGAN
John P. Keast, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
_________________________________________________________________
february 27, 2025
Page
To Consider the Nomination of Mr. John C. Phelan to be Secretary 1
of the Navy.
Members Statements
Wicker, Senator Roger............................................ 1
Reed, Senator Jack............................................... 2
Witness Statements
Phelan, John C., to be Secretary of the Navy..................... 5
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 46
Questions for the Record....................................... 81
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 114
Biographical Sketch............................................ 115
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 117
Signature Page................................................. 125
Appendix A
GAO Report--Shipbuilding and Repair.............................. 126
(iii)
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF MR. JOHN C. PHELAN TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2025
United States Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Roger Wicker
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Committee Members present: Senators Wicker, Fischer,
Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Scott, Tuberville, Budd,
Banks, Sheehy, Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono,
Kaine, King, Warren, Peters, Rosen, and Kelly.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROGER F. WICKER
Chairman Wicker. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order. The Committee on Armed Services is meeting to consider
the nomination of Mr. John Phelan to be Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. Phelan has had a distinguished career in the private
sector. His background showcases his ability to manage complex
business deals to drive efficiency and to deliver results. Our
Navy will need someone with all three of those skills and more
to get our Navy back on the right track.
The Navy is up against significant challenges, and the
nominee before us can be a crucial part of that solution. We
also, my colleagues, need to be part of that solution.
Congress, industry, and Navy leadership have all
contributed to these problems. We must all work together to
solve the issues facing us. We must begin by addressing the
most urgent need, getting ship building back on track. Our
sailors have performed admirably in combat operations, but Navy
leadership has been unable to grow the fleet even as its budget
has been increased.
The Navy remains woefully short of the statutory
requirement of 355 ships--the statutory requirement. Just about
every major shipbuilding program is behind schedule, over
budget, or irreparably off track. For years, we have seen
significant delays. The failures are everywhere. Ford-class
carriers, Virginia-class submarines, Constellation-class
frigates all are behind schedule. Every year, the Navy
shipbuilding plan promises future growth. In reality, we have
only watched as the fleet diminished.
In December 2020, the shipbuilding plan said the Navy would
grow to 315 ships by 2025. Here we are in 2025, and we have
only 287 ships. It is clear that we have not gotten the job
done--we have not gotten the job done. Together, we can work to
fix that.
We must stabilize shipbuilding programs, adopt commercial
best practices, and incentivize the shipyards to address
workforce and productivity issues in a collaborative, rather
than combative, manner. We can quickly inject innovation into
naval procurement, particularly on unmanned ships.
The story of naval maintenance is no better than the story
of shipbuilding. Our maintenance performance is unimpressive
across ship classes. For just one example, last year, multiple
amphibious ships were unable to deploy on time. Instead, they
sat in the yards waiting for repairs. Sailors have been trained
on fewer than half the required maintenance tasks and only have
enough time to accomplish 40 percent of required maintenance.
The reduced quality of recruits exacerbates the situation.
This chain of events raises cost and creates schedule
challenges for ship repair yards down the line. Deployments
increase and the number of older ships decreases, sending the
Navy into a death spiral.
I am painting a dismal picture, but an accurate picture.
The Navy struggles to man the fleet. The previous
administration paid too much attention to demographic traits,
which contributed to the Navy's failure to meet its recruiting
goals. The Navy did eventually meet last year's recruiting
targets, but only by lowering standards. Last year, nearly 20
percent of Navy recruits were considered category IV. They
tested below the 30th percentile on the military aptitude
test--below the 30th percentile.
Recruiting has improved significantly over the last few
months, but the Navy must keep up this recruiting pace for the
next 3 years to fill the estimated 20,000 vacancies on our
ships today. Consistently deploying undermanned ships exhausts
sailors and creates real operational risks, as the Navy knows
all too well from its own accident investigations.
The stakes are high. We face a threat environment more
complex than any since World War II. Our naval forces must be
ready to operate in highly contested environments, from the
Western Pacific to the Atlantic, and from the North Sea to the
Red Sea and beyond.
The Navy's role in our national security is more important
than any moment since World War II, at exactly the worst time
the service has been beset with scandals, poor management, and
a lack of vision.
I am pleased with the nominee's track record. He has
rescued companies in distress. Our Navy is certainly in
distress and needs that same kind of leadership. So I look
forward to hearing Mr. Phelan's views about how to fix
shipbuilding, maintenance, and recruitment in the Navy, and I
now recognize Ranking Member Reed for his opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Mr. Phelan, welcome. Congratulations on your nomination. I
would like recognize your wife, Amy, and daughter, Makenzie.
Thank you for being here.
Mr. Phelan, you have been nominated to be Secretary of the
Navy. If confirmed, you will lead the Department of the Navy at
a consequential time. As Secretary, you will be responsible for
recruiting, organizing, training, and equipping the force while
establishing forward-looking policies and programs for the
Department.
The importance of the joint Navy and Marine Corps mission
has never been more clear. For over a year, our naval forces
have operated in the Red Sea and Middle East to support Israel
and defend our interests in the region. United States Navy
vessels have successfully shot down hundreds of drones and
missiles launched by Iran, Hamas, and the Houthis, and our
sailors and marines have experienced more at-sea combat than
any American forces since World War II. They have saved lives,
protected our allies, and defended the international waterways.
I salute the servicemembers who have been involved in these
operations.
Mr. Phelan, you have spent your career in the private
investment field. You have founded and led a number of
lucrative private investment firms. However, while you clearly
have experience managing large companies, you do not have any
significant experience with the United States Navy or the
military at large. You will have to quickly learn a great deal
about a complex organization, including its hundreds of
thousands of sailors and marines, while the service faces
growing international threats and internal challenges. I think
you will quickly come to discover that the culture of the
Navy--that should be plural--the cultures of the Navy are
interesting and will present a challenge to understand.
The U.S. Navy remains the finest maritime force in the
world, but it has struggled to grow and maintain its fleet, as
the Chairman has pointed out. For several years, the service
has fallen well short of its shipbuilding and deployment plans.
A number of vessels, including an aircraft carrier and multiple
destroyers and frigates, are behind schedule, in some cases by
several years.
I would also note that Virginia-class fast attack
submarines and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines,
which are critical for maintaining our undersea advantage and
nuclear deterrent against competitors like China, are facing
construction delays of over a year.
These acquisition programs have a multitude of parties
involved--major contractors, small subcontractors, military
personnel, and civilian personnel. Each program is complex and
costly. Indeed, a recent Congressional Budget Office report
estimated the total shipbuilding cost for the Navy to reach its
goal of 381 ships would be $40 billion per year for the next 30
years.
Mr. Phelan, I am interested to know how you plan to learn
about these different acquisition programs and their unique
challenges, and how you will approach getting them back on
schedule and on budget.
The biggest cause of delays, seems to be a workforce
shortage. The private shipyards, in particular, lost many
workers during COVID and have struggled to hire and train new
employees. The employees of the Navy shipyards are all Federal
workers, but both private and public yards need stability in
funding and employment to be successful. I fear that a number
of upcoming disruptions, including a possible year-long
Continuing Resolution (CR); Secretary Hegseth's plans to slash
8 percent of the defense budget, or about $70 billion each
year; and Mr. Hegseth's plan to fire up to 8 percent of the
defense workforce, or about 70,000 employees, will jeopardize
any progress the shipbuilding programs could make.
Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed, you will be responsible
for managing the fallout from these cuts within the Navy. At a
time when we face unprecedented threats from China and struggle
to hire enough workers to meet our shipbuilding demands, you
will need to find a way to balance these reductions against the
Navy's increasing missions. I am interested, obviously, if you
have any thoughts on how you will accomplish these challenging
missions.
As Secretary of the Navy, you will also oversee the Marine
Corps while it is in the midst of a substantial transformation.
With a focus on competition in the Indo-Pacific, the Marine
Corps has been restructuring around expeditionary concepts that
will provide a more flexible amphibious force that can support
a broader naval fight once ashore.
To achieve this, the Corps is prioritizing a number of
modernization efforts, including long-range fires, enhanced air
and missile defense, and improved ground and amphibious combat
vehicles. These platforms should help equip the marines with
improved force protection, lethality, and mobility. I would
note, however, that the Marine Corps is constrained in its
ability to employ Marine Expeditionary Units because of the
current limitations of the amphibious fleet.
Mr. Phelan, you are facing momentous challenges that will
require all of your experience and skills, and thank you for
your willingness to serve, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Mr. Phelan, do you still want this job?
[Laughter.]
Chairman Wicker. Just kidding. Actually, I spot another
highly successful entrepreneur there at the desk with you,
Senator Scott, who I believe has some introductory words.
Senator Scott, you are recognized.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman Wicker and Ranking
Member Reed, and Members of the Committee. First off, it is an
honor to sit here by my good friend, Mr. John Phelan, to be the
next Secretary of the Navy. I would also like to recognize his
wonderful wife, Amy, his daughter, Makenzie, and cousin,
Francisca, who are here in support of John, along with his
friends.
I have known John for a long time. He is a proven leader of
exceptional ability, a great businessman, and an individual
with unwavering integrity. Whatever he tells you he is going to
do, it is going to happen. As a Navy veteran myself, I know he
will be an incredible asset to our Nation, leading the Navy,
and he will work closely with President Trump and Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth to make the Navy a lethal force with
accountability to taxpayers.
John's work in the private sector shows his ability to
build teams, foster accountability, and make decisions that
prioritize long-term success. He also has demonstrated an
ability to manage complex organizations, drive innovation, and
deliver results, all talents that are vital in leading the
Department of the Navy.
As we all know, our Navy faces significant challenges,
global threats from Communist China, Russia, and Iran, the
urgent need to modernize our fleet, and the responsibility to
recruit and retain the best talent.
Another serious problem the Department of Defense has faced
for years is the inability to pass an audit. I know the
Secretary is fully committed to fixing this, and he needs
people like John leading every single department of the
military to make sure this is done as soon as possible.
The issues that the Navy is facing are not just military
challenges. They are leadership and management issues.
President Trump chose a leader who can deliver for Americans
and for the great men and women of our Navy, one who can cut
through government bureaucracy to build efficiency and
lethality. That is John. His extensive business experience will
bring fresh perspective to strengthen the Department and drive
solutions for years to come.
With his and the Secretary of Defense's leadership, our
military forces will be accountable to taxpayers once again.
His financial management and operational efficiency background
have made him a respected figure in the business world. He is
very well thought of, and he will be an effective and respected
leader at the Navy.
I have known John for many years. I know his leadership
will help drive the strategic vision necessary to maintain our
naval superiority. More importantly, John is deeply committed
to the men and women who serve. He respects those who put on
the uniform and put their lives on the line to defend and
protect our country, as each of us do.
John knows that leadership is not just about numbers; it is
about empowering the people in the organization, ensuring they
have the trust and tools necessary to complete their mission,
and the understanding that his decisions could mean life or
death for our sailors and marines. I know he will never take
that lightly.
I look forward to hearing from John today about his vision
for the Navy and how he plans to strengthen our force. I am
confident that his skills, character, and expertise will make
him an effective Secretary of the Navy. I look forward to the
Committee considering him a highly qualified candidate.
President Trump was elected with a mandate. President Trump and
the Secretary of Defense need a Navy Secretary who will make
sure that mandate is fulfilled in the Department of the Navy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope everybody will support
my good friend, John Phelan.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator, and Mr.
Phelan, you are now recognized for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JOHN C. PHELAN, TO BE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Mr. Phelan. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, it is an honor to sit
before you as the nominee for Secretary of the Navy. Thank you
for the opportunity. I would also like to thank Senator Scott
for his generous introduction.
I am fortunate to be joined here by my wife Amy, my
daughter, Makenzie, as well as some dear friends behind me.
Their unwavering support through the confirmation process has
been invaluable.
I am deeply grateful to President Trump for his trust and
confidence in me. President Trump was right. Achieving peace
through strength is essential to deterrence and protecting our
freedom and our way of life.
Recently I had the humbling experience of visiting
Arlington National Cemetery with Medal of Honor recipients and
Gold Star family members. Standing among those thousands of
crosses and reflecting on the magnitude of what these brave
warriors accomplished, but most importantly sacrificed,
reminded me of a quote by the late Major Doug Zembiec, also
known as the Lion of Fallujah. ``Never forget those that were
killed. And never let rest those that killed them.''
If confirmed, I will use my business and military
charitable work experience to ensure that our Navy and Marine
Corps are prepared to meet the moment.
The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps remain the most formidable
expeditionary force in the world, but the U.S. Navy is at a
crossroads. Extended deployments, inadequate maintenance, huge
cost overruns, delayed shipbuilding, failed audits, subpar
housing, and sadly, record high suicide rates are systemic
failures that have gone unaddressed for far too long, and
frankly, this is unacceptable.
Admiral Bull Halsey put it best: ``All problems become
smaller if you don't dodge them but confront them.'' If
confirmed, that is exactly what I will do.
The Department of the Navy's mission requires persistent
global deployment across 72 percent of the Earth's surface and
the airspace above it. If confirmed, my focus will be on three
priorities: the health, welfare, and training of sailors and
marines; strengthening naval capabilities, particularly
shipbuilding and the defense industrial base; and fostering an
adaptive, accountable, and innovative warfighter culture.
Senators, as you all know, people are our most precious
resource, and their health and welfare must be our utmost
priority. Recruiting and retention challenges have left
critical positions unfilled, stretching our forces thin, and
reducing readiness. Ships lack full crews, deployments are
extended, and the burden on sailors and their families
increases. Recruitment and retention challenges demand a
renewed focus on quality of life issues. If we are to attract
and retain the best talent, the Navy needs to become a place
where men and women see not just a job but a future.
Next, we must restore operational readiness. Today we face
a strategic inflexion point. Adversaries, in particular, China,
are aggressively expanding their naval capabilities. Every
shipbuilding delay, every maintenance backlog, and every
inefficiency is an opening for our adversaries to challenge our
dominance. We cannot allow that to happen.
Naval innovation must also extend beyond hulls and keels.
Strengthening relationships with the defense industrial base,
incorporating lessons from recent conflicts, and integrating
emerging technologies are essential to maintaining our
competitive advantage. This requires more than just funding. It
requires a relentless focus on execution, innovation, and
accountability.
As to culture, the Navy and the Marine Corps historically
have embodied resilience, ingenuity, and adaptability. More
than ever we need to return to this ethos. I have analyzed
thousands of organizations. A common refrain among those that
are failing is, ``This is how we've always done it.'' Yes,
there is great value in stability and tradition, which I will
respect and do appreciate. But when it suffocates adaptability,
innovation, collaboration, and trust, it erodes an
organization's ability to win.
I understand that some may question why a businessman who
does not wear the uniform should lead the Navy. I respect that
concern. The Navy and Marine Corps already possess
extraordinary operational expertise within their ranks. My role
is to utilize that expertise and strengthen it, to step outside
the status quo and take decisive action with a results-oriented
approach.
I do recognize the critical importance of working closely
with Congress, and particularly this Committee. As my father,
who served, often reminded me, freedom is not free. That is why
I accepted this nomination, because I believe in service to
those who dedicated their lives to defending this Nation.
Senators, if confirmed, it is my pledge to support our
sailors and marines and ensure we remain the premier maritime
force in the world. Thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John C. Phelan follows:]
Prepared Statement by John C. Phelan
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished Members of
the Committee,
It is an honor to sit before you as the nominee for Secretary of
the Navy, thank you for the opportunity. I am deeply grateful to
President Trump for his trust and confidence in me.
I would also like to thank Senator Scott for his generous
introduction. I am fortunate to be joined today by my wife, Amy, my
daughter Makenzie, as well as some dear friends. Their unwavering
support has been invaluable, thank you for coming.
As President Trump recently stated, ``we will measure our success
not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and
perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.'' Peace through
strength!
Recently I had the humbling experience of visiting Arlington
National Cemetery with Medal of Honor recipients and Gold Star Family
members. Standing among those crosses-thousands of them, row upon row-
and reflecting on the magnitude of what these brave warriors
accomplished but most importantly sacrificed reminded me of a quote by
the late Doug Zembiec, ``Never forget those that were killed. And never
let rest those that killed them.'' If confirmed, I will ensure that our
Navy and Marine Corps are prepared to ``meet the moment'' and never
forget. Never forget, Meet the moment!!
The United States Navy and Marine Corps remain the most formidable
expeditionary force in the world; however, I believe the Department of
the Navy is at a crossroads, a critical inflection point. Extended
deployments, inadequate maintenance, enormous cost overruns, delayed
delivery and repair dates, failed audits, sub-standard housing, and
sadly, record high suicide rates. Tackling these challenges requires
immediate action not a bureaucracy that often prioritizes process over
results. These systemic failures have gone unaddressed for far too long
and reflect an organization in decay. Waiting for a crisis is the best
way to get a crisis and that is not a good idea when your business is
warfighting. Admiral Bull Halsey put it best, ``all problems, become
smaller if you don't dodge them, but confront them. Touch a thistle
timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble.''
The Department needs to act with a much greater sense of urgency, and I
believe that is why President Trump selected me.
The Department of the Navy mission is extremely complex, it
requires persistent global deployment across 72 percent of the earth's
surface and the airspace over it. To ensure continued dominance, my
focus will be on three priorities if confirmed: the health, welfare,
and training of sailors and marines; strengthening naval capabilities,
particularly shipbuilding and the defense industrial base; and
fostering an adaptive, accountable, and innovative warfighter culture.
People are our most precious resource. Recruiting and retention
challenges have left critical positions unfilled, stretching our forces
thin and reducing readiness. Ships lack full crews, deployments are
extended, and the burden on sailors and their families increases.
Now is a crucial time in improving retention. The Navy & Marine
Corp 250th Anniversary presents a unique opportunity to showcase the
appeal of uniformed service. Recruitment and retention challenges
demand innovative solutions and a renewed focus on quality of life for
our troops and their families. If we are to attract and retain the best
talent, our maritime services need to become a place where men and
women see not just a job but a future.
But recruiting and retention alone will not be enough. We must
restore operational readiness. Today, we face a strategic inflection
point. Near-peer adversaries are aggressively expanding their naval
capabilities, investing in advanced platforms, and increasing their
presence in contested regions. Every shipbuilding delay, every
maintenance backlog, and every inefficiency is an opening for China and
Russia to challenge our dominance. We cannot allow that to happen!
Naval innovation must also extend beyond hulls and keels.
Strengthening relationships with the defense industrial base,
incorporating lessons from recent conflicts, and integrating emerging
technologies are essential to maintaining our competitive edge. The
Navy and Marine Corps must not only deter aggression but instill fear
in any adversary that challenges our maritime superiority. Achieving
this requires more than just funding--it requires leadership,
execution, and a relentless focus on efficiency, innovation, and
accountability.
Throughout history, the Navy and Marine Corps have embodied
resilience, ingenuity, and adaptability. More than ever, we need to
return to this ethos. Over my 35-year business career, I have evaluated
numerous successful and failing organizations. A common trait among
failing organizations is resistance to change. Phrases like ``this is
how we have always done it,'' ``if it ain't broke, it don't need
fixing!'' The key point is that phrases like this can be dual-edged
swords. There is great value in stability, in tradition, in order, in a
consistent way of doing things that should be respected and
appreciated. But when it suffocates adaptability, innovation,
collaboration, and trust, those same phrases erode an organization's
ability to win particularly in a dynamic and rapidly changing
environment.
As a surface warfare commander succinctly put it, ``The Navy treats
warfighting readiness as a compliance issue . . . you might even use
the term compliance-centered warfare.'' Sailors in the same survey
described a careerist environment that is risk averse and has a ``zero-
defect'' mentality. We cannot allow such an environment to take root.
Reforming large, change-resistant organizations is difficult and often
uncomfortable. In the business of warfare, failing to adapt is
catastrophic.
I understand that some may question why a businessman who did not
wear the uniform should lead the Department of the Navy. I respect that
concern. The Navy and Marine Corps already possess extraordinary
operational expertise within their ranks. My role is to utilize that
expertise and strengthen it--to step outside the status quo and take
decisive action with a results-oriented approach. I did not accept this
nomination out of personal ambition, but out of a deep commitment to
service. I believe in giving back to those who dedicate their lives to
defending our Nation. I recognize the critical importance of working
closely with Congress--and particularly with this committee--to ensure
that our Navy and Marine Corps remain the premier maritime force in the
world.
If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to strengthen our naval
forces, to support our sailors and marines, and to ensure that
America's adversaries never question our resolve at sea.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you very much. First of all, Mr.
Phelan, there are standard questions which this Committee is
required to ask you and which you are required to answer, so
let's begin with that.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, sir.
Chairman Wicker. Have you assumed any duties or taken any
actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Phelan. No, sir.
Chairman Wicker. Exercising our legislative and oversight
responsibilities makes it important that this Committee, its
subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress
receive testimony, briefings, reports, records, and other
information from the executive branch on a timely basis. Do you
agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify before this
Committee, when requested?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, sir.
Chairman Wicker. Do you agree to provide records,
documents, and electronic communications in a timely manner,
when requested by this Committee, its subcommittees, or other
appropriate committees of Congress, and to consult with the
requestor regarding the basis for any good faith delay or
denial in providing such records?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, I do.
Chairman Wicker. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established by this Committee for the production
of reports, records, and other information, including timely
responding to hearing questions for the record?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, sir.
Chairman Wicker. There may be questions for the record
today because we will have rounds of only 5 minutes.
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests?
Mr. Phelan. Yes.
Chairman Wicker. Will those witnesses and briefers be
protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Phelan. Yes.
Chairman Wicker. Here endeth the required questions.
All right, Mr. Phelan, you have extensive experience in
entrepreneurship. You testified in your prepared statement
about health and welfare, about moving past the status quo in
our recruiting and in shipbuilding and in increasing and
enhancing the industrial base through execution and
accountability.
Could you elaborate on what you think we need to do, based
on what you have heard, to improve recruiting?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think
there are a couple of different things. First of all, I think
in the last month, as you mentioned in your opening statement,
recruiting numbers have gone up, and I think that is a
reflection of first the President's victory, and second, a
return to the warfighting ethos, which is really what the
business of the military is.
I believe a couple of different things. One, we have the
250th anniversary of the Navy and the Marine Corps coming up
this year. I think that is a great opportunity to show the
benefits of service, and that is something that I intend to
take advantage of, from a recruiting perspective.
Second, I think we can do things better from a digital
perspective, in terms of outreach.
Third, I think there is something to be learned from the
Marine Corps, who has been pretty consistent in hitting their
numbers. As I understand it, the Marine Corps has used the same
advertising agency for over 30 years, which I believe has
allowed it to build its brand, and it has got a very powerful
message. So I think that is something else we need to focus on
is the marketing, and showing the benefit of serving, and what
a great opportunity that is for young people, and what they get
by serving.
Chairman Wicker. Okay. Let's move to shipbuilding. If we
threw a zillion dollars at the Department of the Navy today, we
could not build the ships because we do not have the industrial
base. We have got to fix that, and I think that is why the
President looked to an entrepreneur and an experienced business
person.
How are we going to fix our industrial base so we can get
to the number of ships that are required for us to be
competitive and a deterrent to adversaries that are working
together like they have never done before--Iran, Russia, North
Korea, and Communist China?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. I know
this issue is important to you, and we spent some time together
when I met with you in the office.
I think this is a critical task. The President has been
very consistent when he spoke with me--shipbuilding,
shipbuilding, shipbuilding. I think, if confirmed, I intend to
go visit the shipyards. I look forward to hopefully visiting it
with you in Mississippi, because I know you have done an
exceptional job in the shipbuilding there. I think we need to
take some of the best practices from those yards, some of the
best practices from some of the foreign yards, as well, to
learn.
But we have to reinvigorate the industrial base in America.
That could come from a couple of different angles. The SHIPS
Act I know is something that is being considered. I think there
are some very good ideas in the SHIPS Act in terms of trying to
reinvigorate the industrial base, such as opportunity zones for
shipbuilding. I think that if we can incent the private sector
in the right way--and I think that is by telegraphing demand--
then you will get the private sector to actually invest in
these yards. I think that is an important thing.
Then I think it is also making a career out of having the
appropriate skill set in the workforce, and that comes from
training and having proper programs. I think these are things
that I have experience with, with businesses that I have run,
in terms of construction companies, and how to create an
apprentice program that tracks people and also makes sure your
most talented skilled labor does not leave so quickly and
actually passes on those skills.
Chairman Wicker. Mr. Phelan, when a shipyard welder can go
outside the gate and work at a convenience store for a
competitive price, that has got to be fixed, does it not?
Mr. Phelan. It does, sir. That needs to be analyzed and
looked at. You cannot have that kind of wage differential for
those types of different jobs.
Chairman Wicker. All right. Thank you very much for your
testimony. I am going to recognize the distinguished Ranking
Member for questions, and hand the gavel to Senator Cotton
until I am back from another hearing.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Phelan.
Let me zero in on one aspect of the shipbuilding and that
is submarine construction. As I pointed out, and as you well
know, we are behind. In addition to being behind, we have
already made commitments to Australia to provide attack
submarines, and that increases the demand on the system.
Fortunately, we have been trying to increase funding for
submarine construction, and I must commend the Chairman for his
efforts last year to include $5 billion.
But let me just ask you, how do you evaluate the importance
of submarines, to not only the Navy but to national defense,
and how do you propose securing sufficient funds to get us back
on track?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Reed. I appreciated the time we spent talking about this, for
sure.
Look, I think the Columbia submarine program is incredibly
important. It is the most important nuclear deterrent we have.
It is the most resilient, survivable one that we have. I think
that I need to really get in there and dig in and take a look
at what exactly is causing the delays. I am a big believer in
what we call kind of root cause analysis. I think there is a
lot of this [witness indicated finger pointing] going on,
between requirements, contractors, workers. I have not had the
benefit of visiting the yard. I look forward to doing that with
you, if confirmed.
I think that it is a very complicated manufacturing
process. I do think we need to analyze ways to create more
competition for some of the components that are made in this
sub, and potentially in the sub making. The question is how do
you do that, and that comes from incentives. That comes from
working together with the private sector.
I think ultimately, at the end of the day, what you want to
try to do is make it so that the private sector--you make the
pie bigger and so that they can have a smaller slice of the
bigger pie. I think if we can create the right incentives, that
is the right way.
I think one of the things again, and I have not reviewed
contracts, from what I can see, I am candidly fearful of what I
am going to find when I read some of these contracts and get in
there, in terms of they are pro to the private sector side. But
we need to go in there, take a look at them. If they need to be
restructured then we are going to have to do that.
But we have to get back to more of a concept of shared
risk. I think it is fine for the private sector to earn a
profit. They should make a profit, based on the risk that they
are taking. That is what we need to really get back to, and
look at.
So if confirmed, Ranking Member Reed, this will be a top
priority for us, very quickly, to get our arms around this and
try to get this out.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, and I think you
recognize the invaluable role that the civilian workforce
provides the Navy and Marine Corps. Is that your view?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. Well, it is interesting, because the
Department of Defense announced a few days ago that 5,400
probationary employees would be fired, without any real
analysis of the need. But more troubling is the declaration
that there will be an eventual 5 to 8 percent reduction, which
works out to about 70,000-plus people. I do not know if you are
aware of this, but Section 129(a) of Title 10 requires that no
Federal civilian workforce employee can be fired unless the
Secretary--and I am quoting now--``unless the Secretary
conducts an appropriate analysis of the impacts of such
reductions on workload, military force structure, lethality,
readiness, operational effectiveness, stress on the military
force, and burdened costs.''
So the simple question is, do you intend to follow the law
as you pursue these reductions?
Mr. Phelan. Thanks for the question, Senator. If confirmed,
I will follow all laws, all lawful orders that we get. I am not
privy to the actual cuts that have occurred. I have just read
what has been in the paper as it relates to it. I do think the
shipbuilding force is critical. I do not know if we have labor
shortages. I suspect in certain yards we do. If confirmed, I
will sit down with the Secretary of Defense and the President
and very quickly talk about that, because I know that is a key
priority for the President is ensuring that our shipbuilding is
done.
Senator Reed. Finally, will you make available the
documentation that the Department of Defense must have to
justify these firings?
Mr. Phelan. I'm sorry. Say that again, Senator.
Senator Reed. Would you commit to the Committee to make
available to us the documentation of all the criteria that I
have listed in the statute so that we can confirm that such a
review has been conducted?
Mr. Phelan. Senator, I will follow all laws that exist. I
assume you guys get that documentation.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Cotton. [Presiding.] Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Cotton. It is nice to
see you here today, Mr. Phelan, and welcome to your friends and
family for being here with you. I appreciate you putting
yourself forward to serve your country in this capacity.
Mr. Phelan, in your Advanced Policy Questions to the
Committee you stated, quote, ``If confirmed, I will ensure the
Department complies with existing statutory requirements to
continue funding development of the nuclear sea-launched cruise
missile,'' unquote. Do you stand by that statement? Yes or no.
Mr. Phelan. Senator, I think the nuclear sea-launched
cruise missile is a very important program. I have not been
read-in on the briefings on that, but I know it is a critical
component to our defense.
Senator Fischer. Will you follow the statutory
requirements?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, I will.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. To followup on the
shipbuilding part that has been discussed by the Chairman, the
Strategic Posture Commission recommended the establishment of
additional shipyards dedicated to nuclear-powered ships and
submarines. If confirmed, would you be open to exploring that
option?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, I would, Senator. I think it is a very
important part of our strategic focus.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. What we have learned from the
war in Ukraine is that the United States defense industrial
base was not equipped to scale up production rates of munitions
for these modern conflicts. Is it your view that the United
States must further increases munition production capacity?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, Senator. I think we are at a critical
shortage, and we have far too much dependence on one facility.
Senator Fischer. Do you have any initial thoughts that you
can share with us about steps that maybe you would be taking to
ensure that the Navy has the munitions stockpiles that are
required to meet the needs of the combatant commanders?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, Senator. I think, as you know, we are
short munitions, as we have seen. I think we need to create
more of a manufacturing base and incentivize more munitions
plants in order to supplement what we already have. So if
confirmed, I intend to focus on this very quickly and get that
resolved, because I think we are in a dangerously low level
from the stockpile perspective, as well as new.
I will use the skills that I had in the business world, in
terms of incenting. I think a lot of that also comes with
working with you and the Committee and the Congress, because we
do need to send signals to the private sector to incentivize
them to build these plants to get going. So ordering, giving
them a contract to build I think will be critical, and I would
like to believe we should be able to create a win-win between
the private sector and for the taxpayer of the United States.
Senator Fischer. You mentioned contracts with the
shipbuilding, too, to be able to do a review of those
contracts, to make sure that there are incentives, that private
companies can make profits with that. You mentioned contracts
again now. Would you look at that, as well, in depth, on
current contracts that we have with regard to our munitions,
and if maybe what we are looking at here are roadblocks in
being able to move ahead with being able to provide these
munitions?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. Yes, I
intend to sit down, day one, and we are going to go through
every contract that we have and understand what exactly they
say and what flexibility they do or do not give us, what
contract needs to change or not change, and why. I intend to do
the same thing as it relates to an audit. I need to understand
why the Navy cannot pass an audit. The Marine Corps has done it
2 years running now. They deserve a lot of credit for that. I
think that is a great thing.
We are going to change and create much more accountability
and understanding, because all of these things affect
readiness. As I said in my statement, readiness is critical,
and I think we are at a very critical inflection point,
particularly versus our near-peer adversaries.
These are all things that are a reflection of a culture, as
I mentioned, in decay. We need to have a tight focus on these
things. If we do not know where our inventory is, how can we
have a training mission? I have heard stories of training
missions that are failed because the equipment was not there,
and so we end up losing that money, and that is not good.
Senator Fischer. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you,
Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Good morning, Mr. Phelan. Congratulations
on your nomination. Welcome to your family and your friends who
are here with you.
Last week, Secretary Hegseth issued a memo to the Defense
Department, which we have referenced already. But it asks the
services and the Joint Staff for proposals to cut the defense
budget by 8 percent every year for the next 5 years. The memo
provides a handful of exemptions, including for the Virginia-
class submarine program and military construction in the Indo-
Pacific only. It does not provide an exemption for our
country's maritime industrial base. I am actually concerned
that Secretary Hegseth may not be aware of the work that the
Navy is doing to modernize our public shipyards. It is
something that we discussed when you were kind enough to meet
with me.
But because, in his questions for the record following his
own confirmation hearing, Secretary Hegseth said, and I am
quoting here, in his statement, ``The Navy has not made
investments to modernize our four public shipyards.'' Mr.
Phalen, that simply is not true. The Shipyard Infrastructure
Optimization Plan (SIOP), which we discussed a little bit when
we met, is a 20-year, $21 billion investment to make sure that
our shipyards are ready to meet the needs that our Navy has
into the next century. I think we discussed the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard, which we have an interest in, in New Hampshire.
It sits between New Hampshire and Maine. It is our Nation's
longest serving public shipyard.
Senator King. No. It is in Maine, Senator, just to be
clear.
Senator Shaheen. But it has an address that is Portsmouth,
New Hampshire. I am willing to share it with you, Senator King.
It has the best record for on-time, on-budget maintenance
and repair of our submarine force.
I appreciate your focus on operational readiness, but I am
trying to square how operational readiness comports with the 8
percent budget cuts that are going to affect our investment in
our public shipyards.
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator Shaheen,
and I did appreciate the time with you, and it was enjoyable.
What I would say to you is my understand, again, and I have
just read what is in the paper, is that Secretary Hegseth has
talked about this as a planning tool, to kind of look at what
would happen if we need to cut 8 percent, and that is my
understanding, which I think is a useful exercise to go
through, which is where would we cut if we need to cut.
Now, also my understanding is it is to take money away from
non-lethal activities and reallocate that capital to more
lethal activities. Do I view the construction of our subs and
ships as lethal activities? The answer is yes, because we need
to have these ships and we need to get them out there quickly.
As--go ahead. Sorry.
Senator Shaheen. Well, and as you know, our nuclear attack
submarines are one of the advantages that we have over the
Chinese. As we are thinking about how do we stay competitive
and stay ahead, it is very important that we ensure that we are
able to maintain those subs and keep them operational.
Mr. Phelan. Yes, that is critical, and I believe that both
the Secretary of Defense and the President would agree with
those statements. Our nuclear subs and attack subs are
critical. So whatever we need to do to get them out as fast as
possible, on time, hopefully quicker than the delays that are
currently being estimated, and hopefully with some budget
savings, we should be able to do that. So I think that is very
critical.
I do look forward to visiting the shipyard in Maine and New
Hampshire, as well, and see what you are doing. One of the
things I want to see is you guys are doing things on time. Why
aren't other shipyards adopting this? What are the things that
are not happening? Those are things that we really need to
start to do.
Senator Shaheen. One of the things that is critical to
ensuring that work continues on time, and on budget, is making
sure that we have the workforce that is required to do that
maintenance. Two weeks ago, Senator Collins and I sent a letter
to Mr. Emmert, who is the Acting Secretary of the Navy, pending
your confirmation, asking him to work with the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) to create an exception for shipyard
employees that would protect them from mass layoffs. We have
received no response from Mr. Emmert.
The Pentagon is reportedly preparing to fire up to 75,000
civilians, as Senator Reed said. Portsmouth, I think, cannot
afford to cut its workforce. In fact, they need to hire 550
workers annually just to keep up with the Navy's demand for
submarine repairs.
So can you commit to this Committee that you are going to
engage with OPM to protect our employees who are necessary to
ensure that they can do the maintenance that is required for
our nuclear subs?
Mr. Phelan. Senator, I commit to you that I will look into
this, and I will sit down with the Secretary of Defense and go
through this issue and ensure that we have the workforce we
need to complete the work we need on the ships and the subs and
make sure we have our talent.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I look forward to hearing a
report on that meeting.
Mr. Phelan. Thank you.
Senator Cotton. Mr. Phelan, greetings. I want to continue
along the line of questions that Senator Fischer had about
munitions. You mentioned increasing capacity, building new
facilities, and I think that is going to be important in some
cases. However, there are also cases in which the Navy has
consistently underfunded munitions production, and therefore we
have excess capacity that is not being fully used. That is the
case, for instance, outside Camden, in Arkansas, at the
Highland Industrial Park, where we build many of the munitions
the Navy uses, like the Standard Missile 3 and the Standard
Missile 6.
What are your thoughts on fully funding those programs so
we can get up to full capacity in the facilities that we have
now, for the Navy, for the other services, as well as for
foreign partners?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator Cotton,
this is an issue important to you. I appreciated the time we
got to spend in your office.
If confirmed, I will look into that. I think it is crazy to
not have facilities running at full capacity. So if you are
under capacity it just raises expense, in effect. It is one of
the things I have noticed when I have looked at all these
different weapons programs. It seems like the next missile
costs more than the first missile, so you have no economies of
scale. That is a prescription for bankruptcy. I do not
understand how the second and third one is not less than the
first one. That is something, if confirmed, we intend to dig
into very hard and understand.
I do think having more flexible manufacturing, when you
have excess capacity in plants that are already making
munitions, we should absolutely make sure that we are taking
advantage of that capacity.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. I do agree, that is probably the
quickest and easiest way to address some of these shortfalls.
As I said, we are going to need more manufacturing capacity,
but making sure that current lines that have excess capacity
are fully used is probably the quickest way we can get there. I
can assure you that we have lots of people in south Arkansas
who are eager to do that work.
One other point I would like to make, just to encourage
you, once confirmed, to work with our State Department on
foreign military sales. That is another way to send the demand
signal to our industry, not just our services but our friends
in Europe and the Middle East and East Asia, cutting through
the red tape and allowing them to buy the weapons that we are
providing here, to provide for their common defense.
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I agree with you.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Senator Fischer also mentioned
the sea-launched cruise missile, nuclear, also occasionally
known as SLCM-N. I am glad to hear you are committed to
carrying out the law there. I think it is an important part of
our deterrent.
Another important part of our deterrent is the Columbia-
class submarine. It is one of the three legs of our nuclear
triad. It is the most survivable leg because they are almost
undetectable, that guarantees a second strike capability
against Russia, and against China, in particular, as China
continues its breakneck nuclear buildup. Are you committed to
continuing the Navy's highest priority on the Columbia-class
submarine?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. Yes, the
nuclear triad, and in particular the Columbia-class submarine
is critical to the triad and its deterrence, and we have to
absolutely make sure we get that----
Senator Cotton. Thank you. I am very glad to hear that.
Some people up here in Congress need to hear it, as well.
The surface navy has not been in a good place for a long
time. I have made this case for many years now. Two destroyers,
years ago, were wrecked in the Pacific. The Bonhomme Richard
caught fire. Commanders were found to be overburdened by
administrative tasks and under-focused on warfighting. We had a
friendly fire incident with the Gettysburg in the Red Sea in
December 2024, and just recently a collision between the Truman
and a merchant ship in the Suez Canal.
I raised this for the last Administration, and it did not
seem like we made much progress on it. What are your thoughts
on how we can get the surface navy, in particular, back up to
the standards of leadership and execution that the Nation
expects?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question. I did read the
study that you helped commission in 2021, and I think one of
the captains mentioned compliance-centered warfare versus
warfighter-centered warfare.
This comes back to the kind of culture issues that I
mentioned, which is I think that we have lost some of the
adaptability, some of the accountability, some of making sure
that people are doing their jobs, and those who are being
promoted are the right ones.
I think there is also a lot of pressure on these captains
and these commanders today, because we are undermanned, and
that puts pressure on the entire force, which is very
difficult.
So I think this comes back to recruiting. I think it comes
back to retention. I think it is making sure that we promote
the best. These people are operating huge, huge assets that are
very, very valuable. So we need to make sure they have the
skills and that they have the requisite capabilities around
them to execute on this.
So if confirmed, I will focus on this relentlessly, and I
would hope that we would not have any more issues like that at
all.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I love your focus on
maintenance. I have a half-facetious but half-serious
suggestion. We should benchmark our availability of our ships
against Maersk and Carnival Cruise Lines. If they had the low
availability that we have, they would have been out of business
a long time ago, and you understand that. When you have a
major, an enormous capital asset, it should be used. Every
minute that it is not used is penalizing the taxpayers and also
diminishing the effectiveness of the Navy.
I hope that you will really focus on that, and I would like
to see the metrics over a period of years, of time in dry dock
versus availability. I take it that that is going to be a
significant focus of your work.
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator King, and I
did enjoy our time together. I jokingly say that President
Trump has texted me numerous times, very late at night,
sometimes after 1 in the morning, of rusty ships or ships in
the yard, asking me what am I doing about it. I have told him I
am not confirmed yet and have not been able to do anything
about it. But I will be very focused on it.
I view it as a critical issue, as you and I do, and I think
your idea about benchmarking versus some of those other private
sector companies is a very good idea, and understanding how
they keep these things running is very important. I know, under
a prior Secretary before, they used Southwest Airlines to come
in to help with our planes and getting more efficient.
I think there are a lot of best practices to be shared
across the two, and I am hoping with my relationships and
contacts in the private sector we should be able to do that.
Senator King. I loved it when you said ``we have never done
it that way before'' is not a sufficient excuse. We have got to
be looking forward, not backward.
That brings me to fighting the next war rather than the
last war. There are two areas we have fallen behind in, and I
believe have been very damaging to national security and our
deterrent. One is directed energy. The other is hypersonics.
For years I have been asking admirals, that have been sitting
in your seat, you are in the GIUK [Greenland-Iceland-United
Kingdom] gap. A hypersonic missile is launched from Murmansk.
It will hit your aircraft carrier in 12 minutes. What do you
do? I have never had a good answer to that question.
We have got to be able to answer that question. If part of
our deterrent and our strategy is forward-based naval assets,
we have got to have defensive capability as well as offensive
capability in hypersonics. Do you take that as a mission?
Mr. Phelan. I do, Senator King. I believe, as I think Mr.
Feinberg the other day mentioned, hypersonics is a key
component to our defense, and we seem to be behind, and I
believe we need to focus on that. I think, as to directed
energy, you and I spoke about this when we met. I believe that
recently the Navy executed a successful directed energy defense
against drones in the Red Sea. I think it was the HELIOS
program, which was very effective. I think it is a very smart
way to deter drone attacks. Using $2 million missiles to take
out $30,000 drones is not a model that is going to survive.
Senator King. That is not very business-like.
Mr. Phelan. No.
Senator King. Directed energy, I think, is about 50 cents a
shot once you have the device there, and I do appreciate that
finally the Preble and the HELIOS system are in the Red Sea. It
has taken an awfully long time. So that is one I hope you will
followup on.
The next major surface combatant is called DD(X) [next-
generation guided-missile destroyer]. It is the successor to
the DDG [guided-missile destroyer], which is being built now in
Mississippi and in Maine. By the way, I want to invite you both
to the ill-named Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and to Bath
Ironworks, where the DDGs are built.
In our legislation we talked about fostering a
collaborative relationship between the Navy and the two major
shipyards that build DDGs on the DDX design so that it is
designed and is buildable. One of the problems is design is
separated, and then you go to build it and it is very, very
expensive. I hope you will commit to continuing that
collaborative relationship and actually stepping it up, because
I understand it has faltered, to some extent.
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator King. If
confirmed, I look forward to visiting Maine and New Hampshire
with you.
Yes, I am very focused on that. I have been trying to spend
as much time trying to understand how the whole process works.
I read a book about how the B-2 bomber was designed by 12
people, and I believe when I met with Senator Ernst she had
mentioned to me that, I believe, on one ship we have 800 people
designing a ship. So I do not know how you build something with
800 people. It just adds to requirements, mission creep----
Senator King. Well, collaboration between the Navy and the
shipbuilders I think would bear fruit for the taxpayers as well
as the buildability of the ship and the time to getting there.
Thank you very much. Workforce and shipbuilding, I wanted
to talk about. Believe it or not, parking and childcare are
issues in workforce, and that is something. It does not sound
like it would be as Navy project to build a parking garage or a
childcare center, but that is absolutely necessary in order to
maintain the workforce in shipbuilding and the economy that we
are in today. I hope that is something you will attend to.
Mr. Phelan. Yes, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
quality of life issues are something we need to focus on, and
if confirmed, I will certainly look into that.
Senator King. That is it. Thank you very much, Mr. Phelan.
Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your willingness
to serve your country.
Senator Cotton. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, Mr.
Phelan. I want to start by welcoming you, saying thank you for
stepping up for this position, and to your family, as well.
Thank you so much.
Now, we have talked about this, but I have long been
committed to cutting waste in Washington, DC, and even the
areas that are very, very important to me, like the Department
of Defense and the Navy, as well, they are no exception.
The Department of the Navy receives about 30 percent, or a
little more, of the defense budget, but there is a lot of
financial mismanagement, and we have audit failures that are
persisting. So what reforms will you implement to ensure budget
accountability and financial transparency throughout the
Department of the Navy?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. I know
that is a topic important to you, and I appreciated the time we
spent in your office.
I think, as I mentioned, in the private sector if you fail
an audit, two things happen. You either go to jail or you get
fired, and so I think you need to fix it very fast. What I do
not currently know, and I have gotten two different answers as
I was getting kind of preparatory briefs, is some have said we
have the systems in place to tell us where everything is, and
others have told me we have got three more fleet commands to
get done. So I do not know the answer. I will get the answer,
if confirmed, and get to it very quickly.
Candidly, we should be embarrassed that we cannot pass
these things and that we do not know where they are. That is
important, and it is little things that you do not do that
start to become big problems later.
I suspect that financial sorts of management, financial
discipline, are just not viewed as that important throughout
the Navy, and it is always that they will get the money. I
think that just needs to change. That is a culture change. That
is a shift.
I think we need to be more transparent, more communicative,
and if confirmed, I will sit down and very quickly we will get
our arms around when we will get this done. I know that
Congress and the Committee has authorized us to meet an audit
by 2028. My question is, if we have all these systems in, why
can't it happen this year? I have not gotten that answer, but I
promise you I will, and you will hear directly from me and
straight from me if we can't get there and the reasons why. I
will endeavor to get those fixed as quick as possible.
Senator Ernst. I appreciate that. I just want to take a
moment and get on my soapbox about being very wise about some
of our acquisitions. We have talked about the acquisitions
process. But I want to remind everybody that we all need to
participate in exercising a little more thoughtfulness when it
comes to our taxpayer dollars. The Navy procured a number of
littoral combat ships years ago, when I was first coming into
the U.S. Senate. The Navy did not want them, the Navy did not
need them, and yet the primes, the Congress, everybody said you
are going to have them.
So we ran into a number of issues with those. Many of them,
they are just unusable, so they have been mothballed already.
We spent billions and billions and billions of dollars on ships
we did not need, cannot survive. What a waste. That money could
have been poured into other systems that we are talking about
today.
But I also want to remind you that we need to think about
the future fight. It is not necessarily all about the aircraft
carriers and the destroyers. There are a lot of ways we can do
intelligence gathering and using other platforms, autonomous
vehicles, and we need to think about technology as we move
forward too, so we do not have to rely solely on these
ginormous, prime systems that are out there.
So with that, and just very little time remaining, we do
still have a lot of personnel and workforce challenges, but
also the supply chain struggles, which have left many of our
ships waiting for critical spare parts and maintenance. We have
about a $1.8 billion backlog of deferred maintenance. What are
your thoughts on getting to those backlogs? How can we reduce
that?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. Very
important problem we have that we need to get focused on very
quickly. I think in terms of understanding the maintenance
backlogs and the issues, again I need to get in there and go
take a look and understand what is happening and why. I have
heard different things. I feel sometimes when I am in these, I
have been in these preparatory meetings, that it is like a
contractor doing a project. It is always someone else that
causes a problem.
Until we can get to the root cause I cannot answer your
question optimally. But if confirmed, and once in, I will get
my arms around this very quickly and do that.
I think to your point about having the right arsenal, the
right tools, I intend to sit down with the combatant commanders
to better understand what it is they need and why. I think
there are a lot of learning lessons from the recent conflict. I
think there are a lot of implications on the Navy in terms of
what has happened in some of these recent conflicts, and
understanding what weapons we need.
Most important, we cannot fight yesterday's fights. We have
to fight tomorrow's fights. So incorporating all that, I think,
will be very important and critical.
Senator Ernst. Wonderful. Thank you very much.
Senator Cotton. Senator Rosen.
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Senator Cotton, and thank you,
Mr. Phelan, your family, for being here today.
As we discussed in our meeting, Nevada is proud to host
Naval Air Station Fallon, home to Top Gun and our Nation's
premier carrier air wing, and our Navy SEAL training centers.
The Nevada delegation worked for years with the Navy, Federal
agencies, and local and tribal governments to pass
modernization for the Fallon Range Training Complex into law,
which we did in 2023, in our NDAA [National Defense
Authorization Act]. Modernization is going to expand that range
by 600,000 acres.
The Navy is in Phase 1 of this modernization, currently
working to meet the requirement, under law, that grazing permit
holders, who will not be able, no longer be able to graze their
livestock anymore, receive full and complete compensation for
their lifetime of losses, as the Navy needs this land to
modernize.
As the Navy goes through the process of appraising the loss
of these permits, it is critical that my ranching community,
our ranching community in Nevada, and Nevada stakeholders are
adequately and fully compensated.
Unfortunately, the first payment offers to ranchers in the
B-16 Range have been well below the estimated value of the
land. Appraisals must consider FSA loans, groundwater
availability, and the lifetime value of the permit and
business. I understand these meetings between the Navy and
impacted ranchers are happening regularly, and these specific
concerns have been raised extensively.
So, Mr. Phelan, will you commit to reviewing and
reassessing the Navy's payment offers based on the latest input
your team in northern Nevada has received to ensure that every
single permit holder in Nevada is made whole?
Mr. Phelan. Senator Rosen, thank you for the question. I
appreciate the important work you have done on this issue, and
I know in our meeting we spent a lot of time on this.
As I mentioned to you in our meeting, I have a great
appreciation for multigenerational owners of land and how they
feel about it and trying to get the right thing. Fallon is a
very, very important base, critical training both for air and
for our SEALs. If confirmed, I will look into this matter, as I
mentioned to you, and to make sure that we create a fair deal
for those landowners and for the American taxpayer.
Senator Rosen. So I am going to ask you for a specific
commitment. I am willing to set up the Zoom with key members
from your team, the appropriate members who need to be at the
table, and my constituents who are having these issues, to have
them make it on a Zoom, all be in the Zoom room so that they
can connect, that they can talk to each other, because this is
what has been missing. Will you commit to helping me to
organize that as quickly as possible?
Mr. Phelan. Senator, I am happy to have that Zoom call and
for us to go through that, if confirmed.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. The other issue we have in
Fallon, of course in rural Nevada, is the remoteness of Fallon
Naval Air Station. It is a major asset. It provides, as you
know, the range space needed to ensure that our fleet is
deployable and operationally ready. The base has been
designated a remote duty installation since 1989, and quality
of life challenges accompany it. It is the only Navy base in
the continental United States designated as a critical housing
area. Housing is in very short supply, well, not just in
Nevada, I know across the country. But the vast majority of
those stationed in Fallon live in Reno or Carson City, which
are both about an hour away.
So the Navy anticipates entering into a public-private
venture to build 172 new homes in Fallon, but more
infrastructure is needed to support the mission as we expand,
and we need more firefighters. We also have to expand our
existing wastewater treatment, the infrastructure.
So given the importance of the mission at Fallon, combined
with the Fallon Range Training Complex, FRTC, the
modernization, the base is expected to grow by 35 percent.
Further critical services, childcare, medical care, all of
these things are really needed. So if confirmed, will you meet
with stakeholders so we can continue to grow Fallon and be sure
that the services are there for everyone who works there?
Mr. Phelan. Senator, thank you for the question. I know
this is, again, a very important topic to you. If confirmed, I
intend to look into this. I know the housing shortage is real
there, and we need to focus on it. I look forward to getting
the stakeholders together to study this issue and try to get to
an optimal outcome.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I appreciate it. The importance
of Fallon Naval Air Station on our operational readiness, the
readiness of our naval aviators, our Navy SEALs, some of our
special operations, is critical so that we expand this base, we
have the services, so we are ready to do whatever we need to
for service men and women and support them. It is critically
important. Thank you.
Senator Cotton. Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Phelan,
thank you very much for your willingness to serve and your
family. I appreciate your willingness to take a lot of time
with me in a couple of meetings, and I am looking forward to
supporting your confirmation.
This chart here depicts, I think, the biggest challenge
that is going to be facing you as Secretary of the Navy. I
think it is the biggest challenge facing our military, and that
is the challenge of the Chinese Communist Party's PLA is on
pace to surpass a 400-ship Navy this year, and by the end of
2030, is on pace to have about 120 more ships, compared to our
very weak shipbuilding attempts. In 2023, China added 30 ships
to its fleet, 15 of which were large surface combatants. We
added 2. That is going to define the tenure of your time as
Secretary, whether it is successful or not, if we can start to
address this challenge.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fortunately, as you are seeing in this hearing, you will
have very strong bipartisan support. Once you get in, take a
look under the hood on exactly how we need to address this.
Let me ask one question. One of the things that has not
come up yet is the ability to work with our allies to make use
of their existing shipbuilding capacity, lessons learned from
their shipyards, potential investments. President Trump has
expressed an interest in that kind of idea. Do you have any
thoughts on that?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator Sullivan,
and I appreciate it. I appreciated the time we spent together.
Look, this is a critical issue. I think all options have to
be on the table. We cannot fall behind. We are already too far
behind. So I think that we have to definitely look at expertise
and skill that foreign partners have, whether that means they
build components, we need to look at that. Or, as you know,
Hanwha has recently bought the Philadelphia shipyard, so they
are going to look at enhancing that and making that better. So
bringing their capital and skill sets here I think will be
important. I think this is a very, very critical thing you
pointed out.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask this real quick. There is a
lot of focus on different surface and submarine warships, all
the different platforms. Can you commit to me, and you and I
have talked about this, to keep an eye on the amphib fleet? The
GAO [Government Accountability Office] recently came out with a
report saying the readiness in the amphib fleet is in a dismal
State. Less than half of all the ships in our amphib fleet,
including four of the nine big Duck amphibs, are not
deployable.
Can you work with me and this Committee on that very
important issue? As you know, we got into law, a couple of
years ago, an amendment of mine saying a minimum of 31 amphibs,
10 big deck amphibs. The last Secretary of the Navy literally
ignored that. I would like to get your commitment to work with
me so the Marine Corps can have three new ARGs [Amphibious
Ready Group] to deploy around the world, which is a huge force
capability for the United States.
Mr. Phelan. Thank you, Senator. I know this question and
issue is very important to you. I am glad you raised it. Yes, I
will look into this and work with you on this. I know this
Committee has passed it, and it is a law, and we need to try to
meet that.
Senator Sullivan. The Ranking Member mentioned Marine Corps
force design. That is an innovative approach the Marine Corps
have taken. I think some of us believe that there has been too
much combat capability cut out of the Marine Corps. Can you
work with me and this Committee on making sure that we have a
proper balance on innovation with regard to the Marine Corps
but not getting rid of so much amphib and Marine Corps combat
capability? Also the marines had previously looked at a UDP
[Unit Deployment Program]. They have one in Norway, for cold
weather training. They looked at that in Alaska. Can you work
with me on doing that, as well, in terms of the overall focus
on Marine Corps force design?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, Senator, I look forward to working with
you on that.
Senator Sullivan. Finally, I will not disappoint my
colleagues here in the Committee. Can I get that next slide?
Mr. Phelan, I want to make sure you get a commitment to come to
Alaska with me and see the great military up there. Not a lot
of Navy and Marines but a lot of Air Force and Army. Can I get
your commitment?
Mr. Phelan. Yes. I look forward to it, Senator.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Right now, Alaska is on the front lines
of great power competition. This is a slide I have been
showing. The Russians, the Chinese are doing bare bomber runs,
naval joint task forces, strategic bomber task forces in our
ADIZ [air defense identification zone], in our EEZ [exclusive
economic zone]. We had two Russian bare bomber runs just 2
weeks ago, in 48 hours.
The ability to address this is challenged by our
infrastructure there, both naval and aviation. The United
States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) commander and United States
Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) commander, in response to
this, which they say are going to continue, recently said they
believe that this very strategic Navy base out here, Adak,
Alaska, sub base, surface warship base, and a naval aviation
base, with huge fuel storage, should be reopened to help
address this increasing threat to our northern territory.
Can I get your commitment to work with me on that?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, Senator. I know it is an important issue,
and I think it is worth looking at, and I intend to work with
you on it and also talk with the combatant commanders,
particularly Admiral Paparo on this, if confirmed. I look
forward to learning more about it.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to correct the record.
I misspoke earlier. The USS Preble is not in the Red Sea. It is
in Japan. It should be in the Red Sea but it is in Japan. Thank
you.
Senator Scott. [Presiding.] Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Scott.
Mr. Phelan, congratulations on your nomination to serve as
the Secretary of the Navy, and I am certainly happy that we
were able to meet before this hearing and discuss a few of my
concerns and focus areas for the Navy. I certainly enjoyed
learning about your priorities, as well, moving forward.
During our meeting we discussed, if you recall, at length,
contracting delays, skilled personnel shortages, and
overspending related to shipbuilding. As you know, the
Constellation-class frigate contract was awarded in 2020,
during President Trump's first term. Unfortunately, it is
experiencing delays with an expected delivery date of 2029,
instead of 2026. Now while some of this delay was certainly
caused by industry, unfortunately, a good portion of that blame
can be squarely put on the Navy.
So my question for you, sir, is if confirmed, how will you
collaborate with Congress and industry to ensure timely
delivery and sustainment, specifically of the Constellation-
class frigate?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you, Senator Peters, for the question,
and I did enjoy our time together.
This program is a mess, what it looks like. If confirmed, I
plan to dig into this very quickly and understand the issues,
and will come back to this Committee very fast with the
knowledge that we have, as soon as we get to the root cause of
the problem. Most of what I have seen comes from what I have
read. I do not know if it is requirement creeps. I have heard
that we were using 80 percent design of an existing and only
modifying it 20, and that has now been reversed to 80 percent
customized and 20 percent standardized. I think we now have a
frigate that potentially looks more like a carrier or a
battleship, actually, or a destroyer, I would say.
Again, I do not know until I get in there and go take a
look at it. There are a number of issues, and there is a lot of
pointing fingers at one another. If confirmed, I pledge to work
with you on this and get our arms around this and get this
resolved quickly and understand what we need to do.
Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that. You know, roughly
40 percent of the Constellation-class frigate workforce is
comprised of Michiganders, and I am extremely proud of that
workforce. I am also very proud of the versatile mission and
the capabilities of the frigate, from air, surface, electronic,
and anti-submarine warfare.
But my question for you, sir, is if confirmed, do I have
your commitment to support the Constellation-class frigate
program--we have got to work through all of these challenges--
but as a long-term cornerstone of the fleet, due to the
critical role that it will play in those various domains?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. As I said,
I will look at this and work with the Secretary of Defense, the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, to understand all of the programs
we have and how they all fit, and how this important program
fits in. So once I have had an opportunity to do that I look
forward to coming back to you to discuss it.
Senator Peters. Very good. I appreciate that.
Mr. Phelan, in 2023, then-Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del
Toro announced a new maritime strategic plan to conduct
national whole-of-government efforts to transform U.S. and
allied naval and commercial maritime power. The Michigan
Maritime Manufacturing Initiative was formally launched at that
time, within the maritime strategy strategic plan. Through the
initiative, the Department of Defense is implementing pipelines
and programs targeted to meeting the Navy's demand signal for
thousands of new workers that will be necessary for this, and
jobs, across my State as well as all across the Great Lakes
region.
So my question for you is, how do you plan on using the
submarine industrial base funding to partner with states like
Michigan, who are industrial states and manufacturing states,
particularly precision manufacturing, that can play a key role
in addressing supply chain and workforce challenge in this
highly technical field?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Look, I
think Michigan has a great tradition of manufacturing and
industrial capability. I think that we need to look across the
country to find the appropriate expertise and skill set and
workers to do what is a highly complex manufacturing process.
The fact that some of those skills already reside there is
obviously an advantage, and an important advantage.
So if confirmed, I will look into that, and this is, as I
said before, an utmost priority, is making sure that we can
ensure that our subs are done on time and on budget.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Phelan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Scott. All right. Mr. Phelan, let me just ask a
couple of questions. First up, we have a picture. I just want
to get your reaction. I do not know if you have seen this
picture yet. This was the USS Dewey, in Singapore last week.
How does it make you feel?
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Phelan. Please do not give it to President Trump
because I will get a text at like one in the morning.
Senator Scott. I am taking it over to the White House right
after this, so you will know exactly what your expectations
are.
Mr. Phelan. Yes, I think that is terrible. I think they
should be ashamed. I mean, would you want to go on that ship?
Senator Scott. No. But if this happened on our ship, we
would all have been painting all night long. I mean, we had to
constantly paint our own ship. We never would go into a port,
when I was in the Navy, it looked like this. It is pretty
disgusting.
So you have heard those stories. We do not have enough
ships. We cannot build ships. We are not building the right
ships. Recruiting is bad. Retention is bad. Maintenance is bad.
So, what is your pitch? So you are a business guy. You have
dealt with troubled companies before. So how would you do it?
Mr. Phelan. Thanks for the question. It is very complicated
because this is a huge organization that is very complex, with
a lot of tradition in it. I think at the end of the day, I have
to work with the key senior leadership and set the vision and
the tone for what we are going to try to accomplish. I am
hopeful that a large majority of that leadership is on board
with that vision and that tone and what we are going to try to
do. If they are not, then they should reconsider staying on,
ultimately.
I need them and they are going to need me. So we need to
work together in order to try to turn this around. I think we
are at, as I said, a critical inflection point. I take our
adversaries at their word. These are very strong people who are
going to try to take on our dominance and try to supplant the
United States, and I think we are at a much more critical time
than most people recognize.
I think we need to fix the Navy. I think it was Ronald
Reagan who said the only thing more expensive than a Navy is
not having a good Navy, and I believe that is actually right.
So I think it is basically setting the proper vision,
setting the proper benchmarks, keep performance indicators, and
then creating the appropriate feedback loops to make sure we
are getting those done, and having the right team to do it. We
have done this before with many companies. Again, this is a
complicated one with big tradition. Some of those traditions
need to be respected. Some of them need to be questioned, and
we need to modernize. That is what I would hope I would bring
to the table is more of a partnership approach but with a
shared vision and purpose.
Senator Scott. So were any of your companies like this?
Mr. Phelan. I have dealt not with a company this size, but
I have dealt with companies that had a lot of complications and
that needed to be changed quickly.
Senator Scott. All right. Thank you. Senator Warren.
Senator Warren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations on your nomination, Mr. Phelan.
Let's talk about efficiency at the Defense Department. Last
year, the Navy asked for $260 billion to buy everything from
ships to night vision goggles. One reason it cost so much, big
defense contractors slip restrictions into their contracts that
deny sailors access to technical data that they need to
maintain or repair equipment, even equipment that the Navy
owns.
So I want to give you an example. The Navy's littoral
combat ships are designed to operate close to shore, to hunt
mines, and to sink submarines. But this ship has been bogged
down with maintenance issues, and when something breaks,
sailors are not allowed to make repairs themselves because
Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics do not let them have
access to the necessary data and materials.
So what does the Navy do? The Navy has to fly contractors
out to these ships, which ProPublica found, quote, ``adds
millions of dollars in travel costs and often delays
missions.''
Mr. Phelan, these kinds of extra costs and delays to fly
contractors to the Pacific to fix minor repairs, are they an
efficient use of taxpayer dollars?
Mr. Phelan. It does not sound like it to me, Senator.
Senator Warren. I am glad to hear that. Let me give you
another example. The Government Accountability Office found
that fuel tank level indicators were improperly calibrated on
the USS Fort Lauderdale, built by Huntington Ingalls. Now, it
seems like an easy fix, right? You just go in and recalibrate
these things. Uh-uh. The Navy's technicians were denied the
information they needed to do that, so every time they had to
recalibrate the indicators the Navy had to fly out one of the
contractor's technicians.
Mr. Phelan, does not being able to maintain important ship
parts put the Navy's readiness at risk?
Mr. Phelan. It sounds like it, Senator, and I think, as I
mentioned earlier, these contracts are something that really
need to be reviewed and better understood. I think that, if
confirmed, that is something I intend to do is focus on that.
Senator Warren. I appreciate that, Mr. Phelan, but I want
to see more than just ``reviewed'' here. Sailors need to be
able to rely on their equipment, and that means being able to
maintain their own equipment. But from fiberoptic navigation
lights to cranes that deploy search and rescue boats, sailors
do not have the right to repair their own equipment thanks to
defense contractors who want to squeeze more money out of the
military.
Many people on this Committee, both sides, Democrats and
Republicans, understand the risk here. Chairman Wicker released
a report last year showing DOD, quote, ``consistently
underperforms in procuring data rights,'' and pointed to the
lack of technical data as a factor that, quote, ``inevitably
leads to reduced training and readiness.''
Mr. Phelan, can we count on you to advance the Navy's right
to repair its own equipment?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. I know
this is an issue very important to you. As I said, it is
something that I intend to study and look at, and what I would
commit to you is let me come back to you and look at this and
understand it, because it is a complicated issue. I am in
agreement with a lot of the examples you have given do not make
sense to me, but I am not up to speed enough yet to give you
that answer. But I will come back and see you and commit to
that and look at this.
Senator Warren. I appreciate that. But I just want to say
right now, this makes me uneasy, because there is so much
pressure to continue to let these defense contractors take
advantage of our servicemembers who, we waste taxpayer dollars,
we delay missions, we actually put people at risk because we
are not permitting basic right to repair. Technical data needs
to be a must-have in acquisition contracts for the Navy. My
Servicemembers Right to Repair Act would make sure that the
Navy and every other part of our military have fair access to
the data right and to the other materials that servicemembers
need to be able to repair their own equipment and keep
themselves safe.
Military right to repair has bipartisan support here in the
Senate. I want to work with the Administration, I want to work
with my colleagues, and I want to work with you. We owe it to
our taxpayers, and we owe it to the men and women in the field
to get this straightened out. What is happening right now is
fundamentally wrong, and we can put a stop to it.
I apologize for going over, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Wicker. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Senator,
and Senator Banks is next.
Senator Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations, Mr. Phelan. You have been nominated to my
dream job, the Secretary of the Navy. I do not think in my
lifetime it has ever been more important that we have a leader
like you to make the Navy great again, make it strong again. It
is especially important to me because I wore the uniform and
served as Navy Reserve officer for 10 years. I wanted to ask
you, from the outset, have you thought a lot about the
importance of the Reserves, and making sure that the Navy
Reserves remains a strong component of the United States Navy.
Have you given a lot of thought to that and how important it is
and what you can do to strengthen it and make it even better?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you, Senator Banks, for the question. I
know it is an important issue to you, and I enjoyed spending
time with you in your office.
I think the Reserves are something we need to really look
at and strengthen and make better. I think it is kind of, you
know, what I have heard again, is that the Reserves are kind of
an afterthought, a little bit, in today's Navy, and that is a
mistake. I think you have seen Reserve forces used with great
efficacy in the Marines and in some of the other service
branches, and I think that is something to be looked at, and if
confirmed, I look forward to working with you on that, and
getting some ideas on that.
Senator Banks. I appreciate your commitment to that. I
deployed to Afghanistan as a Navy Reserve supply corps officer.
The Navy Reserves gave me an opportunity, a little bit later in
life than typical military service, to use skills that I had,
experiences that I had to contribute, to wear the uniform, to
serve my country, never thinking that I would give 20 years and
retire, but that avenue to service is what the Navy Reserves,
the Reserve component, is all about. I appreciate your
commitment to making sure that everyone in the Navy
organization understands how valuable the Reserves are, and
work together to strengthen it.
The other thing we talked about in my office, and I want to
talk about today, is the historic recruitment crisis in the
United States Navy. In the over 50 years of an All-Volunteer
Force, the Navy has missed the mark year after year, under the
last Administration. The last Administration had to lower
standards to meet their recruitment goals. I wonder, have you
thought about that? I mean, how can we get standards back to
where they need to be, to find the best and the brightest, the
young leaders, whether enlisted or in the Officer Corps, to fix
the recruitment crisis of the United States Navy?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. Look, I
think it is critical that we have standards that are high and
that we have people who can meet those standards. The business
is warfighting, and there is no margin for error in that. So
you need the most capable and best people, and we need to have
high standards to meet that.
I think that there are some things to learn from some of
the other services in terms of what they have done recruiting-
wise. I think the Marine Corps, in particular, have done a very
effective job at it. What I understand is the Marines Corps put
some of their best leadership into the recruiting role, and
that is one of the reasons why they do so well with it.
So I am going to try to adapt some of the best practices we
get from other services and from my business experience in how
to attract and retain talent. A lot of it is making sure that
whatever the job may be, that you kind of have the appropriate
skill sets mapped out, and then you try to hire that person. I
think that is really an important thing.
I think one of the important things, what I have learned in
business, is you always want to hire the person for tomorrow,
not for today. What happens to a lot of organizations is you
hire for that immediate need, and then that person cannot grow
to that job. In this business, we need to be hiring the Mr. and
Mrs. Tomorrows, to make sure that they can compete and do.
Recruiting will be a major focus for us.
Senator Banks. Yes, your business background, what you
bring to the table, I think can go a long way to helping
improve that process. The great news is that the day President
Trump was elected, on Election Day, we saw an immediate bump in
recruitment at all of the branches. It is remarkable. But it
just goes to show that when we tell the young men and women all
over this country that America is worth fighting for, that
wearing the uniform is indeed the greatest honor that you can
have, then those recruitment numbers will go up.
I think you are the man for the job to help us get that
done. I appreciate you serving our country in a big way in the
United States Navy. I look forward to working with you. You
have my full support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Banks. Senator
Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your willingness to serve, Mr. Phelan.
I think you are very familiar with the firings that have
taken place in the Defense Department already, the firings of
some of the top military leaders, apparently based purely on an
issue of political loyalty, not loyalty to the Constitution.
Some of our most distinguished and dedicated leaders, including
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff
of the Navy, Lisa Franchetti. Have you spoken to her?
Mr. Phelan. I have not, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Do you plan to do so?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, Senator, I would be happy to hear
her views and understand her perspective on things. Obviously,
I was not privy to the releases of those people. I would----
Senator Blumenthal. You would agree with me that she is a
dedicated officer with an extraordinarily distinguished record
of contributing to our country.
Mr. Phelan. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. In addition, the Administration appears
to be undertaking a first wave, part of a purge, an 8 percent
slash to both the budget and defense workforce. I view it as a
breathtaking act of disrespect. The Administration has branded
these positions as non-mission critical, and I do not know if
you are familiar with a memo on the fiscal year 2026
President's budget relook, that reveals the staggering
implications of these decisions.
Within its pages, somewhat buried, is a list of proposed
reductions amounting to an 8 percent decimation of the existing
fiscal year 2026 budget estimate submission. It is a cut of $70
billion from the $876 billion defense budget. To put it in
perspective, the Pentagon spent only $100 million on DEI
[Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] initiatives and
approximately $600 million on climate-related programs. So
combined, these expenditures are only about 0.1 percent of the
defense budget, and yet there is this huge, slashing cut
planned that will cause 72,000 personnel to be cast aside,
along with spending cuts of upwards of $70 billion.
Do you support those kinds of cuts?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator. As I
understand it, these proposed budget cuts were put in for
planning purposes, and then to basically take, redirect assets
from non-warfighting elements----
Senator Blumenthal. That is why I am asking you. Do you
support those cuts?
Mr. Phelan. Senator, I do not have enough familiarity with
them to tell you whether I would support them or not support
them.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, would you walk into a
corporation--you have taken over many, and you have turned them
around--knowing that already a decision had been made to slash
your workforce by 10 percent, indiscriminately, across the
board, and you had no say in that decision.
Mr. Phelan. Again, Senator, I am not privy to how they got
to their conclusions on this or what they did or what the
criteria was, so it is difficult for me to comment on it.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, would you walk into a situation,
in a deal--you have done many; you have turned around
corporations--where there was a 10 percent slash in workforce
before you even started?
Mr. Phelan. Again, Senator, it is a hard question to answer
because I think typically----
Senator Blumenthal. You know, I think that is probably a
no. I do not think any expert business person in your line of
work would do it.
Would you agree with me that the concerns about
politicization of our armed services are well founded, given
the kind of firings that we have seen?
Mr. Phelan. Senator, I do not believe politicization should
be in the military, and I do not believe those actions were
politicization, but I don't know. Again, I was not part of
them, and I have not had any discussions around them.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator
Kelly.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Phelan, thank
you for being willing to do this very important job. The Navy,
in particular, means a lot to me. I spent 25 years on Active
Duty in the United States Navy, one of the great fighting
forces in the world.
I understand earlier you mentioned my SHIPS for America
Act. I appreciate that. Senator Young and I, and House members
are working on bringing back the U.S. Merchant Marine from its
rather dismal State of about 80 ocean-going merchant vessels to
something much larger than that. Our adversary on the oceans,
China, has 5,500 ocean-going merchant ships. We have 80. We
have got to rebuild this industry. It is a national security
and economic security issue for us. So thank you for bringing
it up. I look forward to getting your feedback on the
legislation.
But I want I want to discuss now is something more
specific, a weapon system called SLCM-N, the nuclear version of
the submarine-launched cruise missile, that is sort of being
debated. I want to make sure we are clear on the direction of
the system and understand the opportunity costs that might come
with fielding it.
So if we field SLCM-N, it would likely necessitate removing
some conventional munitions from Virginia-class submarines and
making some significant changes to the security systems, the
launch control systems within the submarines. That is
concerning to me if we wind up in a conflict in the Western
Pacific, with China. I do not think that conflict is
inevitable. One of our great advantage over other navies is our
submarine force.
Mr. Phelan, given the cost and operational challenges, do
you believe the SLCM-N, the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise
missile program, is worth some of the tradeoffs, and if
confirmed, what direction do you plan to take the Navy in with
regards to the integration of this missile? Do you think we
need it for deterrence?
Mr. Phelan. Senator Kelly, thank you for the question. I
did appreciate the time we spent in your office, and your
viewpoints on this I thought were interesting.
I have not been read into the program so I do not have
classified information, so it makes it a little difficult for
me to ask you. I know there are very strong debates on both
sides as it relates to it, and I look forward to working with
the Secretary of Defense to come up with what we hope will be
the optimal answer as it relates to it. So if confirmed, I look
forward to working with you on the program and better
understanding the pros and cons of it, and hopefully coming up
with the best solution.
Senator Kelly. Yes, it is a big decision. It is one of the,
I would say, bigger ones that Navy has to face with regards to
a weapon system.
Another decision that is going to have to be made here at
some point is whether to move forward with the development of
F/A-XX [future sixth-generation strike fighter]. This is the
Navy's version of NGAD [Next Generation Air Dominance] fighter.
We need an asymmetric capability. My view on this, in trying to
penetrate the A280 bubble that China has built in the Western
Pacific, is we need a capability that can fight its way in.
Right now, the F-35 has fantastic capability. It is very
hard to see on radar. I mean, the stealth qualities of that
airplane are not matched anywhere else in the world. But China
continues to build significant weapon systems, surface-to-air,
air-to-air missile systems, that have much greater range, ways
to detect fighter aircraft. This is changing very, very
rapidly.
I am not going to ask you a question on this. I just want--
well, I just want some reassurance that you understand the
challenge in the Western Pacific, that we cannot just replace
this stuff right now, anyway, with unmanned systems. Hearing
some of that from some corners of the Administration, where the
thought is that we could just do all this stuff with drones--we
cannot. We do not control the electronic warfare environment
the way we would need to do that. I think some day we could get
there. I just do not believe now is the day. With the Chinese,
some of their innovation, there are areas where we have
traditionally stayed way ahead. I am concerned that we are
getting to the point, in some of these areas, where they are
catching up, and these are the kinds of things we need.
So thank you. I look forward to working with you on it.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Kelly. No doubt Mr.
Phelan is now quite aware of your view on this issue, and they
make a lot of sense. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to you and
your family.
I ask the following two foundational questions relevant to
fitness to serve of every nominee before any of my committees.
Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Mr. Phelan. No, Senator, I have not.
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?
Mr. Phelan. No, Senator, I have not.
Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, I represent Hawaii, which is a
locale for INDOPACOM, the largest AOR [area of responsibility]
critical to our Nation's defense. I am glad that you testified
that politics should not enter into how the DOD is run, and of
course, the Navy. But we have Elon Musk with his chainsaw,
cutting government programs and eliminating positions without
any transparency or criteria. Do you think this approach will
hurt Navy strength and readiness?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you for the question, Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. That is a yes-or-no answer, please.
Mr. Phelan. It is a hypothetical question. I do not
actually know what DOGE is doing and how they are doing it. I
am not privy to that so I cannot really----
Senator Hirono. Okay, that is kind of amazing because you
are going to lead the Navy, and not to insult you or anything,
but I do not think you need a lot of information to conclude
that a slash-and-burn approach to programs and personnel is the
way to go.
In 2021, a massive and devastating leak at the Red Hill
Fuel Storage Facility contaminated Oahu's drinking water.
Ninety-three thousand people were affected. They had to move to
hotels. Some of them left the State altogether, and it
certainly hurt the military's reputation, although it was
actually a naval facility. But for the people of Hawaii, they
do not need to make a distinction between something that the
Navy was responsible for versus the Army or Air Force or the
Marines. So it is taking a lot to rebuild the community's
confidence in our Navy.
Ultimately, the senior DOD leaders made the correct
decision to defuel and permanently close the facility, a
complicated, as you can imagine, ongoing effort being led by
the Navy's Closure Task Force, and it is scheduled to complete
in 2028.
I would like to get your commitment to see through the
completion of the transparent closure of Red Hill, which
involves not only providing the adequate resources and manpower
but also close collaboration with the State government
officials and the Hawaiian community to restore trust and faith
in the military.
Mr. Phelan. Thank you, Senator. I know this is an issue
very important to you. I am committed to a full review of the
issues at Red Hill as related to the people of Oahu and Pearl
Harbor, and I am committed to the Navy fixing the issues that
the Navy is responsible for.
Senator Hirono. I think seeing this project or seeing this
issue through is going to be one of the major ways that you are
going to be able to restore faith.
The Navy is currently building a critical new dry dock at
Pearl Harbor to support Virginia-class attack submarine
maintenance, and this construction project is the largest in
DOD history, at nearly $4.5 billion, but has been beset by
significant cost overruns, including an $834 million--that is
not very far from a billion--increase just last year.
I hope you are prepared to take steps to ensure that this
dry dock project remains on time and on budget and, in fact, I
included a provision in last year's NDAA directing the
Secretary of the Navy, which would be you, should you be
confirmed, to conduct briefings on steps being taken to prevent
future cost overruns.
Mr. Phelan. Senator, thank you for the question. I am going
to have to see a $4.5 billion dry dock. That is something that
seems quite astronomical to me. If confirmed, I look forward to
seeing it there and hopefully visiting with you there to see
it, and you do have my commitment to getting my arms around
this.
Senator Hirono. Yes. I think that it is going to be very
critical that we do not keep getting the kind of increases that
happened just about 2 weeks after I was at the opening, wherein
I said I hope that this is going to come in on budget, and the
next thing you know it is a billion dollars more.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, let
me just say that that type of overrun has to end. We have got
to wrestle this issue down to the deck, and I hope this is the
moment where we can turn that around. Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Phelan,
first of all thanks for the opportunity to visit with you in my
office. I appreciated that, and I most certainly think that you
have got a good insight into what some of the challenges are.
I also want to say thank you to your family for their
recognition of what you are in for and the challenges of having
a family that will not see you as much as they would have
otherwise. So I appreciate their sacrifice in this, as well.
Mr. Phelan, as you have heard me say before, and we talked
a little bit about this in my office, 24 senior DOD officials
have confirmed that forcing the Department of Defense to vacate
any portion of the 3.1 to 3.45 GHz band of the spectrum would
have severely negative consequences on our warfighting
capabilities. Specifically, the Navy relies heavily on
spectrum, especially as it pertains to radar. As we speak, our
sailors are conducting missile defense missions off the coast
of the U.S. Homeland, with Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and
the Navy is protecting our deployed forces in the Red Sea
against pervasive Houthi missile and drone attacks, with their
AN/SPY-6 radars on seven different classes of ships. The Navy's
Aegis Combat System relies heavily on the lower 3 band, using
radars to track threats and guided weapons to targets.
If the Navy had to vacate that portion of the spectrum,
testimony before this Committee indicates it would cost up to
$250 billion to migrate those capabilities elsewhere, which may
not even be possible, given the unique physics of the lower 3
band.
If confirmed, will you advocate for protecting the Navy's
warfighting systems that require spectrum to function
optimally?
Mr. Phelan. Senator Rounds, thank you for the question. I
did enjoy our time together, as well. I am aware of this issue,
and I do not believe any changes should be made that increase
risk to the Navy.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, and look, we have got to do
something about 5G and about being able to expand our abilities
here in terms of 5G and beyond. The fear I have is that some
interests do not understand how significant the threat is to
our Homeland, and in particular with the fact that the
President has indicated he really would like to do an Iron Dome
for America like has been done in Israel. There is no way he
could do that without the protection of this particular part of
the band. That is the reason why I continue to bring this up.
It is critical that we continue to let the American public
know, with these public discussions, but also individuals, our
concern about what could happen if we do not protect that band
of the spectrum. So I thank you for that statement, sir.
Also, I understand that it basically costs right now, and
based upon what the Chairman's concern has been about
shipbuilding and so forth, I understand that it costs roughly
twice as much to build a ship in the U.S. as it does elsewhere.
Have you given any thought to how AI and automation could be
leveraged to dramatically increase our shipyard efficiency?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, Senator, I have, and I think there are a
number of ways. We are in the early stages with AI and its
implementation, and its ability to impact this. But I do think
that there are going to be ways to increase digital design and
things that will allow us to design things quicker, to
potentially reduce change orders, as I like to call them, and
increase speed of production. I think there are a number of
things being done with 3D printing that we need to be looking
at, particularly as it relates to parts and things along those
lines.
So if confirmed, I look forward to working with you and
this Committee on some of the more technologically advanced
ways we can increase manufacturing and help get our
shipbuilding base in order.
Senator Rounds. Thank you. I have got language, by the way,
in the NDAA, the fiscal year 2025 NDAA, that would require the
Navy to use AI-enabled software to optimize workflow at one or
more of the shipyards. I am just hope that would be something
that you would support, and it sounds like you would, so I
appreciate that.
Let me just finish with this. Analysts agree that there is
a growing potential that our next great conflict will be a
multi-theater conflict involving multiple near-peer
adversaries. If confirmed, what steps would you take to prepare
the Department of the Navy to simultaneous execute and sustain
operations across multiple regions while maintaining readiness
and deterrence globally? Two theaters, not just one.
Mr. Phelan. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Look,
this is a critical thing, and I need to work with the combatant
commanders, the CNO, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. My
job is to train, man, and equip the Navy to make sure that they
have all the appropriate tools that they need in order to
defend the country and to take on our adversaries.
Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Senator Rounds. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Phelan,
good to see you again. I enjoyed our visit.
A report came out this morning, at 10, so nobody has had a
chance to really see it, but I would recommend it to you. It is
from the GAO, and the title of it is, ``Shipbuilding and
Repair: Navy Needs a Strategic Approach for Private Sector
Industrial Base Investments.'' I am just going to read you, on
page 67, the opening paragraph, or the conclusion.
``Problems in Navy shipbuilding and repair have remained
relatively unchanged over the past decades. Programs are not
achieving costs and schedule goals, and as a result, the battle
force is not sufficiently modernized and ready to meet national
security needs. These problems are, in part, because the ship
industrial base faces workforce and infrastructure challenges
that put the Navy's goals out of reach.''
Here is the part I really wanted to read:
``Yet the Navy continues to expect different
performance outcomes in the coming years than it has
achieved in the past. There is no basis for expecting
industrial base outcomes to improve without changes
from the Navy that would motivate a different level of
private industry investment and performance.''
I would like to introduce the report for the record, Mr.
Chair.
Chairman Wicker. Without objection, and with a hear, hear.
Senator Kaine. Yes.
Chairman Wicker. It is so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Please see Appendix A for the GAO report.
Senator Kaine. I think that this is something you are going
to want to read, although much of it seems to track things that
we discussed.
You are a nontraditional appointee for this position, and
that can be okay if the tradition is not working, and I think
the punchline in this report is the tradition is not working. I
explained to you that having been on the Committee now in my
13th year, and always been in the seapower space, that I have
kind of operated on the assumption that if we just do our job
here on the resource side, the Navy and our innovative private
sector will deliver a product successfully, and I have been
wrong in that assumption. It has not worked.
Last year, we not only had a robust defense budget but we
joined together in a bipartisan way twice in the year to bulk
it up, once in the April supplemental package and then once at
the end of the year.
So just putting more money into the bucket without changing
how we are doing things, I now have completely lost confidence
that that is going to solve the problem.
That leads me back to you. You are a nontraditional
nominee, but you are nominated for a position where the
tradition does not seem to be working, and so that makes me
intrigued with what you might do differently than has been done
in the past.
When the President asked you to do the job, I know you
guys--I do not want to really get into the substance so much,
but he asked you for a reason. There were other people he could
have asked. In the discussions with the President, what do you
understand to be his priorities for the Navy and why he would
think that you would be the right person to carry out those
priorities?
Mr. Phelan. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I did
enjoy our meeting, as well.
I do not think I can say shipbuilding enough times in terms
of the President's priorities, as he has made it very clear. I
think what is missing, from what I can see, is the sense of
urgency. It is kind of, we are just going along, and it is
kumbaya. It is almost as if you are waiting for a crisis to
happen to ignite things. I think in the business of warfare,
that is a dangerous place to be.
So I think why the President selected me is I will bring a
sense of urgency to this. I will bring a sense of
accountability to this. I am good at setting up feedback loops.
I am good at creating accountability and making sure people
execute. I am good at rewarding performance. You perform, you
move up. And I think those are all things that need to happen
and need to be looked at again. And I think that sense of
urgency is important.
You know, again, I jokingly mentioned earlier in the
hearing, the President texted me, I think it was 1:18 in the
morning, of like three rusty ships in a yard, and said, ``What
are you doing about this? This is terrible. How can this
exist?'' He is very focused. You know, Senator Wicker initially
asked, do I still want the job after hearing everything. He is
a demanding man who wants things done. And it will be a
challenge, but I think the Navy needs to recognize that.
And I think one of the keys is you have to develop a
strategy and a vision, and then you basically have to come up
with a force goal, so that strategy is going to drive the force
goal. So you sit down with the combatant commanders and come up
with a force goal. And then you have got to make it affordable.
So we are going to need to make tradeoffs. We are going to
need to look at what is working, what is not working. What
legacy systems no longer matter? What other conflicts have we
seen things happen that is going to inform what we should do?
Senator Kaine. I will say on that one, one virtue of being
a newcomer to this, in some ways, is you are not attached to a
legacy system because it was the system that you trained on and
you have a particular loyalty to.
I am over time, but I will just say this to conclude. I am
heartened to hear--I mean, I do not mind criticizing the
President when I think he is wrong, but when I think he is
right, I will say it, and I think shipbuilding is a focus,
shipbuilding and ship repair.
And one of the little plusses in this report is they
actually say that we have gotten better at ship repair in the
last 5 years. Still got a long ways to go, but we actually have
shown some improvement. So there may be some improvement
strategies that would think about and then apply to
shipbuilding.
I would love to go with you down to the shipyard in Norfolk
sometime, the public shipyard and the Huntington Ingalls
shipyard where we build carriers and subs.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Phelan. I will look forward to that.
Chairman Wicker. I think you will be doing a good bit of
traveling to shipyards, Mr. Phelan.
At this point I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a number of letters supporting the nomination of Mr.
Phelan, the first by Thomas J. Mundell, President and CEO of
the National Medal of Honor Center for Leadership; the second
being a letter signed by Melissa P. Allen, President and Chief
Operating Officer, and Steven D. Cashen, Chief Executive
Officer, of the Third Option Foundation; the third being a
letter from Robert Sweetman, Navy SEAL retired, founder of the
Creed for Peaceful Warriors; fourth being a letter of
endorsement from Jim Hake, Founder and CEO, on behalf of the
Spirit of America; and finally, a letter of endorsement from
Pam Zembiec, widow of Major Doug Zembiec, known to many as the
Lion of Fallujah.
Without objection, those letters will also be entered into
the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Wicker. Now one final question. Mr. Phelan,
regarding nuclear submarines and shipbuilding, nuclear
submarines are some of our most formidable weapons. We must get
these programs back on track. The Navy developed an innovative
contracting technique called SAWS, S-A-W-S, Shipbuilder
Accountability and Workforce Support, SAWS. The goal of SAWS is
twofold, to invest in our shipbuilders and to free billions of
dollars over the next 5 years to support the shipbuilding
industrial base.
Regrettably, the last administration did not move forward
with this plan, which has broad bipartisan support. Mr. Phelan,
you have said today that we have to end business as usual. So
will you commit to discussing with me, soon after confirmation,
the benefits of SAWS?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, Senator. I look forward to that.
Chairman Wicker. Thank you very much. And if there are no
further questions or comments, this hearing will soon be
adjourned. But I must say some magic words.
The record will be open for 2 days. Questions for the
record will be due to the Committee within 2 business days from
the conclusion of the hearing.
Without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Phelan. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. John Phelan by
Chairman Wicker prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties and responsibilities as secretary of the navy
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and
responsibilities of the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy is responsible for leading the
Department of the Navy, which includes the Navy and Marine Corps,
ensuring they are properly trained, equipped, and ready to defend the
Nation's interests. This role involves setting strategic priorities,
managing budgets, strengthening shipbuilding and maintenance efforts,
and enhancing the welfare of sailors, marines, and their families. The
Secretary must also drive innovation, improve operational efficiency,
and uphold accountability within the force. Additionally, the position
requires close collaboration with the Congress, the Department of
Defense, the CNO/CMC, industry partners, and allied nations to maintain
maritime superiority and effectively support national defense
objectives.
Question. What management and leadership experience do you possess
that you would apply to your service as Secretary of the Navy, if
confirmed?
Answer. Throughout my 35+-year career in business, I have overseen
and funded large, complex organizations, managed significant budgets,
and driven operational efficiency in dynamic and challenging
environments. I have a track record of helping transform organizations
by fostering accountability, streamlining processes, and implementing
strategic reforms--skills that are directly applicable to leading the
Department of the Navy. I understand the challenges of workforce
management, recruiting, and retention, and I have successfully built
teams that balance experience with fresh talent. Just as in business,
the Navy must adapt to evolving challenges, and I will bring a results-
oriented, innovation-driven approach to ensure our naval forces remain
the most capable and lethal in the world.
Question. If confirmed, what duties and responsibilities would you
assign to the Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. Under Title 10, the Under Secretary of the Navy performs
the duties and exercises such powers as the Secretary of the Navy may
prescribe. The Under Secretary serves as the Chief Management Officer
of the Department, which carries the primary responsibility for the
business operations of the Department of the Navy. Additionally, the
Under Secretary oversees a number of other matters assigned by the
Secretary of the Navy. If confirmed, I will review the current duties
and responsibilities assigned to the Under Secretary and will work
closely with the Under Secretary to identify any appropriate
reassignments, delegations or other measures allowed by law that may
more efficiently align responsibilities toward facilitating warfighter
readiness.
Question. If confirmed, over which members and organizations of the
Navy would you direct the Chief of Naval Operations to exercise
supervision and what would be the scope of such supervision? What other
duties would you assign to the Chief of Naval Operations or the
Commandant of the Marine Corps?
Answer. Under Title 10, the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps perform their assigned duties under the
authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the Navy and are
directly responsible to the Secretary. If confirmed, I will review the
supervisory responsibilities of the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps and consider any appropriate
reassignments, delegations or other measures allowed by law that may
more efficiently align responsibilities toward facilitating warfighter
readiness.
Question. If confirmed, what innovative ideas would you consider
providing to the Secretary of Defense regarding the organization and
operations of the Department of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I would prioritize innovation in four key
areas: personnel, shipbuilding, operational efficiency, and financial
accountability. First, I would advocate for bold recruitment and
retention reforms, cutting bureaucratic red tape and improving quality
of life initiatives to attract and retain top talent. A key component
of this effort would be reinvigorating the Navy's marketing strategy,
leveraging both traditional and digital platforms to better connect
with today's generation. The upcoming 250th anniversary of the Navy and
Marine Corps presents a unique opportunity to celebrate their proud
history while inspiring the next generation to serve. We must ensure
this milestone is not only a commemoration but a catalyst for
strengthening the force.
Second, I would push for a more agile, accountable and flexible
shipbuilding strategy by streamlining procurement, enhancing budget
flexibility, strengthening partnerships with the defense industrial
base, and holding contractors accountable for cost and schedule
overruns. I would also drive operational modernization by leveraging
emerging technologies, enhancing warfighter training through AI and
simulation, and fostering a culture that prioritizes adaptability and
mission effectiveness over rigid compliance. Finally, I would emphasize
financial accountability, ensuring the Department of the Navy achieves
a clean audit as soon as practicable, a critical step in restoring
public trust, improving efficiency and readiness, and maximizing every
defense dollar. These efforts would ensure that the Navy and Marine
Corps remain the world's most capable and formidable maritime force.
conflicts of interest
Question. Federal ethics laws, like 10 U.S.C. Sec. 208, prohibit
government employees from participating in matters where they, or
certain family members or organizations with which they have certain
relationships, have a financial interest.
Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to disclose any
potential conflicts of interest, including investments, business ties,
family relationships, or other connections that could be perceived as
influencing your decisionmaking?
Answer. Yes
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, that
if a conflict of interest arises, you will recuse yourself from
participating in any relevant decisions regarding that specific matter?
Answer. Yes
Question. Do you commit, without qualification, if confirmed, to
decisionmaking on the merits and exclusively in the public interest,
without regard to private gain or personal benefit?
Answer. Yes
major challenges and priorities
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant
challenges you would face if confirmed as Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. Shipbuilding, passing a department-wide audit, and
recruiting and retaining servicemembers are the most significant
challenges that I see within the Department of the Navy.
Question. What plans do you have for addressing each of these
challenges, if confirmed, and on what timeline?
Answer. I have spent my career leading businesses, recruiting
talent, driving performance, and solving problems. I will work
alongside our industry partners and uniformed and civilian leadership
to deliver innovative solutions on time and within budget starting on
day one.
As a businessman I understand the importance of financial audits.
They represent accountability to Congress and the American people. I
will endeavor to instill a culture of ownership, transparency, and
accountability in the Department of the Navy.
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations published her strategic
guidance, the ``2024 NAVPLAN,'' seeking readiness for sustained high-
end joint and combined combat by 2027. What plans do you have that will
support her strategic goals of readiness for the possibility of war
with the People's Republic of China by 2027 and enhancing the Navy's
long-term advantage?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's ability to maintain and
modernize complex weapons platforms is key to strengthening our naval
forces with combat relevant capabilities. If confirmed, I will
prioritize accelerating the development of a lethal, modernized naval
force capable of countering China's challenges across the conflict
spectrum. I will focus on fleet modernization, maintenance, and
sustainment to ensure readiness for prolonged conflict if necessary. I
will work with Congress and this Committee to secure necessary
resources and will closely monitor progress, keeping the Committee
fully informed.
identifying and addressing systemic problems
Question. In 2017, the Navy conducted a Comprehensive Review of
Surface Force Incidents after a series of incidents including the
tragic collisions of the USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and the USS John S.
McCain (DDG 56) with civilian merchant ships and the resulting combined
loss of 17 U.S. sailors. The review listed a series of systemic and
endemic faults within the Surface Force and issued dozens of actions
and recommendations for changes to the Surface Force. While some GAO
reports indicate the Navy has successfully monitored changes to Surface
Warfare Officer training, other GAO recommendations still remain open,
such as addressing fatigue and inadequate sleep. To what extent has the
Surface Force been successful in tracking and implementing the
recommendations from the 2017 Comprehensive Review? Who is in charge of
tracking completion of those recommendations? Has the Navy conducted a
review of the adequacy of the changes that have been implemented to
ensure the systemic and endemic faults have been corrected?
Answer. The collisions of USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain are
tragic, and my heart goes out to the families and teammates of the
sailors lost in those incidents. I understand the Navy has taken
significant action to ensure these incidents are not repeated, not only
in the surface fleet, but across the breadth of the Department.
If confirmed, I look forward to getting additional insight into
what the Navy learned from those incidents and how those lessons are
being applied, including the incorporation of any outstanding GAO
recommendations.
Question. In the fallout of the Glenn Defense Marine Asia (GDMA)
scandal, numerous Navy personnel, including a significant number of
Navy admirals, were investigated for bribery, corruption, and
violations of criminal conflict of interest laws and executive branch
ethics regulations. Some were prosecuted and convicted in Federal
courts, and many more were subject to public censure and forced into
early retirement from the Navy. Are you satisfied with the actions the
Navy has taken in response to the GDMA scandal to ensure that its
officers and other personnel are trained--throughout their careers--on
Government ethics and standards of conduct and the Navy's core values?
Explain the steps the Navy has taken to train its personnel at each
stage in their career on Government ethics and standards of conduct.
Answer. If confirmed, I will expect every sailor, marine, and
civilian--including myself--to act with utmost integrity and comply
with Government ethics laws and standards of conduct and the DON's Core
Values. While I am not aware of all the actions the Department of the
Navy has taken in response to the GDMA scandal, in order to maintain an
ethical culture, I believe that a continuum of quality training needs
to be provided throughout an individual's career. If confirmed, I will
ensure that initial and annual training, as required by law and
regulation, are faithfully executed. Moreover, I will continue to
support the programs that were established to provide milestone-based
legal training on issues associated with incremental leadership
responsibilities. This includes, but is not limited to, government
ethics and standards of conduct training for prospective executive and
commanding officers; major commanders; and Flag Officers.
Question. In 2021, the Navy conducted a Command Investigation and
Major Fires Review following the fire on the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD
6) which resulted in the total loss of the ship. To what extent has the
Navy been successful, through its Learning to Action Board or
otherwise, in implementing and assessing the approved recommendations
from these investigations?
Answer. I understand the majority of the Learning to Action Board's
overall recommendations are implemented, improving shipboard
firefighting and safety during maintenance periods and fostering strong
relationships with community first responders to provide additional
support, when required. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the
lessons from this tragic event and driving resolution on any remaining
recommendations to ensure enduring solutions preclude complacency and
sustain adherence to fire safety requirements across the Fleet.
Question. A 2023 GAO report found that the Navy still has not
shared lessons learned about fire safety across the Fleet nor has it
developed a Navy-wide standard for evaluating the effectiveness of fire
safety trainings. To what extent is the Navy tracking these open
recommendations from the GAO toward completion?
Answer. I do not have insight into the particular systems and
processes Navy uses to share such lessons. However, if confirmed, I
will be committed to instilling a culture of shared learning. I look
forward to reviewing the Navy's actions regarding fire safety and any
specific open recommendations from GAO.
navy and marine corps readiness
Question. How would you balance the near-term demand for naval
forces with the need to generate readiness and surge capacity for
future contingencies?
Answer. If confirmed, I would prioritize Fleet readiness first,
while continuing emphasis on building the fleet of tomorrow to ensure
we are prepared to deter future conflict, defend the homeland, and
protect American interests. Our Nation and our sailors deserve a
lethal, modern fighting force, and I believe this will be achieved
through proper, on-time maintenance and strategic modernization of the
fleet we have today and dedicated efforts to deliver the fleet of
tomorrow as expeditiously as possible. It also demands the right mix of
depot capability and capacity across the commercial and organic
industrial base to ensure that the Navy can surge to meet increased
maintenance demands when necessary. If confirmed, I commit to ensure
that this mix is maintained.
Question. To what extent has Optimized-Fleet Response Plan (O-FRP)
been successful in stabilizing rotational deployments and making them
more predictable?
Answer. It is my understanding that the O-FRP has allowed the Navy
to project forces around the globe to support U.S. national security in
a predictable manner. I understand the O-FRP is a 36-month schedule for
surface ships that dedicates time for maintenance, training/
certification and deployment/sustainment and aligns to support
deployments of Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Readiness Groups.
The O-FRP has been successful with regard to providing stable,
predictable maintenance and repair schedules for the vital Navy Repair
Shipyard Industrial Base, while generating sufficient operational
forces to support operational demands. Notional O-FRP dedicates 8-
months for Maintenance, 10-months for Training/Certification and 18-
months for Sustainment. While ships don't normally deploy for 18-months
at a time, I understand O-FRP allows Operational Commanders to have
surge capacity of forces in times of escalation or conflict.
Question. Amphibious warfare ships account for nearly 75 percent of
deferred maintenance in the fiscal year 2025 budget request.
If confirmed, how would you address the deferred maintenance
accruing to the amphibious warfare ships?
Answer. It is my understanding the Navy conducted an Amphibious
Ship Maintenance Study to identify areas where the Navy can apply its
Get Real Get Better methodology. That study covered broad aspects of
maintenance planning, execution, government oversight, and quality
control. If confirmed, I would evaluate the results of the study and
progress achieved in order to continue to reduce deferred maintenance
on amphibious warfare ships.
Question. Given the current operational tempo, are the Navy and the
Marine Corps able to maintain desired dwell ratios?
Answer. Dwell ratios are critical periods for training,
maintenance, as well as Quality of Service and Quality of Life for our
personnel in between deployments. While the current operational tempo
poses challenges; I am committed to closely monitoring and assessing
the impact on dwell ratios. By prioritizing personnel readiness,
optimizing deployment schedules, and implementing efficient resource
management practices, I will aim to uphold the desired dwell ratios for
our sailors and marines. My focus will be on balancing operational
requirements with the well-being and readiness of our servicemembers to
sustain a high State of readiness across the Naval force.
budget
Question. In its 2018 and 2024 reports, the National Defense
Strategy Commission recommended that Congress increase the base defense
budget at an average rate of three to 5 percent above inflation through
the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
If confirmed, by what standards would you measure the adequacy of
funding for the Department of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department of Defense to
ensure the Department of the Navy has a balanced budget that aligns
with the President's priority to achieve Peace through Strength. As the
Secretary of Defense has directed, we must act urgently to restore the
warrior ethos, rebuild our military, and reestablish deterrence.
The budget should be focused on delivering resources to ensure
America's maritime forces--our Navy and Marine Corps team--are ready,
resilient, flexible, and forward-deployed to do our Nation's tasking.
Question. How will you ensure the Navy and the Marine Corps are
appropriately resourced to simultaneously modernize, grow readiness,
and take care of their people?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department of Defense to
ensure the Navy and Marine Corps have a balanced budget that aligns
with the President's priorities. The budget will prioritize the Navy
and Marine Corps ability to deploy and fight in this decisive decade,
invest in our Warfighters, and invest in the health of our industrial
base.
The budget should be strategy-driven to meet the requirements of
the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy and the
President's priorities to preserve peace through strength.
Question. Section 222a of title 10, U.S. Code, provides that not
later than 10 days after the President's submission of the defense
budget to Congress, each Service Chief must submit to the congressional
defense committees a report that lists, in order of priority, the
unfunded priorities of his or her armed force. If confirmed, would you
agree to support the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of
the Marine Corps in providing their unfunded priorities lists to
Congress in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes.
alliances and partnerships
Question. Mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships are one of
our greatest comparative advantages in competition with near-peer
rivals.
Answer. I agree. Mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships
enhance deterrence, provide additional strength and lethality and are a
strategic competitive advantage over our near-peer rivals. Today's
operating environment is interconnected, multi-domain, and requires
integration with Allies and partners across all warfighting functions.
In an era of strategic competition, our alliances and partnerships
enable unified action to deter our adversaries during competition and
complicate adversary decisionmaking.
Question. What do you see as the role of the Department of the Navy
in building relationships and interoperability with allies and
partners?
Answer. In today's security environment, the United States will be
more secure and prosperous if we work alongside Allies and partners who
align with our objectives and work across the instruments of national
power to advance the President's national security objectives. If
confirmed, I will ensure that our maritime forces work with not only
our strongest Allies but also emerging partners in order to leverage
their unique capabilities and regional expertise to grow our access,
interoperability and combined lethality to deter potential adversaries
such as the PRC and limit malign influences that seek to challenge our
security.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of the Navy, what specific
actions would you take to prioritize and strengthen existing U.S.
alliances and partnerships, build new partnerships, and take advantage
of opportunities for international cooperation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will leverage all the security cooperation
tools available to support the President's America First Foreign
Policy. Under the direction of the President and Secretary of Defense,
the Department of the Navy will work to identify and advance
opportunities to improve our global force and basing posture,
strengthen interoperability with partners in priority regions such as
the Indo-Pacific, and expand collaborative development and production
of weapons and munitions to increase productivity of our industrial
base. If confirmed, we will conduct bilateral and multilateral
exercises with both our strongest Allies and also emerging partners to
maintain our competitive advantage and grow our influence where it
makes the United States more secure. Using these and other means we can
expand U.S. reach around the globe while lessening the burden on the
United States and the American taxpayer by leveraging the combined
capabilities of our partners to strengthen our collective security.
indo-pacific region
Question. What are the key areas in which the Department of the
Navy must improve to provide the necessary capabilities and capacity to
the Joint Force to deter Chinese aggression and, if necessary, prevail
in a potential conflict with China?
Answer. In the face of China's rapid development of sophisticated
military capabilities and continued aggressive behavior that threatens
regional stability and security, the Department of the Navy has an
urgent mandate to fully resource the fighting force required to
reestablish deterrence. If confirmed, I will lead the Department to
meet this challenge, focusing on weapon and system modernization;
investing in our forward deployed force posture and required
infrastructure; prioritizing the Indo-Pacific; energizing key alliances
and partnerships; and, expanding the core of our capacity through a re-
doubled emphasis on recruitment, retention, and shipbuilding. I pledge
to work with the Congress to provide the Joint Force a lethal,
integrated Navy and Marine Corps team of combat-ready forces.
Question. How would you assess the threat to Navy forces and
facilities from Chinese missile forces? In your assessment, have Navy
investments, posture shifts and/or new operational concepts
sufficiently addressed this threat?
Answer. I do not yet have access to the information necessary to
assess these threats. China continues to rapidly develop and field both
an increasingly sizable and sophisticated conventional missile force
and nuclear force. Forward deployed and expeditionary Naval forces are
critical to maintain freedom of the seas in peacetime and prevent an
adversary from controlling the seas in wartime. If confirmed, my goal
would be for the Navy and Marine Corps to provide joint and allied
forces with the best resourced, most lethal naval force to ensure our
freedom of maneuver and to protect our national interests. If
confirmed, I will thoroughly examine this issue and ensure Naval forces
and facilities have the protection they need to carry out their
missions.
Question. In your assessment, what are the priority investments the
Department of the Navy could make that would help implement the
National Defense Strategy in the Indo-Pacific?
Answer. I do not yet have access to the information necessary to
make an assessment. I believe providing resources to conduct forward
operations, securing greater access and logistics to operate forward;
and developing the right force posture in the Indo-Pacific are
essential to reestablishing and strengthening deterrence. Identifying
and making--with the help of Congress--the key investments in the force
structure, capabilities, and capacities to deter and defeat adversaries
will be critical for implementation. In addition, we must prioritize
rebuilding our military through the training and exercise of naval and
naval infantry forces with regional Allies and partners, to establish
new and strengthen existing strategic maritime partnerships, and
enhance interoperability and lethality in support of a safe and secure
Indo-Pacific. If confirmed, I will thoroughly examine this issue to
ensure the Department of the Navy's investments are properly
prioritized.
Question. What is your current assessment of the risk of
operational failure in a conflict with China as a result of a critical
logistics failure?
Answer. Although I lack access to information to fully address the
risk of operational failure, I recognize that our logistics and
sustainment capabilities and capacities are critical to any successful
campaign, and any conflict with China invariably will be fought under
the conditions of contested logistics. If confirmed, assessing our
logistics capabilities in support of maritime and joint operations, and
addressing any gaps found, will be a priority.
Question. In your opinion, what role will Guam play in a conflict
with China? Do you believe Guam's infrastructure is currently adequate
to support the current and future mission?
Answer. I understand the strategic significance of Guam to our
national security and position as a Pacific power. Guam is a critical
strategic hub in the Pacific due to its proximity to Taiwan and the
South China Sea. However, its aging infrastructure and increasing DOD
on-island presence present challenges. Continuous modernization to
enhance its defense and resilience against missile and cyber threats
will be critical. If confirmed, I intend to support collective DOD
efforts to ensure our force posture on Guam is balanced with the
appropriate defenses and risk mitigations necessary to enable continued
and unimpeded access to the Western Pacific.
Question. What is your view of the role of unmanned systems in
deterring conflict in the Taiwan Strait?
Answer. Unmanned systems can play a crucial role in deterring
conflict in the Taiwan Strait. These systems, operating in the air,
surface, and sub-surface domains, provide the Combatant Commander with
a host of low-cost, attritable, scalable, and resilient capabilities.
By providing persistent surveillance, intelligence gathering,
defensive, and strike capabilities, unmanned systems will enhance
lethality and serve as a strong and efficient deterrent to quickly
respond to provocation while reducing risks and maintaining flexibility
in the region. Integration of unmanned systems into naval and joint
force architecture is a force multiplier for providing combat capacity
against peer competitors and adversaries. An integrated manned/unmanned
force, leveraging the unique and disruptive elements that unmanned
systems provide, is a critical component of our capability to deter
and, if necessary, prevail in conflict against a peer competitor like
China who enjoys a numeric advantage, and thereby plays a crucial role
in deterring conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
Question. What are the key areas in which the Navy must improve to
provide the necessary capabilities and capacity to the Joint Force to
deter Russian aggression and, if necessary, prevail in a potential
conflict with Russia?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department of the Navy is
manned, trained, and equipped to promote America's national security
interests and to support the President's priority to reestablish peace
and prosperity through strength. I am committed to defending U.S.
interests and promoting national security, in close partnership with
our regional partners and Allies with aligned interests. The Department
of the Navy must collaborate with Allies and partners in the region,
continue to modernize our surface and submarine fleets globally,
improve our logistics and resupply capabilities, and maximize our
mobility to rapidly deploy forces to key littoral terrain. We must also
ensure that our NATO Allies invest in the capabilities they need to
more robustly deter Russian aggression and maintain interoperability
with our Allies.
Question. In your view, are there investments the Navy should
prioritize for the competition with Russia below the level of direct
military conflict in order to counter Russian malign influence and
hybrid warfare operations?
Answer. The Navy must prioritize non-traditional investments such
as cyber capabilities, information operations, and enhanced anti-
submarine warfare. Engaging with Allies and partners through joint
exercises and cooperative deployments focused on countering hybrid
tactics will strengthen our collective resilience. Investment in
scalable, cutting-edge hardware and software in support of a variety of
autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, and advanced sensors and
munitions will enable the Department of the Navy to field flexible
response options for combatant commanders to respond to a variety of
adversary actions.
Question. How do you assess the Navy's current posture to support
operations in Europe?
Answer. I do not yet have access to the information necessary to
make this assessment. The Department of the Navy's current posture in
Europe is robust but requires continuous adaptation to evolving global
threats. It will be important to continue work with our Allies and
partners in the region to identify areas of collaboration that
strengthen ally and partner capabilities and provide a credible
deterrent. Forward deployed forces provide critical maritime power
projection. If confirmed, I commit to support the Administration in an
assessment of global posture laydown and appropriate scaling of our
naval posture in Europe to meet our commitments to NATO.
middle east
Question. Iranian-linked Houthi rebels continue to launch drone and
missile attacks against United States and international vessels in the
Red Sea, disrupting global commerce and putting the United States, its
allies and partners at risk. If confirmed, how would you adjust or
augment the current strategy to be more effective to deter and counter
Houthi attacks?
Answer. Forward-deployed Navy assets have executed persistent
deterrence and precision strikes to impose greater costs on Houthi
operations. We must adapt our technologies and tactics based on the
lessons we are learning in response to Iranian backed Houthi drone and
missile attacks against U.S. and international vessels in the Red Sea.
I am committed to looking at our full suite of capabilities to ensure
we can confront and defeat threats of this nature and to ensure we have
more cost-effective solutions to counter such threats.
acquisition
Question. Congress has expanded and refined the acquisition-related
functions of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, and the other Service Chiefs. If confirmed, how would you
synchronize your acquisition responsibilities and those of the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition, with those of the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps?
Answer. I am committed, if confirmed, to ensuring the Navy-Marine
Corps team functions optimally; our sailors and marines deserve no
less. The Department of the Navy's acquisition process require
collaboration between the uniformed Services and the Secretariat to
provide the best equipment to our sailors and marines. The Chief of
Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps play critical
roles in developing requirements, identifying tradeoffs, and protecting
against requirements creep. Once requirements are set and resources
provided, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development
and Acquisition has responsibility to acquire and deliver within cost,
schedule, and performance thresholds. If confirmed, I look forward to
revitalizing the engagement and synergy across the Department of the
Navy as we deliver incredible capability to the fleet.
Question. Congress has authorized a range of authorities, including
the Middle Tier of Acquisition authority, rapid acquisition authority,
and the software acquisition pathway, to tailor the acquisition process
to enable the rapid delivery of new capabilities.
In your view, what benefit has the Department of the Navy derived
from its utilization of Middle Tier of Acquisition authorities?
Answer. It appears the Department of the Navy (DON) has fully
embraced the use of the Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA), and I am
encouraged by the codification of these authorities in the Fiscal Year
2025 National Defense Authorization Act. The DON has proven the
effectiveness of the MTA pathway, which in my view allows programs to
start faster and often get capability to the fleet faster. The MTA
pathway also enables the DON to ``fail fast'' and rapidly pivot, if
needed, to more promising solution sets.
Question. In your view, what benefit has the Department of the Navy
derived from its utilization of the rapid acquisition authority?
Answer. Similar to the Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) pathway, I
believe rapid acquisition authority allows the Department of the Navy
(DON) to respond in the most expedited manner to critical fleet and
combatant commanders needs. It is my understanding that the DON has
leveraged rapid acquisition authority to address emerging operational
contingencies. With the coming strategic challenges, tools that support
rapid acquisition will be more essential than ever before.
Question. How will you ensure that rapid acquisition pathways are
not inundated with unnecessary or unwarranted bureaucratic processes?
Answer. It appears the use of many of the new acquisition pathways
have only existed over the past five to 6 years. If confirmed, I look
forward to utilizing and accelerating these hard-won pathways; having
these tools in the toolchest is absolutely critical to being able to
get more capability into the fleet at a much more up-tempo pace. I am
aware that the Department of the Navy (DON) has leaned in significantly
to delegate authorities and streamline approvals to minimize
unnecessary or unwarranted bureaucratic obstacles. If confirmed, I will
scrutinize any barriers to these novel and promising pathways, and will
continue to streamline processes. I am also supportive of the Forged
Act's efforts to apply these same improvements to the ways in which DON
conducts oversight of Major Capability Acquisition programs and
eliminate obstacles that impede these rapid acquisition pathways.
Question. How will you seek to balance the need to rapidly acquire
and field innovative systems while ensuring acquisition programs
provide effective capabilities for the joint force?
Answer. It is clear to me that we must deliver capabilities faster,
and if confirmed I'm committed to sparing no effort in achieving that
outcome. That means a mix of innovative technologies, with perhaps non-
traditional players, but also ensuring rigor and accountability for the
key strategic and power-projecting assets and programs that the Navy
and Marine Corps bring to the table.
Question. Based on your experience, how would you structure the
Navy to conduct better tradeoff analysis so that programmatic
investments are not stove-piped and can be assessed against the impact
of various alternatives?
Answer. As I understand it, there exists a robust process for
analysis of alternatives, with the objective of selecting an optimal
solution prior to proceeding with an acquisition program. If confirmed,
I am committed to instilling a greater focus on capability portfolio
management and to eliminating stove pipes that exist today. I believe
that if we provide more flexibility within our Program Executive
Offices, we will achieve better acquisition outcomes.
Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy with which the
Navy has been transitioning nontraditional defense contractors from
research and development into production contracts? What steps, if any,
would you take to improve the Navy's ability to do business with
nontraditional defense contractors?
Answer. It appears that organizations the Department of the Navy
(DON) put in place, such as NavalX, have helped create venues to
connect more broadly with nontraditional defense companies, and I
believe that more effort is required to integrate the technologies
these firms offer into Naval environments. If confirmed, I look forward
to working with industry, defense innovation organizations, and
Congress to knock down barriers to entry with respect to doing business
with the DON. I am equally convinced that the DON's traditional
contractors will continue to play a critical role into the future as
well. The DON needs to more effectively employ these critical
opportunities as we face down adversaries in both the distant and near
future.
test and evaluation
Question. What do you see as the role of the developmental and
operational test and evaluation communities with respect to rapid
acquisition, spiral acquisition, and other streamlined acquisition
processes?
Answer. Test and evaluation of all systems, regardless of
acquisition approach, is critical. I understand that the Department of
the Navy's acquisition policy provides program managers and test teams
guidance for developing tailored, capabilities-based test and
evaluation strategies that best align with the selected acquisition
pathway to include urgent capability acquisition, rapid prototyping and
fielding (mid-tier) acquisition, and rapid and iterative software
capability acquisition. If confirmed, I will continue these efforts to
ensure that each program has the appropriate level of test and
evaluation rigor to assess effectiveness, suitability, survivability
and safety while providing the data needed to inform acquisition and
fielding decisions.
Question. Are you satisfied with Department of the Navy's test and
evaluation capabilities? In which areas, if any, do you feel the Navy
should be developing new test and evaluation capabilities?
Answer. As the Department of the Navy continues to develop systems
capable of operating autonomously with greater endurance and at
increased ranges, it may not be practical to always conduct live
testing of these systems in all of their intended operational
environments. Innovative solutions must be identified to bridge this
gap, much as the increased use of high-fidelity models and simulations,
to evaluate weapon systems across a broader range of representative
operational conditions. If confirmed, I am committed to assessing the
Navy's test and evaluation capabilities to identify areas for
improvement to ensure we continue to field the weapon systems our
warfighters need.
Question. Do you believe that current Navy test and evaluation
facilities and personnel and technical test apparatuses are up to par
for what is needed for the modernization challenges of the Navy, now
and in the near future?
Answer. As the complexity of weapon systems increases, test and
evaluation facilities must continue to evolve and adapt to meet these
demands. Stable investments will be needed to ensure the Department of
the Navy meets the demands of future weapon systems. With respect to
the test and evaluation workforce, they must continue to implement best
practices to support programs that incorporate iterative and
accelerated development strategies. Additionally, developmental and
operational test teams must be fully integrated and utilize
Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation methodologies to enable these
programs to ``test like we fight'' and provide data in a mission
context throughout the acquisition lifecycle.
Question. What do you see as the operational test and evaluation
needs for non-developmental or commercial items to ensure they can
still meet the technical requirements and human factor needs of
environments often more complex and demanding than commercial settings?
Answer. Operational test and evaluation will play a vital role in
ensuring systems that incorporate non-developmental or commercial items
are effective, suitable, survivable and safe. In cases where robust,
mature commercial items are utilized there may be opportunities to
leverage data from previous tests to reduce government testing and
expedite fielding. Having a thorough understanding of the risks
associated with these items will enable programs to strike the right
balance between the need to rapidly field the capability and the level
of data needed to inform decisionmakers that the system can execute its
intended mission. If confirmed, I will focus on reducing the barriers
that impede the fielding of needed capabilities while ensuring the
level of testing is adequate to support sound decisions.
audit
Question. If confirmed, what specific actions will you take or
direct to enable the Navy to achieve a clean financial audit in the
most expedited fashion?
Answer. If confirmed, achieving a clean audit for the Department
will be a priority to ensure the Department meets the congressional
deadline of 2028.
Question. What are the benefits to Navy missions and effectiveness
of achieving and maintaining a clean audit?
Answer. Achieving a clean audit will enable the Navy to improve
operations, be more effective, and prevent wasteful spending. A clean
audit permits the Department to be transparent with the public and
Congress and ensures we are using taxpayer funds for the benefit of our
country. Specifically, a clean audit improves the accountability of our
assets to enable the warfighter needs.
Question. How will you hold Department of the Navy leaders and
organizations responsible and accountable for making the necessary
investments and changes to correct findings and material weaknesses
identified in the audit process?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure leaders and organizations are
held accountable through an entity-wide governance structure that
conducts mandatory and regular audit readiness reviews, which will
ensure audit is a priority throughout the Department. Senior leaders
will be held accountable for audit outcomes through performance
standards and evaluations and Flag Leadership promotions will be tied
to successful execution of audit responsibilities.
Question. Based on your experience, how do you see improved data
from Navy financial management IT systems that support audit help Navy
decisionmaking and readiness?
Answer. Improved data management can significantly enhance
decisionmaking and readiness by offering a clearer, more accurate
financial picture. This enables agile reallocation of resources when
needed, which increases buying power, and that in turn, improves force
readiness outcomes.
red hill bulk fuel storage facility (rhbfsf)
Question. The Department of the Navy is continuing efforts to close
and remediate the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility after several
high-profile fuel leaks in 2021. The Navy needs to continue to rebuild
trust not only with the local population, but also with sailors and
their families who reside in the area.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to continue to communicate
transparently with the local community and sailors and their families
in the area to ensure concerns are investigated property?
Answer. Nothing is more important than the health, safety and well-
being of sailors, marines, civilians, their families, and neighbors.
The Navy Closure Task Force--Red Hill (NCTF-RH) conducts extensive
community outreach regarding tank closure, remediation, and water
security via a robust combination of open houses, webinars, podcasts,
websites, roundtables, engagements at neighborhood boards, and
participation at State-led discussion forums. If confirmed, I will make
sure that this active outreach will continue throughout the Navy
response efforts at RHBFSF.
Question. The challenges at RHBFSF have highlighted several
significant infrastructure challenges relating to power, water
infrastructure, and others, on Oahu. If confirmed, how will you
prioritize resourcing these necessary improvements to avoid any future
water contamination or power generation shortages?
Answer. I plan to take the lessons learned from this incident to
ensure the Department is focused on proactive improvements to our
infrastructure in order to provide sustainable and resilient
infrastructure in support of operations.
cost of recapitalizing the fleet
Question. Despite the Navy's existing 355-ship policy goal, the
Navy is currently operating with 287 battle force ships. Every year
over the past decade, the Congress has added funding to the President's
budget request for shipbuilding, and yet the Navy has failed to grow
the fleet according to the 30-year shipbuilding plans.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure growth of the
fleet to the 355-ship policy goal?
Answer. The Navy is currently operating with 295 battle force
ships, and if confirmed, I am committed to ensuring the Navy continues
its coordination with Congress, OSD, and industry to increase our
national shipbuilding capacity. I understand this will require targeted
efforts to improve shipyard productivity and address workforce
development issues across the shipbuilding supply chain ecosystem, and
I am committed to making this a priority as growing our fleet is of
critical importance to our Nation.
Question. What is your view on balancing the need for the 30-year
shipbuilding plan to provide a stable demand signal for industry and
the need to be flexible in response to changing requirements?
Answer. I understand and agree that the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding
plan is a key communication tool to industry of the future demand
signal for the number and types of ships required. While requirements
may evolve at the macro level due to changing world and operational
environments, I do not anticipate these changes being abrupt or
significant enough to drastically change the Navy's plans that are
published annually. We must provide a fixed plan as a stable demand
signal for industry.
Question. The 30-year shipbuilding plan assumes that construction
backlogs will be eliminated and ships will be produced on-time and on-
budget. If confirmed, what would you do to support industry in
controlling costs and reducing build-spans for ships?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work closely with the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition to
identify opportunities to get our shipbuilding programs back on track,
delivering prioritized and critical capability on time and on budget.
Our plan to improve shipbuilding must address the size and
modernization of public and private shipyards, the depleted
shipbuilding workforce and the number and quality of suppliers and
subcontractors.
improving government technical control in shipbuilding
Question. The Constellation-class frigate was intended to be an
affordable capability based on a parent ship design. The previous
Secretary of the Navy certified basic and functional design completion
in August 2022 in order to start construction, but the GAO report Navy
Frigate (GAO-24-106546) found that most basic and functional design
packages remained incomplete due to Navy-directed changes to the
proposed design.
What is your view of the relationship between the Navy's Senior
Technical Authority and the Program Manager in reviewing and approving
designs on Navy ships?
Answer. Relationships are crucial, and in designing and producing
the ships our Navy needs, few relationships are as crucial as those
between our technical and program management communities. This
relationship must be one that is committed to delivery of the most
capable and lethal equipment that our Warfighters can utilize while
doing so cost effectively and with urgency. For this reason, the
relationship between the Navy's Senior Technical Authority and the
Program Manager must be based upon unity of purpose, pragmatism, and
with clarity toward the goal of efficiently delivering capability to
the Fleet.
Question. If confirmed, what improvements would you make to
coordinate and control lead ship design activities?
Answer. Both lead ship design efforts as well as construction of
early ships within a class have presented significant challenges for
the Department. I am keenly interested in determining the root causes
for these issues. If confirmed, it will be my highest priority to
ensure basic principles and best practices are applied to lead ship
design activities. This, along with a critical look across the breadth
of the acquisition process, are crucial in rebuilding our fleet.
Question. The GAO's report ``Navy Shipbuilding, Increased Use of
Leading Design Practices Could Improve Timeliness of Deliveries'' May
2, 2024, (GAO-24-105503) recommended reevaluation of requirements, the
incorporation of end user representation in design choices, the
creation of a digital ship design library, and timelines to approving
design products.
Do you support recommendations #1, #3, #4, and #6 from GAO's
report? Why or why not?
Answer. I support the GAO's recommendations to improve Navy
shipbuilding efficiency, particularly regarding the reevaluation of
requirements, the creation of a digital ship design library, and the
establishment of clear design approval timelines. These measures will
enhance program stability, reduce costly redesigns, and improve ship
delivery schedules. Implementing these best practices aligns with the
Navy's ongoing efforts to optimize shipbuilding, mitigate risks, and
ensure readiness.
Question. If confirmed, what other options would you explore for
improving lead ship performance?
Answer. If confirmed, I would explore options to ensure critical
systems are matured before integration to reduce design and
construction risks. Expanding collaboration with industry and
shipbuilders early in the process would improve design feasibility and
production efficiency. Additionally, leveraging digital ship design
tools and advanced manufacturing techniques would streamline processes
and reduce costly delays. Strengthening contractor accountability and
incentives for meeting cost and schedule goals will also drive
improvements in lead ship performance.
technical workforce
Question. A significant challenge facing the Navy today is a
shortage of highly skilled data scientists, computer programmers,
cyber, and other scientific, technical and engineering talent,
especially those needed to work at Navy institutions outside of the
defense laboratories and technical centers (which currently benefit
from specific workforce authorities available to Navy labs). If
confirmed, what actions would you take to increase the recruiting and
retention of scientists, engineers, software coders, and in other
technical positions across the Navy's enterprise?
Answer. The crucial role that our high-performing civilian
employees with qualifications in fields such as data science,
cybersecurity, and engineering cannot be understated as they are key
contributors to meeting the Department of the Navy's mission. It is
imperative that we remain focused on attracting and hiring individuals
with these core technical skills while simultaneously implementing
strategies to keep our current technical cadre employed within the
Department by providing opportunities for growth, competitive
compensation, and a positive work environment. If confirmed, I will
examine existing human capital strategies and work with appropriate
stakeholders to develop new and innovative approaches that will target
highly skilled individuals committed to the ideals of American
greatness.
ford-class aircraft carriers
Question. What are your views on the procurement of CVN-82 and CVN-
83? Do you believe the two ships should be part of a block buy?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Navy maintains a Battle
Force Ship Assessment and Requirement (BFSAR) objective of 12 nuclear
aircraft carriers (CVNs) and a commitment to sustain a Title 10 minimum
of 11 CVNs. A 2023 Navy Report to Congress recommends an optimal CVN
procurement strategy of two-ship buys with 3 years of advance
procurement, and 4 years between builds, to reduce supply chain and
industrial base risks to production and reduce acquisition costs to
taxpayers. Such a block buy for CVN 82/83 is the most efficient and
cost-effective means of acquiring Ford-class aircraft carriers. It is
my understanding that the CVN 80/81 two-ship buy saved approximately
$4B versus single ship buys. It is my understanding that the Navy
estimates a two-ship buy for CVN 82/83 will support CVN construction
efficiency and stabilize the CVN industrial base, delivering a
substantial procurement savings. If confirmed, I will authorize an
examination of whether a block buy for CVN 82/83 is the most efficient
and cost-effective means of acquiring Ford-class aircraft carriers. If
a block buy is confirmed as the best approach, I will pursue funding
for a block buy.
Question. Do you support the fiscal year 2025 plan to delay the
CVN-82 buy until fiscal year 2030, or would recommend that we buy it
sooner?
Answer. Balancing Navy topline, Fleet requirements, vendor capacity
and reducing unit costs are some of the critical factors for
determining where best to place individual ship acquisitions. In the
case of CVN 82, if confirmed, I will work with Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition and the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management and Comptroller, as well
as the Chief of Naval Operations, to determine the optimal acquisition
timeline in consideration of those factors.
Question. What is the optimal number of years of advance
procurement for the Ford-class aircraft carrier?
Answer. Advance procurement is a critical authorization from
Congress that provides sufficient lead time for vendors to deliver
sequence critical material on time to support the most efficient and
effective build strategy for a nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN). If
confirmed, I will work with Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development and Acquisition and the Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Financial Management and Comptroller to determine the best
optimal timing of advance procurement to maintain the industrial base
and deliver schedule of our CVN program.
columbia-class submarines
Question. The Columbia-class will replace the Ohio-class ballistic
missile submarines and are expected to ensure the Nation's most
survivable nuclear forces remain effective into the 2070's. However,
costs for the program have continued to grow and projected completion
dates are slipping. Navy leaders have testified that if a higher Navy
topline or outside funding is not provided, the investment required by
the Columbia-class program will result in equivalent reductions
elsewhere within the Navy budget.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to arrest cost growth and
schedule slippage in the Columbia-class program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure a comprehensive affordability
review and implement targeted actions to address the underlying causes
of cost growth and schedule slippage in submarine construction. This
will include evaluating current processes, identifying inefficiencies,
and developing proposals to streamline operations, improve cost
management, and ensure timely delivery. My focus will be on driving
accountability, optimizing resources, and fostering closer
collaboration between stakeholders to prevent further delays and cost
overruns.
Question. The Navy has proposed selectively extending the
operational life of certain Ohio-class submarines to mitigate the risk
of Columbia-class delays. If confirmed, what mitigation options would
you consider in the event the Columbia-class program incurs schedule
delays that prevent the lead ship from deploying in 2031?
Answer. If confirmed, the recapitalization of the Navy's Ballistic
Missile Submarine Fleet would remain my top acquisition priority, as
the Columbia-class is vital to maintaining the survivability of the
nuclear triad. It is my understanding that the Navy is working closely
with industry to identify and implement mitigation actions. If
confirmed, I will evaluate all proposed options to address the delay
and ensure the program meets its critical objectives.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring that the
Columbia-class program will remain the Navy's highest priority
shipbuilding effort?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to ensuring that the Columbia-class
program remains the Navy's highest priority shipbuilding effort. As the
cornerstone of our submarine-based strategic deterrence, it is the most
survivable leg of the Nuclear Triad and critical to our national
security.
attack submarine force levels
Question. The Navy's current requirement for attack submarines is
at least 66. However, the Navy currently has less than 50 attack
submarines in the fleet inventory.
Do you support the 2-per-year Virginia-class submarine production
requirement, growing to at least 2.33-per-year in support of the
agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States,
referred to as AUKUS?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the current submarine production
requirement. The execution and delivery of submarines, along with the
successful implementation of the tri-lateral AUKUS agreement, are
critical strategic imperatives. Achieving this requires once-in-a-
generation investments and a unified effort from both government and
industry to strengthen the defense industrial base. It is my
understanding that the Navy is deeply committed to the health of the
submarine industrial base and is working closely with our industry to
increase overall production capacity.
Question. How could the Navy improve attack submarine readiness
through changes to the maintenance, repair, and overhaul enterprise?
Answer. It is my understanding that the submarine industrial base
supplemental funding provided by Congress is key to supporting both
domestic submarine production and operational readiness. By focusing on
workforce development, advancing manufacturing technology, and
expanding large-scale fabrication and outfitting capacity, we can
better support our critical strategic partnerships. The supplemental
funding not only strengthens the shipyards involved in new construction
but also boosts the capacity of the Navy's four public shipyards, which
are crucial for repairing and modernizing nuclear submarines. If
confirmed, I would continue to pursue this holistic approach that
ensures a more efficient, effective, and ready attack submarine fleet.
navel reactor fuel
Question. The Director of Naval Reactors, in their dual hatted role
in the Department of Energy, has a statutory responsibility to supply
naval reactor fuel for the existing and future fleet of submarine and
surface ships. The Director of Naval Reactors estimates that an
adequate supply of such fuel will not be available in the late 2040's.
The Department of Energy currently does not have a capability to enrich
or recycle spent Naval fuel. They estimate that it will take at least a
decade to develop such a capability to be able to meet existing and
future Navy fleet requirements. If confirmed will you commit to
advocate for the necessary funding and programs within the Department
of Energy to meet current and future Naval reactor fuel requirements?
Answer. The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, or Naval Reactors, is
responsible for keeping the U.S. Navy's aircraft carriers and
submarines safely operating around the globe under nuclear power. If
confirmed, yes, I will continue to work alongside Naval Reactors, and
in coordination with the Department of Energy and its National Nuclear
Security Administration, to ensure continued availability of enriched
uranium to fuel the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet. It is my understanding
that the Navy has sufficient enriched uranium to support Navy
shipbuilding into the 2050's, and Naval Reactors is directly engaged
with the Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security
Administration on efforts to meet future enriched uranium requirements.
ship maintenance
Question. The Navy has experienced continuing problems maintaining
the current fleet, including experiencing cost overruns and delays in
schedules. These problems have plagued both public and private
shipyards.
In your view, what are the benefits and challenges of establishing
a fully rotatable pool of spare and repair parts to avoid maintenance
availability delays and cannibalizations?
Answer. Improving maintenance throughput for our submarines and
surfaces ships hinges on several key levers, including having the
correct material available at the start of a maintenance availability,
which significantly reduces the risk of schedule delays, minimizes the
need for parts cannibalization, and allows ships to return to the fleet
faster. Accomplishing this by establishing a fully rotatable pool of
spare and repair parts for our submarines and surface ships may provide
some benefit to reducing delays but also presents challenges due to the
multiple configuration and maintenance requirement differences between
platforms.
Question. In your view, how could contract changes for new and
growth work in private yard availabilities be made more efficient?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with all
stakeholders to focus on efficient change management, which is critical
to delivering ships on time. For new work, I understand the Navy team
is continuing to explore ways to improve execution planning by awarding
the larger, more complex availabilities earlier, allowing the
collective team to better identify new or growth work before starting
the availability. For growth work and changes during execution, I look
forward to working with stakeholders to learn more about the positive
results being realized from pilots currently in progress, which aim to
drive down change cycle time during surface ship availabilities being
performed in private ship repair yards, and to identify opportunities
and timelines to scale these pilots across the surface portfolio.
To update and improve the capability of the Navy-owned public
shipyards, the Navy has been pursuing a Shipyard Infrastructure
Optimization Program (SIOP). The Committee is not aware of a specific
plan to expand the capacity or improve the efficiency of private sector
shipyards.
Question. In your view, can the SIOP plan be accelerated without
harming the public shipyards' ability to improve readiness of the
nuclear fleet?
Answer. The Navy's four public shipyards are strategic enablers to
the National Security of the United States. For over 100 years these
shipyards have played a vital role in our Nation's defense. As we look
into the future, these facilities will continue to have an out-sized
role essential to our National Defense and are required to maintain our
current and future nuclear-powered platforms. The Navy remains fully
committed to the needs of our force and to ensure the safety of our
shipyard workforce, the public, and the environment. Accordingly, the
Navy is making historic investments to modernize these century old
facilities to modern standards. Change will not happen overnight. It
takes deliberate planning and time to ensure we do this in a smart
fashion to upgrade facilities without impacting production. If
confirmed, I will look for opportunities to accelerate the SIOP plan
without impacting our readiness.
Question. Should the U.S Government spend money to expand private
shipyards?
Answer. I understand the Navy stood up the Maritime Industrial Base
Direct Reporting Program Office in 2024. That organization is focused
on industrial base health for shipbuilding, repair and the supply
chain. If confirmed, I will seek to understand the ongoing analysis of
where investments should be made. I am committed to working with
Congress to identify those critical investments required to enable our
industrial base to support our maritime needs. In the meantime, the
authority granted by Congress to support the private ship repair yards
in the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act will be
critical in supporting the industrial base.
missile defense
Question. Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) ships perform their
mission in support of other Navy assets, as well as in defense of U.S.,
allied, and partner forces on land. There continues to be higher demand
for Aegis BMD ships than the number of ships available at any given
time.
Do you view BMD as a core Navy mission?
Answer. Yes, Ballistic Missile Defense is a core Navy mission.
Question. How would you balance the competing demands for Aegis BMD
ships? Are there opportunities to transition some of the defense of
land-based forces to other Navy or land-based assets, to free up Aegis
BMD ships for maritime-focused missions?
Answer. The Navy uniquely provides missile defense from the sea.
This capability allows for the forward projection of missile defense,
as demonstrated in the Red Sea last year, and enables sea forces to
operate within the threat range of adversary missile systems, enhancing
our lethality. To balance the competing demands for Aegis BMD ships, if
confirmed, I will direct the Navy to enhance ship deployment
efficiency, transition certain land-based defense missions to other
platforms, and emphasize the doctrinal use of naval forces. By
advocating for multi-mission destroyers and strengthening collaboration
with other military branches, I will aim to maintain a strong maritime
focus while ensuring effective integration into the national Ballistic
Missile Defense System and any future requirements for defense of the
homeland. Combatant Commanders rely on Navy Destroyers for offensive
and defensive effects across multiple mission areas.
nuclear enterprise
Question. Every Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) has reaffirmed the
importance of all three legs of the nuclear triad. Additionally, due to
the rapid expansion of adversary nuclear capabilities, the last two
administrations have also elected to pursue additional supplemental
capabilities to manage the threat of escalation, including the W76-2
warhead, the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, and the B61-13
gravity bomb.
Do you support full funding for the modernization of each leg of
the nuclear triad and the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) weapons complex?
Answer. Yes. It is critical to maintain and modernize all three
legs of the triad; the nuclear command, control, and communications
systems; as well as the Department of Energy's ongoing efforts to
modernize the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and infrastructure.
The Navy is committed to modernizing its contribution to the triad
through development of the Columbia-class SSBN replacement for the
Ohio-class SSBN and fielding a life extension to the TRIDENT II D5
missile to carry through the life of the Columbia-class program.
Question. Do you believe the current Navy program of record is
sufficient to support the modernization of the sea-based leg of the
nuclear triad?
Answer. Yes, I believe the Columbia-class SSBN Major Defense
Acquisition Program will fully meet the Navy's requirement for a
survivable strategic deterrence platform. In conjunction with the
fielding of the successor to the TRIDENT II D5 Life Extension (D5LE),
D5LE2, the combined weapons system will fully meet the requirements of
the sea-based leg of the strategic nuclear triad. If confirmed, I will
review each of these programs to ensure effectiveness, responsiveness,
survivability, flexibility, visibility and on-time delivery of
capability to the Nation.
Question. The first Trump administration identified a need to begin
development and redeployment of a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise
missile to address known gaps in United States tactical nuclear
forces--gaps which have only been exacerbated by the rapid growth of
Chinese, Russian, and North Korean arsenals. Congress supported this
effort on a bipartisan basis and has directed the Navy and the National
Nuclear Security Administration to establish a formal program to deploy
this weapon no later than 2034.
If confirmed, do you commit to complying with existing statutory
requirements to continue funding development of the nuclear-armed sea-
launched cruise missile and work toward meeting the congressionally
mandated date of 2034 for initial operational capability?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department complies
with existing statutory requirements to continue funding development of
the Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N) in support of a
2034 initial operational capability.
Question. In 2014, then-Secretary of Defense Hagel directed a
comprehensive review of the DOD nuclear enterprise in response to
adverse incidents involving U.S. nuclear forces. The review yielded
recommendations to improve personnel management, enforce security
requirements, increase deliberate senior leader focus and attention,
enact and sustain a change in culture, and address numerous other
concerns. More than 10 years later, responsibility for addressing these
recommendations and monitoring implementation of corrective actions has
been transferred from OSD to the Military Services.
In your view, is the Navy maintaining appropriate focus on
implementing the corrective actions recommended by the 2014 nuclear
enterprise review?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department of the Navy has
maintained a strong focus on implementing the 2014 nuclear enterprise
review recommendations, prioritizing readiness, personnel management,
and security across its nuclear platforms, weapons, infrastructure, and
personnel. An Echelon 1 nuclear regulator conducts regular assessments,
while the Navy Nuclear Deterrence Mission Oversight Committee ensures
continuous oversight and transparency. If confirmed, I will uphold the
Navy's commitment to nuclear security, safety, and readiness--aligning
capabilities with threats, reinforcing deterrence, and ensuring
sustained oversight of corrective actions.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Navy
continues to improve the training, readiness, morale, welfare, and
quality of life of the sailors charged to execute and support the
Navy's nuclear mission?
Answer. I understand the criticality of the Navy's nuclear mission
and the important role of our nuclear trained sailors. If confirmed, I
will work with the Navy to provide the highest-level training,
readiness, and Quality of Service for all sailors, improving their
readiness to fight and win. It is my understanding the Navy has
succeeded in implementing lessons learned in the Red Sea, creating a
rapid feedback loop to the Fleet training centers to provide more ready
forces. Furthermore, I will review current Quality of Service
initiatives and, working closely with the Chief of Naval Operations, I
will focus Department efforts on effective, efficient improvements to
the amenities and care we provide our sailors.
amphibious fleet requirements
Question. What is your view of the requirement for the Navy to have
31 amphibious warfare ships in the active inventory?
Answer. I understand the required minimum inventory for Amphibious
Warships is 31 ships, to include no less than 10 large deck, amphibious
assault ships. If confirmed, I would maintain the inventory as required
by law while directing the Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of
the Marine Corps to evaluate our 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan and Force
Structure to ensure our inventory is sufficient.
Question. If confirmed, how would you support the Commandant of the
Marine Corps' goal of having three deployable Amphibious Readiness
Groups and Marine Expeditionary Units at all times?
Answer. As a Navy-Marine Corps team, we will generate ready and
certified forces to meet our service and joint requirements. The Fiscal
Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act delineated in statute a
requirement for not less than 31 traditional amphibious ships. I
support procuring our amphibious ships affordably and as efficiently as
possible to meet this requirement.
Question. It is my understanding that the Navy is working with the
Marine Corps to identify a path to meeting presence requirements.
Additionally, the Navy is focused on improving ship maintenance
outcomes across the portfolio to improve operational readiness levels.
If confirmed, completing availabilities on time and with required work
completed would be a top focus of mine and challenge to the maintenance
and acquisition communities. Fleet commanders must be able to depend on
every ship to be on-time and ready.
ready reserve force (rrf) recapitalization
Question. DOD has developed a three-pronged recapitalization
strategy for the Ready Reserve Force (RRF) and Military Sealift Command
surge fleet consisting of a combination of constructing new vessels,
extending the service life of certain vessels, and acquiring used
vessels.
What is your understanding of the Navy's recapitalization strategy
for the RRF and the affordability of acquiring more than 40 sealift
vessels as outlined in the latest 30-year shipbuilding plan?
Answer. The Navy needs to recapitalize its fleet of Ready Reserve
vessels. I understand the Navy, Military Sealift Command, and the
Maritime Administration are executing a 2-part strategy that includes
buying used roll-on, roll-off vessels, and building new ships. If
confirmed, I will review this plan to ensure it is the most cost-
effective way to quickly recapitalize sealift capacity.
Question. To what extent do you believe the Navy has identified the
appropriate mix of used and new ships to meet sealift and auxiliary
requirements?
Answer. I understand the Navy conducts market research to identify
candidate vessels for the buy-used program and utilizes this research
to continually evaluate the appropriate mix of new and used ships
needed to satisfy the sealift requirement. The buy-used program is
critical to replacing lost capacity and complements the new
construction program while the new vessel is in the design and
construction process.
I understand the Navy procures auxiliaries through new construction
avenues and assesses the feasibility of buying used vessels if
necessary.
If confirmed, I will review each of these strategies to ensure we
deliver the required capacity to the fleet efficiently and on-time.
unmanned systems
Question. The Chief of Naval Operations identified that robotic
autonomous systems are a crucial pillar for the future naval force in
Navigation Plan 2024.
What steps will you take to integrate unmanned systems into the
existing fleet while ensuring operational effectiveness and readiness?
Answer. The Navy's recent IOC of the MQ-4C Triton high-altitude UAS
and its introduction of the MQ-25 Stingray unmanned aerial refueling
tanker are crucial steps toward a future of Manned-Unmanned Teaming in
Naval aviation. These ``pathfinder'' platforms establish the foundation
for autonomous airborne operations within the fleet force structure.
The MQ-4 is already realizing rapid improvement in intelligence
gathering and dissemination across multiple forward locations as Fleet
Commanders increasingly employ its sophisticated sensor suite. The MQ-
25 will carry similar importance within the Carrier Air Wing (CVW),
immediately increasing strike fighter availability by taking over
refueling duties from F/A-18 E/Fs. I understand the Navy is developing
a comprehensive training and support pipeline for the MQ-25, ensuring
proficiency with unmanned systems while maintaining current fleet
readiness. If confirmed, I will study recent actions taken to determine
how to integrate future unmanned systems into the fleet.
Question. If confirmed, how will you prioritize funding for
unmanned systems in the Navy's budget and ensure that all the needs for
doctrine, organizations, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, and
facilities are addressed?
Answer. The unique capabilities that unmanned systems bring to the
naval and joint force are a tremendous force multiplier, and I believe
the Department of the Navy should appropriately and adequately resource
the right solutions and doctrine, organization, training, personnel and
facilities that support these capabilities, particularly in the Indo-
Pacific. There can be no dispute that unmanned systems are now very
much part of the landscape of modern war. Also revealed is the rapid
pace of innovation for these systems, as well as the rapid operational
adoption of the evolving systems in battle. If confirmed, I will
thoroughly examine this issue to ensure the Department of the Navy
investments are properly prioritized in this area by ensuring
appropriate system selection through early, data-driven analysis. This
will include championing joint investment in enabling technologies like
autonomy, mission systems, and communications to guarantee
interoperability across services and with coalition partners, for
example through ongoing all-domain attritable autonomous systems
efforts. I will prioritize timely infrastructure and logistical
readiness, such as the ongoing modifications to Nimitz-class carriers
for unmanned system integration. Furthermore, I will advocate for smart
investments in programs like Collaborative Combat Aircraft, fostering
competition--including non-traditional industry players--to drive down
costs, accelerate timelines, and maintain technological superiority.
Question. How do you plan to ensure interoperability between manned
and unmanned systems, both within the Navy and with other branches of
the armed forces?
Answer. I understand the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are
aligned on key enabling technologies, including mission systems,
autonomy architecture, and communication and command architecture. This
alignment ensures that both manned and unmanned platforms can operate
effectively together, enhancing interoperability across branches. If
confirmed, I will commit to continue collaboration with the other
services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense to ensure that
systems are compatible and ready to integrate seamlessly in joint
operations, supporting interservice coordination and maximizing mission
effectiveness.
Question. What role do you see for small businesses and non-
traditional defense contractors in advancing unmanned technologies?
Answer. Small businesses and non-traditional defense contractors
play an essential role by bringing innovation, competition, and agility
into developing cutting-edge solutions rapidly. If confirmed, I will
work to ensure that the Department of the Navy continues to promote
Small Business Innovation Research / Small Business Technology Transfer
(SBIR/STTR) programs, and DOD small business programs that encourage
participation from smaller firms in critical Navy programs such as the
submarine industrial base. This will streamline acquisition processes
making it easier for small businesses and non-traditional defense
contractors to contribute, establish partnerships facilitating
knowledge exchange between traditional primes and innovative newcomers,
support incubators/accelerators by nurturing groundbreaking ideas that
transform into viable products/services benefiting naval operations
involving unmanned tech advancements and enable warfare centers and
laboratories to actively engage with ecosystems that include non-
traditional and small business partners to drive experimentation and
fleet integration.
Question. The Navy divested all legacy Hornets (F/A-18C/D) from its
Active component squadrons and has stopped buying Super Hornets. What
is the Navy's plan for upgrading and maintaining its Super Hornet fleet
and on what timeline will this plan be executed? What capabilities are
being added or should be added to maintain the Super Hornet's relevance
in the high-end fight?
Answer. I understand the Navy intends to use capability upgrades
and Service Life Modification to enhance inventory and maintain
tactical relevance of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with those
modifications already underway and fully mature. Those upgrades,
including Beyond Line-of-Sight communications, passive survivability
systems, and future weapons capabilities, will deliver relevant
lethality and survivability, while ensuring that the aircraft can
provide the capacity to augment the capability provided by the F-35C.
Should I be confirmed, I will work to ensure the Department is making
investments in capability and sustainment to maintain the Super
Hornet's tactical relevance in a future conflict and to carry out the
required missions articulated in the National Defense Strategy.
Question. The Navy delayed the development of the F/A-XX next
generation strike fighter in the fiscal year 2025 budget request. What
is your view on the future of the carrier air wing and the need for
developing the F/A-XX? Where do you see Collaborative Combat Aircraft
(CCA) fitting into this future? In what ways could the Navy and Air
Force work together on next generation aircraft, if any?
Answer. I understand that the F/A-XX next-generation aircraft,
offering significant advancements in operational reach and capacity
within contested environments, is intended to enable Carrier Strike
Groups to outpace adversaries while maintaining naval air dominance. I
also understand the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are collaborating
closely to ensure interoperability through shared enabling technologies
like autonomy, mission systems, and communication architectures. This
collaborative approach, encompassing both manned and unmanned
platforms, including Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), will maximize
operational effectiveness and flexibility across the services. In my
view, aligning technology development and operational requirements will
ensure the Services are poised to fully leverage next-generation
unmanned systems, ultimately enhancing capabilities and long-range
mission effectiveness.
Question. The Navy is investing in extending the E-2D Advanced
Hawkeye into the 2040's as part of its naval battle management
function.
What is the Navy's approach to air battle management command and
control and how do the Navy and Air Force intend to execute joint air
battle management in a high-end fight?
Answer. I understand the Navy, in conjunction with the Air Force,
Joint Staff and the combatant commanders, is beginning an Office of
Secretary of Defense's (OSD) Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
(CAPE)-directed study to define the requirements for joint air battle
management in a high-end fight. The results of this study will inform
me, if confirmed, and the rest of the Navy leadership as to any
potential investments needed in airborne command and control
capabilities.
Question. Given the new capabilities the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye will
bring to the battlespace, and the new tactics and concepts of operation
it will enable, does the Navy perceive a need for expeditionary
squadrons of E-2Ds? Why or why not?
Answer. The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is designed to operate as part of
the carrier air wing (CVW), and it is the airborne centerpiece of the
Carrier Strike Group air warfare and surface warfare missions. I
understand that in conjunction with the Air Force, the Joint Staff and
the Combatant Commanders, the Navy is beginning a study to define the
requirements for employment of expeditionary joint air battle
management capabilities. The results of this study, to include the
concepts of operations, basing options, training, materiel, and
doctrine, will inform me, if confirmed, and the rest of the Navy
leadership as to any potential investments needed in expeditionary
airborne command and control capabilities.
the f-35 joint strike fighter program
Question. The follow-on modernization of the F-35 is scheduled to
bring key warfighting capabilities to the fleet, but the budget and
schedule remain in flux. The total number of F-35s planned for the
Department of the Navy was set at 680, but the Marine Corps alone has
articulated a requirement for 420 F-35B and F-35C.
Do you believe that the plan for 680 aircraft can fully accommodate
the needs of both the Navy and the Marine Corps?
Answer. I understand the United States Navy and Marine Corps
continuously evaluate the number and types of platforms to ensure they
can meet their commitment to defend U.S. interests around the globe,
maintain a high State of readiness for any contingency, and be prepared
to ensure Naval and Marine air dominance in times of war. If confirmed,
I will evaluate this requirement and ensure the Navy and Marine Corps
are right sized to meet these objectives.
Question. How many of the Marine Corps' current F-35Bs will not be
upgraded to Block 4?
Answer. My understanding is that the Marine Corps has not yet fully
defined the desired capabilities for a Block 4 upgrade. Therefore, if
confirmed, I will evaluate the Marine Corps' Short Take-Off and
Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35, to gain a comprehensive
understanding of the Marine Corps evolving operational needs and
translate those into clear requirements for a potential Block 4
upgrade.
Question. What is the appropriate mix of F-35B and F-35C in the
Marine Corps?
Answer. I understand the Marine Corps continually assesses its
platforms--ensuring it has the right number and types--to fulfill its
mission of defending U.S. interests globally, maintaining a high State
of readiness, and guaranteeing Naval and Marine air dominance in times
of war. If confirmed, I will evaluate this requirement to ensure the
Marine Corps is appropriately sized to meet these objectives.
Question. What do you view as the biggest challenges to successful
integration of the F-35 into the carrier air wing?
Answer. The F-35 is the most lethal and capable multi-mission
aircraft in the United States Navy's inventory. It provides stealth,
sensor fusion, and interoperability that is unmatched by any 4th
generation aircraft. Accordingly, it serves as a deterrent against our
most advanced adversaries and is in high demand. Unfortunately, the
speed at which the Navy can procure and deploy these aircraft to
promote our national security objectives remains the biggest challenge
to successful integration of the F-35 into the carrier air wing.
Question. The F-35B brings new capabilities and operational
possibilities to the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). What is your
vision for how the F-35B can enhance amphibious assault ship
connectivity with the joint force? What are the Navy's current plans to
achieve that vision?
Answer. The F-35 delivers unparalleled joint force connectivity and
will remain a force multiplier for decades to come. Due to its rapid
deployability with Marine Expeditionary Units, my vision is to use F-
35B as a critical asset for crisis response, providing the Joint Force
with immediate connectivity, advanced sensing capabilities, and fire
support. This ability to rapidly process and share data across the
battlefield, especially at the tactical edge, provides a decisive
advantage over adversaries. If confirmed, I plan to prioritize
investments in capabilities, such as F-35B, that enhance warfighter
situational awareness and enable decision dominance, creating a more
lethal and effective force.
modernization of marine corps capabilities
Question. The Marine Corps' concepts for modernization of its
amphibious capabilities have included Ship-to-Shore Connectors, Landing
Ship Medium, LCU-1700's, and Amphibious Combat Vehicles.
What is your assessment of the current capability of amphibious
maneuver and assault systems in the Navy and Marine Corps?
Answer. I understand that amphibious surface mobility is critical
to enable ship-to-shore and shore-to-shore maneuver and sustainment in
support of distributed maritime operations. Navy is modernizing its
landing craft inventory with the steady procurement of Ship to Shore
Connector and LCU-1700's to ensure the fleet has the capacity needed
for global crisis response and amphibious operations. In addition to
landing craft, a purpose-built Landing Ship Medium (LSM) is essential
and will be procured and delivered to support intra-theater operational
mobility and tactical maneuver to enable naval expeditionary forces,
such as Marine Littoral Regiments, campaigning to deter threats in the
Indo-Pacific, and in times of crisis or conflict. If confirmed, I will
confer with the Commandant of the Marine Corps to understand the Marine
Corps' current capabilities as well as the readiness of the assets and
any gaps in capabilities that the Marine Corps has identified.
Question. If confirmed, how would you prioritize the development
and acquisition of capabilities required for sea basing, connectors,
and armored amphibious assault and tactical mobility ashore to achieve
a full spectrum capability in the Marine Corps?
Answer. If confirmed, I will confer with the Commandant of the
Marine Corps to understand the Marine Corps' current capabilities, as
well as the readiness of the assets and any gaps in capabilities that
the Marine Corps has identified. In my view, I believe the development
and acquisition of capabilities required for sea basing, connectors,
and armored amphibious assault and tactical mobility ashore should be
prioritized to holistically support the amphibious warfare requirements
of the Marine Corps. We must have prioritization must include a
realistic balance between new acquisitions and effective, economical
upgrades to legacy capabilities.
Question. Given the Marine Corps' operating concept of the stand-in
force, how will the Navy ensure that such forces are adequately
sustained in a contested environment?
Answer. I understand the Navy has identified Contested Logistics as
one of five Key Capabilities in the 2024 Navigation Plan. Contested
Logistics includes essential skills, technologies and assets to achieve
strategic naval objectives, including supporting sustainment of Marine
Corps stand-in forces.
munitions
Question. Navy munitions inventories--particularly for precision
guided munitions and air to air missiles--have declined significantly
due to high operational usage, insufficient procurement, poor program
execution, and a requirements system that does not adequately account
for the ongoing need to transfer munitions to our allies.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure the Navy has
sufficient inventories of munitions to meet the needs of combatant
commanders?
Answer. Recent events have exposed the inability of our munitions
industrial base to meet the demands of a high-intensity conflict.
Modern weapons often rely on complex, global supply chains, leaving us
vulnerable to adversaries. If confirmed, I will implement a multi-
pronged approach. First, I expect the Department will invest in
cutting-edge technologies like hypersonic weapons, directed energy, and
autonomous systems, while enhancing our cyber warfare capabilities.
Second, I expect the Department will revitalize the industrial based by
incentivizing domestic production, streamlining regulations, and
securing critical supply chains. Third, I expect the Department will
order a renewed focus on operational wargaming, leveraging data and
analysis to ensure our commanders have the most effective weapons and
munitions for any contingency. These actions will guarantee our
military remains the most lethal fighting force in the world.
Question. If confirmed, what changes in budgeting and acquisition
processes would you recommend to facilitate faster Navy munitions
replenishment rates?
Answer. If confirmed, I will direct a munitions acquisition and
industrial base strategy that aligns resources and objectives. It will
encompass organizational structure, acquisition processes, and
communications with industry. The Department will build on momentum
that Congress has given us in legislation. We will also provide
industry a clear demand signal to build investment strategies and
accurately plan. I would also explore all means to onboard new
commercial entrants and increase competition. The department also needs
to create a stable funding stream that is protected from programmatic
rebalancing to maintain a consistent demand signal and encourage small
businesses to participate.
Question. If confirmed, how will you address the cost-exchange
ratio challenges experienced in the Red Sea where more expensive rounds
are used to defeat anti-ship threats?
Answer. The Red Sea engagements provided valuable lessons. While
cost exchange ratios are a useful metric against low-cost threats, they
don't encompass the full complexity of naval warfare. I fully support a
Captain utilizing the most effective means available to eliminate
threats and protect their multibillion-dollar ship and crew. However,
we must provide them with a wider variety of reliable options beyond
their current limited and costly solutions. If confirmed, I will
prioritize expanding development of layered ship defense capabilities,
including guns, directed energy, loitering munitions, and other
innovative technologies.
Question. The Navy has long been at the forefront of development
for new and novel energetic materials, especially at places like the
Naval Surface Warfare Center-Indian Head Division and the Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake. However, since the end of the cold war the
Navy has struggled to maintain investment to keep up with developments
from adversary nations in this space.
What do you see as the levers to motivate the defense industrial
base to make additional capital investment (for facilities and
tooling), as well as research and development investments to broaden
the range of energetic materials available to the Navy?
Answer. The defense industrial base has several options to pursue
additional capital investment to refine and expand their ability to
deliver energetic materials solutions to the Navy. OSD and Navy
Manufacturing Technology programs, Small Business Innovation Research
grants, Small Business Technology Transfer grants, the Office of
Strategic Capital, and other OUSD R&E programs all provide significant
capital investments opportunities. In addition, procurement officials
can better apply contracting incentives to encourage industry to meet
or exceed production deadlines. The organic industrial base serves as a
critical lever to develop, transition, and surge energetics capacity by
working industry.
Question. How is the Navy considering incorporation of new
energetic materials, like CL-20, or new manufacturing processes for
energetics, like biomanufacturing, into existing munitions to increase
explosive effects or operational envelope of its weapons?
Answer. I understand that the Navy is working to integrate higher
performance energetic materials, like CL-20 into existing munitions as
they allow for increased lethality while decreasing size. From what I
understand, the Navy's organic industrial base locations at Indian Head
and China Lake are at the forefront of exploring these modern
processing methods for both energetics, and non-energetics, that will
allow for scaled approaches or bring on additional entrants. I am also
aware that biomanufacturing of energetic ingredients may provide a
great opportunity to decrease reliance on foreign sources.
freedom of navigation
Question. In your view, what role should the Navy play in
supporting the freedom of navigation in international waters, including
in the South China Sea and in the Arctic?
Answer. The Navy plays a vital leadership role in ensuring
international waters and airspace are free and open. This freedom of
navigation and overflight is crucial to the flow of global commerce and
to the national security interests and prosperity of the United States,
as outlined in the Title 10 mission of the Navy.
The Department of the Navy plays a pivotal role in preserving these
navigational rights through presence and global operations. Protecting
this freedom of navigation and overflight is especially important in
strategically contested areas like the South China Sea and the Arctic.
Question. If confirmed, how would you lead the Navy in engaging our
allies in the common cause of ensuring freedom of navigation?
Answer. Freedom of navigation and overflight is fundamental to our
national interests and the preservation of the global economic order.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of the Navy continues
to defend America's access to the global commons, including freedom of
navigation and overflight rights. I will work closely with our Allies
and partners to ensure a shared understanding of the necessity of
freedom of navigation, to reinforce our collective security, and to
vigilantly assert and preserve the navigation and overflight rights
that are essential to our collective security and prosperity.
cyber and electronic warfare
Question. Section 1657 of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) directed the appointment of an independent
Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA) for each Military Department, to act as
the principal advisor to the Secretary concerned on all cyber matters
affecting that Department.
If confirmed, how would you plan to utilize the Navy PCA as part of
your leadership structure?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the PCA remains my independent
advisor solely focused on the Department of the Navy's (DON) cyberspace
activities, in accordance with section 392a of Title 10 of the U.S.
Code. I will expect the PCA to certify the adequacy of the DON's
cyberspace activities budget and provide funding recommendations based
on their analysis. In addition to coordinating within the Navy and
Marine Corps, I expect the PCA to effectively engage with the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Combatant Commands, and Military
Departments to ensure I am fully informed of the Department's
cyberspace activities.
Question. What are the Department of the Navy's top 3 Cyber
Challenges, and how will you use the Principal Cyber Advisor to address
them?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's top three challenges are:
securing defense critical infrastructure and weapon systems; increasing
cyber force readiness; and executing critical modernization efforts.
Removing legacy information technology, modernizing cryptography,
implementing zero trust, and hardening classified networks all
contribute to modernizing the Department of the Navy. Importantly, the
readiness of our military and civilian workforce is critical for
achieving our priorities in cyberspace. It is my understanding that the
Navy and Marine Corps have made notable progress in strengthening
cybersecurity and resiliency in operational technology environments and
in improving the readiness of their personnel in the Cyber Mission
Force. Additionally, the Department of the Navy recently delivered the
first fully validated implementation of a true Zero Trust architecture
in the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I will expect the PCA to
work closely with the Chief Information Officer and Navy and Marine
Corps stakeholders to drive tangible outcomes in these areas.
Question. In November 2023, the Navy released its inaugural Cyber
Strategy. In your view, how well postured are the Navy and the Marine
Corps to meet the goals outlined in the 2023 Department of the Navy
Cyber Strategy?
Answer. The 2023 Department of the Navy Cyber Strategy outlines an
effective path forward for the naval services in cyberspace. I believe
the Navy and Marine Corps can achieve the goals outlined in the
Department of the Navy Cyber Strategy and are demonstrating success in
key areas. Where works remains to be done, I will support the necessary
combination of personnel, resources, and funding to drive credible
outcomes in alignment with the Department of the Navy Cyber Strategy.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to enhance Navy and Marine
Corps information dominance capabilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would seek a detailed briefing on our
information dominance capabilities and determine resourcing, workforce,
and innovation priorities to integrate into the joint force's
modernization efforts. I will maintain a close partnership with our
industrial base which will be critical in achieving success. I would
also engage with the Secretary of Defense to ensure our maritime
information forces have the authorities needed to accomplish national
security objectives.
Question. Given the difficulty in defining where cyber operations
and electronic warfare merge, if confirmed, how you would organize,
train, and equip the Navy to minimize gaps and seams in these two
critical mission areas?
Answer. The Information Warfare Community integrates Naval
information-based capabilities to include cyber operations and
electronic warfare. If confirmed, I will empower the Naval Information
Warfare Community to recruit, retain and promote the most skilled and
qualified sailors to train and conduct integrated fires to effectively
deter and combat threats to our Nation. These actions align to the
Department of the Navy Cyber Strategy which calls for effective
sequencing and synchronization of non-kinetic effects to generate
decisive advantages.
Question. The Navy has had the hardest time among the military
services in training and retaining cyber forces provided to US Cyber
Command for the Cyber Mission Force.
What ideas do you have to improve the readiness of cyber mission
forces within the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate for integrating cyber course
curricula into service training centers to bring force generation under
direct service control for greater efficiency. I will advocate for
continued investment in recently acquired infrastructure to ensure all
training is completed before personnel report to their teams,
maintaining readiness and effectiveness. I will continue to work with
CYBERCOM to implement cyber incentives that help drive advanced skills
and retain a qualified workforce and I look forward to working with
Congress on this issue.
Question. In what ways could Navy cyber forces be better leveraged
to address tactical cyber effects at a theater warfighting level?
Answer. I believe the Navy is in a unique position to take
advantage of extended access granted via waterways to support cyber
effects in the littoral zone. Small cyber tactical teams deployed on
Navy platforms could be force multipliers in a contested environment.
navy-related defense industrial base
Question. What is your assessment of the Maritime Industrial Base
(MIB) program office? If confirmed, how would you coordinate this
office with the Program Executive Officers?
Answer. It is my understanding the Navy's Maritime Industrial Base
program office is the Navy's lead organization to integrate,
facilitate, and support efforts across the Department of the Navy, the
Department of Defense, other U.S. Government agencies, and industrial
base partners to develop and execute programmatic efforts to increase
the capacity of the maritime industrial base, to scale and deploy
modern manufacturing technologies, and to support the development of a
new generation of skilled workforce that support our national security
programs. This effort includes closely working with the Program
Executive Officers to ensure real portfolio and platform needs and
requirements are being met. Revitalizing the Nation's maritime
industrial base is a national security imperative. If confirmed, I
would work with these offices to ensure the industrial base is capable
of supporting the Department of the Navy's national security missions,
and ability to surge in response to a dynamic threat environment.
Question. What is your assessment of the systems and processes for
identifying, evaluating, and managing risk in the Navy's industrial
base, especially the shipbuilding industrial base?
Answer. The Navy's industrial base, particularly the shipbuilding
sector, plays a critical role in ensuring national security, so
understanding and being responsive to the systems and processes for
managing risks within this sector is vital. The Maritime Industrial
Base program office directly reporting to the Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition (ASN RD&A) is
responsible for assessing, tracking, and reporting on the performance
of the industrial base and its ability to meet the Department's
shipbuilding acquisition programs' needs. If confirmed, I intend to
better understand the drivers that are impacting the performance of the
Navy's industrial base and the ways we can more proactively respond to
those drivers.
Question. If confirmed, would you support expanding the strategy of
dedicated industrial base funds currently used for the submarine
industrial base to other capabilities?
Answer. Stabilizing, modernizing, and expanding the defense
industrial base may require dedicated industrial base funds, and likely
a model similar to that currently used for the submarine industrial
base. The dedicated funding model for the submarine supply base is
addressing the unique challenges and complexities associated with
nuclear platform construction and maintenance, especially given the
high costs, long production cycles, and specialized workforce required.
Applying this approach to other defense capabilities would require
careful evaluation of the needs and landscape of each sector. If
confirmed, I will undertake this evaluation.
Question. If confirmed, how will you improve the timeliness and
quality of the qualification, certification, and test process for
suppliers to participate in the Navy's industrial base?
Answer. If confirmed, as the Navy develops advanced munitions and
the maritime industrial base, I will ensure the Department eliminates
the bureaucracy that prevents these capabilities from transitioning to
the battlefield.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure prime contractors
leverage new or expanded sources of supply?
Answer. The Navy must ensure that both our prime contractors and
our Program Offices can equally access our new and expanded sources of
supply. We can structure contracts and incentives to build resiliency
in the production lines. The Navy should evaluate its license rights
over technical data and proactively certify new sources where critical
sub-components have been identified. We must partner with our Primes,
to balance adding new sources vs spreading procurement too thin.
Question. How would you seek to ensure the Navy engages with the
broadest industrial base possible, including traditional contractors,
nontraditional contractors, and small businesses?
Answer. This is one of the most exciting times to be developing new
warfighting solutions for the Navy. Navy has access to a new set of
commercial entrants and a revitalized organic industrial base. Navy
must use it all and leverage existing programs to reach all types of
businesses. If confirmed, I would instruct my acquisition executives to
develop engagement plans to bring our challenges and opportunities
directly to industry and to our defense association partners who can
reach up and down our supply chains, in collaboration with our
Department of Defense innovation organization partners.
operational energy and energy resilience
Question. The Department defines operational energy as the energy
required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and
weapons platforms for military operations, including the energy used by
tactical power systems and generators. Department of Defense energy
requirements are projected to increase due to technological advances in
weapons systems and the execution of distributed operations over longer
operating distances.
If confirmed, how would you lead the Navy in harnessing innovations
in operational energy and linking them with emerging joint operational
concepts in order to reduce contested logistics vulnerabilities for
warfighters?
Answer. If confirmed, I will leverage my experience and harness the
Department of the Navy subject matter experts to identify and
accelerate operational energy innovation advancements that improve
warfighting capability. These innovations, coupled with emerging joint
operational concepts, will assist with reducing contested logistics
vulnerabilities for our warfighters.
Question. In what specific areas, if any, do you believe the Navy
needs to improve the incorporation of energy considerations and
alternative energy resources into the strategic planning processes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to understand the role of energy
considerations and alternative energy resources in the Navy's strategic
planning process.
Question. How can energy supportability that reduces contested
logistics vulnerabilities become a key performance parameter in the
requirements process beyond just a ``check the box'' consideration?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use my business background and
exercise oversight to ensure that key energy performance indicators are
aligned with mission needs. I believe that the integration of energy
supportability issues early in the capability development process is
essential to enhancing our warfighting capabilities while also
mitigating logistical risks in contested environments.
Question. It is essential that DOD maintain capability to sustain
critical operations in the event of an energy disruption--including
commercial grid outages.
If confirmed, specifically to Guam, how would you inculcate energy
resilience as a mission assurance priority for the Department of the
Navy, including acquiring and deploying sustainable and renewable
energy assets to support mission critical functions and address known
vulnerabilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that mission assurance
assessments and installation energy plans inform the evaluation of
generation, distribution, and storage technologies available to meet
Department of Navy energy resiliency requirements. Furthermore, the
Department of the Navy is part of a whole of government effort to
mitigate known vulnerabilities, including vulnerabilities to cyber
threats to Guam's energy infrastructure, to ensure that the Navy and
Marine Corps critical missions are supported.
Question. How can the Department of the Navy better integrate
energy security and resilience as standard components of its Military
Construction (MILCON) programs, in your view?
Answer. The DON integrates Installation Energy Plans into the
master planning process to inform necessary enhancements of the
Department's energy security and resilience posture. If confirmed, I
will ensure critical mission energy requirements identified in the
Installation Energy Plans are included in the MILCON process to better
support warfighter readiness.
installation modernization and resilience
Question. Decades of underinvestment in Department of Defense
installations has led to substantial backlogs in facilities
maintenance, and substandard living and working conditions for sailors
and marines.
In your view, how is the readiness of navy shore installations
linked to the readiness and lethality of naval power?
Answer. Navy and Marine Corps shore installations are the platforms
from which our sailors and marines train, equip, and operate their
aircraft, ships, submarines, and weapons systems for future deployment.
This makes the capabilities of these installations a key component of
the readiness of the Fleets and Fleet Marine Forces and facilitates the
lethality of the Navy and Marine Corps forces. Infrastructure and
facilities capabilities are derived from military operational
requirements. Shore Installations are a critical piece of mission
performance that directly impact the operations and maintenance of our
offensive and defensive weapons systems and the Quality of Life and
Quality of Service for sailors and marines.
Question. In your view, does the Department of the Navy receive
adequate funding for base operations support, writ large? Please
explain your answer.
Answer. From what I understand, the systemic underfunding of the
maintenance, sustainment, and modernization funding for aging shore
infrastructure requirements has led to a backlog of maintenance needs
and degraded systems across the DON. Like many communities across the
Nation, the Department shore installations are upwards of 60 years old.
Modernization of the core utilities, telecommunications, and
transportation infrastructure is far more expensive and requires
significantly more funding to upgrade. If confirmed, I will look for
innovative solutions to update the Department's infrastructure within
our designated budget and available authorities.
Question. Do you have any specific plans to leverage infrastructure
modernization to improve the quality of life for Navy and Marine Corps
servicemembers and their families, who are under considerable strain as
a result of repeated deployments?
Answer. Quality of Life is an important aspect of Readiness.
Ensuring sailors and marines are afforded the quality resources from
which to work and quality facilities in which to live is a top
priority. If confirmed, I am committed to identifying and supporting
opportunities that will sustain and improve the quality of life for
sailors, marines, and their families and I am supportive of the
Department's efforts to prioritize critical infrastructure and Quality
of Life projects, including the focus on unaccompanied housing.
environment
Question. According to the GAO, the Navy has identified 127
installations with known or suspected releases of perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
What is your understanding of the Department of the Navy's strategy
for monitoring drinking water on Navy and Marine Corps installations,
as well as public and private drinking water off-installation, for
PFOS, PFOA, and other contaminants?
Answer. It is my understanding that consistent with Department of
Defense policy, the Navy and Marine Corps will monitor and treat for
Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in drinking water, in
compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) April
2024 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation final rule
requirements, for Navy and Marine Corps-owned drinking water systems in
the United States, including those drinking water systems not subject
to EPA's rule, but which provide drinking water to our on-installation
communities.
For public and private drinking water wells off-installation, I
understand the Navy has been proactively addressing elevated PFAS
levels from Navy and Marine Corps sources under Federal cleanup law,
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Currently, the Navy addresses PFAS in private wells from
Navy and Marine Corps sources in accordance with the Department of
Defense policy memo, ``Prioritization of Department of Defense Cleanup
Actions to Implement the Federal Drinking Water Standards for Per-and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Under the Defense Environmental Restoration
Program.'' This policy describes DOD's plans to incorporate EPA's PFAS
drinking water levels into DOD's ongoing PFAS cleanups and prioritize
actions to address private drinking water wells with the highest levels
of PFAS from DOD activities.
Question. If confirmed, how would you further efforts to identify
and remediate PFOS/PFOA contamination on Navy installations, including
Reserve component locations?
Answer. This program is vital to protect the health of sailors,
marines, civilians, their families, and the communities in which they
serve, and I will commit to supporting this program to the benefit of
our long-term mission goals.
science, technology, and innovation
Question. What are the key technologies that the Navy should be
focused on to support modernization activities?
Answer. I recognize that invention, innovation and modernization
are the driving forces behind technological breakthroughs, ultimately
leading to a more dominant maritime force. Our potential adversaries
have demonstrated significant science and technology capability that
challenges our capacity to maintain our technological lead. I believe
the Department should focus on technologies across a spectrum of
cutting-edge fields, including artificial intelligence driven
autonomous systems and advanced decisionmaking systems, quantum
capabilities, advanced materials and maritime cybersecurity. A forward-
looking approach will ensure our naval superiority.
Question. What do you see at the role of the Navy's in-house
laboratories and research and development centers in supporting Navy
modernization goals?
Answer. The Office of Naval Research, Naval Research Lab and the
Naval Warfare Centers are critical to the Naval fighting capabilities.
They are engines of innovation, bringing the warfighter, industry and
domain area experts together to tackle hard technical challenges and
deliver for the Fleet and Force. They actively work in a number of
areas that address the scientific and technological foundation needed
to support Naval modernization goals with emerging technologies
including cyber, directed energy, advanced sensor technologies,
artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, quantum sensors and
quantum computing, advanced manufacturing technologies for ships,
submarines and air platforms, advanced electronics, swarming
technologies, space and terrestrial robotics, hypersonics,
biotechnologies for logistics advantage and warfighter performance,
communications and networking technology, and advanced electronic
warfare (EW).
It is important to maintain a robust portfolio that not only works
with industry and other stakeholders to develop disruptive
capabilities, but also supporting the increased lethality,
survivability and affordability of our current platforms.
Question. Are there enduring technology areas that might not be
considered emerging (for example, energetic materials, or corrosion
control) that the Navy should remain focused on as categories outside
of the modernization priorities?
Answer. I understand that the Office of Naval Research, Naval
Research Lab and the Warfare Centers are actively working in several
foundational areas that address the scientific and technological
components supporting operations in the harsh maritime environment,
significant deep ocean depths and other unique Naval mission areas. The
Navy fights from the deep oceans to space and to pace the threat
requires a wide range of superior technology across numerous domains.
Question. How should the Navy make investment decisions to balance
the needs between these emerging and enduring technology areas?
Answer. It is a national security imperative to achieve and
maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global Naval technological
dominance. To do so, I believe the Navy must strike a balance between
investments that make the current Fleet and Force more lethal and
survivable with--higher risk--potentially high impact capabilities in
the future. Visionary investments made many years ago resulted in the
capabilities our sailors and marines have use in the fight with great
effect today. Near-term readiness will be paramount to ensuring
deployed and deploying forces are prepared for any challenges they may
encounter. Still, the Department of the Navy must make investment
decisions in Naval cutting-edge science and technologies that will be
transitioned to industry and acquisition to scale and support. The Navy
incorporates science and technology into its war games to shape the
future of the Fleet and Force, and experiments at sea to drive the
solutions it needs near term. Naval research teams bring industry,
leading researchers and other innovative problem solvers to the table
to help us make the right choices. If confirmed, I intend to make
strategy-driven, data-informed decisions maximizing effectiveness to
balance near-term capacity with future capability requirements and
modernization opportunities with enduring Naval needs.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to support the
Navy's in-house innovation enterprise at its labs and engineering
centers?
Answer. The Naval Warfare Centers and Naval Research Laboratory
have a proud legacy of innovation, seamlessly transitioning cutting-
edge scientific discoveries into real-world capabilities for the Naval
Services and our Nation's fleet. Today, they are agile and on-call
supporting the warfighter pivoting technology to pace our adversaries.
The workforce, comprised of brilliant scientists, engineers, and
dedicated business and administrative personnel, is a strategic
advantage. These individuals, working collaboratively across the Naval
Research and Development Enterprise (NRDE), form the very foundation of
technological edge, driving discovery, development, and delivery of
critical technologies to our warfighters.
If confirmed, I am committed to further strengthening the Naval
laboratory enterprise, recognizing its critical role as our ``technical
bench.'' This enterprise spans the full spectrum, from groundbreaking
science and technology development, to providing indispensable
technical expertise, to acquisition programs, and sustaining our fleet
and force to support the Naval research and development enterprise
efforts to address workforce challenges, anticipate emerging technology
requirements, and modernize infrastructure.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that a greater
percentage of the technologies being developed by Navy labs transition
into programs of record for deployment to the warfighter? How would you
ensure that appropriate technologies are transitioning more quickly
into programs of record?
Answer. The ultimate goal of research investments is to put
capability into the hands of sailors and marines to fight and win.
Sailors and marines operate in a world of evolving security threats and
rapid technological change. It is vital to accelerate discovery and
delivery, and key to that is partnerships with industry and the
Nation's commercial innovative capacity. Successful transitions in the
innovative naval prototype and future naval capability portfolio have
coupled the pioneering science and technology development of our
research and technology teams such as the Warfare Centers, Office of
Naval Research and the Naval Research Laboratory, academia and other
partners with commercial industry earlier resulting in faster
capability with firm commitments to acquisition to support smoother
integration into our Fleet.
Additionally, our Naval Warfare Centers, have consistently provided
responsive technical leadership and engineering support to our programs
of record, directly connected to the Fleet and Force, they are a key
enabler for transitioning technologies into the demanding environments
our warfighters operate within.
In that regard, I would encourage and support quick reaction
efforts that apply new technology capabilities to solve current
warfighting gaps and give us an advantage over our adversaries.
Question. What efforts is the Department of the Navy making to
identify new technologies developed commercially by the private sector
and apply them to military and national security purposes?
Answer. The Navy must seek ways to engage new industry partners to
support the Fleet and Force. I understand NavalX, working in
conjunction with the Naval Warfare Centers and Department of Defense
innovation partners, works to lower the barrier of entry to bring new
capabilities to the table. They execute deliberate and dedicated
efforts to foster innovation ecosystems with non-traditional,
commercial industry partners and enable the exposure and
experimentation of those commercially available and developing
technologies in operationally relevant environments supporting
transition opportunities. Navy efforts to spearhead innovation and
competitiveness in critical and emerging technologies is essential as
Navy is fostering the transition of science and technology from across
traditional and non-traditional partners. Office of Naval Research
develops and enables the business of innovation within the Department
of the Navy to expand the Naval industrial base via engagement with
traditional and nontraditional innovative commercial partners,
entrepreneurs, and academia to innovate and rapidly identify and
transition cutting edge technologies with military application to the
warfighter for competitive advantage.
Question. How do you think the Navy needs to approach the testing,
experimentation and integration of such commercial technologies in
parallel with traditional innovation processes?
Answer. Rapid experimentation is a foundational learning tool used
across the full spectrum of technology maturity. The Navy and Marine
Corps must focus on conducting a wide array of experimentation,
bringing new and enduring industry partners, the research teams, and
most importantly the sailors and marines to learn and drive solutions.
Navy must learn from these experiments as well as current system
employment in operations.
military health system (mhs) reform
Question. Do you support the implementation of the MHS reforms
mandated by the NDAAs for fiscal years 2017, 2019, and 2020?
Answer. Yes. I understand the mandated reforms intended an
integrated system of readiness and health. The MHS is critical to the
Navy's ability to generate medically ready operational forces, and I
understand the DON is committed to helping stabilize the MHS with a
staffed and ready medical force.
Question. Will you ensure that the Navy continues to provide the
military medical personnel needed to provide care in these facilities?
Answer. Yes. The Department is committed to supporting the Defense
Health Agency with predictable military staffing to support healthcare
delivery for our sailors, marines and their families, concurrently
continuing to train, sustain, and modernize our medical forces in
support of operational missions.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Navy reduces
its medical headquarters' staffs and infrastructure to reflect the more
limited roles and responsibilities of the Navy Surgeon General?
Answer. It is my understanding that Navy Medicine underwent two
significant cuts of both military and civilian manpower due to the
transfer of military treatment facility oversight to the Defense Health
Agency. If confirmed, I will ensure our medical headquarters structure
complies with the readiness responsibilities retained by the Navy and
the Marine Corps.
end strength
Question. The Navy's Active Duty end strength was 352,633 in fiscal
year 2021 and has fallen to a requested average end strength of 332,933
in fiscal year 2025. The Marine Corps' Active Duty end strength is also
shrinking from 179,678 in fiscal year 2021 to 172,300 requested in
fiscal year 2025.
Do you believe that Navy and Marine Corps end strengths are
appropriate and sufficient to meet national defense objections? Please
explain your answer.
Answer. Navy and Marine Corps end strength must be sufficient to
address the Nation's security challenges. If confirmed, I would assess
Navy and Marine Corps end strength together with the mission
requirements and budget factors driving those numbers.
Question. GAO report ``Navy Readiness'' (GAO-24-106525) found that
surface ships were undermanned by 19 to 37 percent leading to work
overload. If confirmed, what steps will you take to support adequate
personnel aboard ships?
Answer. I understand the Navy has significant gaps in sea
assignments, largely from increasing operational requirements. My
understanding is that the forward deployed ships are manned at the
highest levels to ensure operational readiness. Proper ship manning is
essential to operational readiness and the well-being of our sailors.
If confirmed, I would ensure the Navy aggressively addresses these gaps
and employs effective efforts to attract and retain America's best and
brightest.
navy and marine corps reserves
Question. What is your vision for the roles and missions of the
Navy and Marine Corps Reserves? If confirmed, what objectives would you
seek to achieve with respect to the organization, force structure, and
end strength of the Navy Reserve? Of the Marine Corps Reserve?
Answer. Warfighting Readiness is Priority One. The Navy and Marine
Corps Reserve Forces provide strategic depth to the most powerful Navy
and Marine Corps in the world and stand ready to carry out missions
across the globe. The Reserve Forces can rapidly mobilize and deploy to
support emerging and steady-State operations for the Navy, Marine
Corps, and Joint Force. If confirmed, I will work with leaders across
the Department of Navy and the Department of Defense to expand our
Nation's Maritime Dominance by ensuring our Reserve Components are
sized and organized for maximum readiness and lethality.
Question. Do you expect to meet prior service accession goals for
the Navy and Marine Corps Reserves this fiscal year? Please explain
your answer.
Answer. It is my understanding from public reporting that the Navy
and Marine Corps are both on track to meet their accession goals this
year. If confirmed, I will work with the Services to meet accession
goals.
recruiting and retention
Question. The 2024 National Defense Strategy Commission stated that
``The DOD workforce and the all-volunteer force provide an unmatched
advantage. However, recruiting failures have shrunk the force and raise
serious questions about the all-volunteer force in peacetime, let alone
in major combat.'' In addition, DOD studies indicate that only about 23
percent of today's youth population is eligible for military service,
and only a fraction of those who meet military accession standards are
interested in serving.
In response to military recruiting difficulties, the Navy has
lowered enlistment standards more than any other service, including
accepting category IV recruits at the maximum amount allowed by law and
lowering the test scores required to serve in dozens of enlisted
ratings.
In your view, what is the risk associated with accessing large
numbers of category IV recruits, and if confirmed, do you intend to
continue with this practice?
Answer. The Department of the Navy must play a role in inspiring
America's young people to serve, ensuring they meet the high standards
of enlistment, and developing them so that they continue to meet those
high standards throughout their careers. I am committed to evaluating
and thus ensuring the highest fitness and aptitude standards. I
understand the Navy has recently accepted additional recruits with
lower Armed Forces Qualification Test scores, but requires they
complete the Future Sailor Preparatory Course intended to improve
aptitude prior to bootcamp. If confirmed, I intend to review the risks,
benefits, and mitigation strategies the Navy has put in place, and will
assess if any changes are necessary.
Question. Rather than relying solely on ever-higher compensation
for a shrinking pool of volunteers, what creative initiatives would you
implement, if confirmed, to expand the pool of eligible recruits and
improve Navy and Marine Corps recruiting?
Answer. Service in the Navy or Marine Corps offers the American
public a value proposition that is both exciting and unique relative to
typical private sector occupations. I understand the Navy and Marine
Corps, and the Department of Defense as a whole, have been proactively
exploring opportunities to expand the pool of eligible recruits. If
confirmed, I would consider all potential options to expand our reach
across the country so that the Department of the Navy maximizes our
ability to find high-quality young Americans interested and able to
serve. I would also ensure we are making informed and right-sized
investments and modernizing our efforts to recruit effectively in an
evolving market for talent and effectively conveying the value of
service within our two military branches.
Question. In your view, what effect do current recruiting
standards--particularly DOD-wide criteria for tier-one recruits--have
on recruit attrition and/or future success in the Navy and the Marine
Corps?
Answer. I believe higher-quality recruits are more likely to
succeed. If confirmed, I will review data concerning the degree to
which current recruiting standards predict success in the Navy and
Marine Corps. If these standards are less likely to yield effective
lethality and deterrence, I will work with leaders in the DOD to modify
those standards.
Question. What recommendations would you have for increasing the
pool of youth who are both eligible and disposed for military service?
Answer. I believe the Department of the Navy should be partnering
with all stakeholders to demonstrate the value of service to one's
personal and professional growth and future opportunities. The
opportunity for training and education is world class and we should be
showcasing that to all Americans. The Department of the Navy must play
a role in inspiring America's young people to serve, ensuring they meet
the high standards of enlistment, and developing them so that they
continue to meet those high standards during their careers. If
confirmed, I look forward to sharing the story of naval service with
lawmakers, educators, and community leaders who can carry that message
back to their communities.
military compensation
Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of military
compensation?
Answer. Regular evaluation of military compensation is necessary to
ensure that pay and benefits for servicemembers remain competitive. I
understand that the 14th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation
(QRMC) found that regular military compensation remains very
competitive relative to civilian earnings for those with similar
education levels and work experience. The QRMC also found that special
and incentive pays remain effective means of increasing the recruitment
and retention of personnel with skills that command higher wages in the
civilian marketplace or who need to be compensated for particularly
arduous or dangerous duties. Ultimately, the relevant gauge of the
adequacy of military compensation is whether we are able to recruit and
retain sufficient talent to man the Navy and Marine Corps. It is my
understanding that the Navy and Marine Corps are currently achieving
recruiting and retention goals in the aggregate, but face challenges
for specific skillsets. If confirmed, I will work closely with Navy and
Marine Corps leadership to preserve our recruiting and retention in an
ever-changing environment.
the gi bill, voluntary education, and credentialing programs
Question. Do Navy and Marine Corps Voluntary Education Programs
contribute to military readiness, in your view? Please explain your
answer.
Answer. It is my understanding that the voluntary education
programs play a key role in enhancing military readiness because they
contribute to the development of a skilled and accomplished force and
promote recruitment and retention. From my experience in the private
sector, I recognize that education is a powerful recruiting and
retention tool that helps members of a team realize their full
professional and personal potential. An educated force that is skilled,
adaptable, and flexible is essential for addressing emerging global
threats and challenges.
Question. What progress have the Navy and Marine Corps made in
identifying and leveraging credentialing programs, both to enhance a
sailor or Marine's ability to perform his/her official duties, and to
qualify the sailor or Marine for meaningful civilian employment on
separation from the military?
Answer. I understand that the Department of the Navy Credentialing
Opportunities Online (COOL) program offers sailors, marines, and DON
civilians many opportunities to earn licenses and certifications that
validate their knowledge and experience, while opening doors to new
opportunities in both the Department and the civilian sector. I
understand successful programs like these come through meaningful
partnerships with Congress and other stakeholders.
Question. What is your vision of the role and mission of the Naval
Community College?
Answer. My vision of the U.S. Naval Community College (USNCC) is to
provide accessible, high-quality educational opportunities to enlisted
sailors, marines and coastguardsmen that are aligned with the
operational needs of our naval services. The goal is to deliver naval-
relevant curricula for maximum warfighting effectiveness. Additionally,
USNCC educational offerings will improve the professional and personal
development of servicemembers. If confirmed, I would seek to buildupon
the initial successes of the USNCC, continuing to work in partnership
with accredited universities and institutions to ensure the program is
developing servicemembers who can outthink and outfight any adversary.
non-deployable servicemembers
Question. In your view, should sailors and marines who are non-
deployable for more than 12 consecutive months be subject either to
separation from the service or referral to the Disability Evaluation
System, as is current Department policy?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps must maintain a globally
deployable force. It is my understanding that sailors and marines who
are non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months will receive an
individualized review that weighs whether their continued service is in
the Nation's best interest. If confirmed, I commit to evaluating
existing policy and processes to ensure our personnel are being
properly cared for, while simultaneously maintaining an effective
fighting force capable of achieving the mission.
Question. Under what circumstances would the retention of a
servicemember who has been non-deployable for more than 12 months be
``in the best interest of the service''?
Answer. I understand the determination of whether it is in the best
interest of the Service to retain a servicemember who has been non-
deployable for more than 12 months is based upon an individualized
review of several factors, including the likelihood that the member
will be able to return to deployable status and the member's unique
skills and qualifications to fit identified needs of the Service.
Question. In your view, should a sailor or marine's readiness to
perform the required specific missions, functions, and tasks in the
context of a particular deployment also be considered in determining
whether that servicemember is deployable?
Answer. Yes, the ability of a sailor or marine to perform the
specific job function should be a consideration when making any
assignment.
Question. What are your ideas for addressing the challenges of
medical non-deployability in the Reserve components?
Answer. If confirmed, I would seek to better understand the unique
challenges associated with non-deployable Reserve Component members.
Along with the Service Chiefs, I would consult with the Chief of the
Navy Reserve and the Commander of the Marine Corps Forces Reserve to
understand their current process, demands, and challenges, and would
welcome their feedback and proposed solutions.
military family readiness and support
Question. What do you consider to be the most important family
readiness issues for sailors, marines, and their families?
Answer. Family readiness is an important tenet of warfighter
readiness. If we take care of our families, our warfighters are ready.
In that vein, some of the most pressing issues facing sailors, marines,
and their families are increased access to health care, spouse
employment, and reliable quality and affordable childcare. These
issues, along with many others, are vitally important to the readiness
that allows our sailors and marines to deploy far from home with
reasonable assurance that their families will be safe and have what
they need to cope with what are often long absences. Through my
interactions with our brave servicemembers, I am acutely aware of the
many sacrifices our families make for us every day. I am committed, if
confirmed, to ensure that families do not just endure, but thrive, in
the Navy and Marine Corps family.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the family
readiness issues you identified are properly addressed and adequately
resourced?
Answer. Family readiness and quality of life issues will be a top
priority if I am confirmed. It is my understanding that the Navy and
Marine Corps provide a comprehensive range of programs. I plan to
examine these programs to learn how we can improve our family
readiness, measure program effectiveness, and ensure adequate
resourcing.
Question. The Navy completed a Quality of Service review after a
string of suicides. If confirmed, how will you continue the work to
improve the quality of service of sailors? Are there any new efforts
you would undertake?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Navy currently has an
effort led by a three-star admiral addressing quality of service issues
associated with that review. If confirmed, I will seek a briefing to
understand how the report's recommendations have been implemented so
far, any barriers the Navy faces in implementing the remaining
recommendations, and any additional initiatives that effort is
pursuing.
suicide prevention
Question. The number of suicides in each of the Services continues
to concern the Committee. Over the past several years, the Navy has
struggled with suicides for sailors in a limited duty status, and
sailors assigned to ships in long-term maintenance. If confirmed, what
would you do to maintain a strong focus on preventing suicides in the
active Navy and Marine Corps, the Navy and Marine Reserve, and in the
families of your sailors and marines?
Answer. The loss of any sailor, marine, civilian, or family member
to suicide is one too many, and we must remain committed to ensuring
the health, safety and well-being of all members of our military
community. If confirmed, I will prioritize suicide prevention
strategies that are evidence-based, explore opportunities to address
unit climate health, and ensure members and families have access to
necessary resources and that commanders encourage their use. It is
critical for sailors and marines to foster their mental, physical and
spiritual well-being to continue their mission to protect our Nation
and remain combat-ready, lethal fighters. If confirmed, I will continue
to advance an approach that guards our greatest asset, our people, by
ensuring that our sailors, marines, and civilians have the necessary
support to meet the demands of the warfighter's mission.
sexual harassment and assault prevention and response programs
Question. Do you believe the policies, programs, resources, and
training that DOD and the Military Services have put in place to
prevent and respond to sexual assault, and to protect servicemembers
who report sexual assault from retaliation, are working? If not, what
else must be done?
Answer. There is no place for sexual assault in the Navy or Marine
Corps. Offenders must be held appropriately accountable, and victims
must be able to access the resources that they need. No one should fear
retaliation for reporting this crime. I understand that both Services
within the Department of the Navy are resolute in their efforts to
reduce the prevalence of these behaviors and ensure comprehensive care
to those who seek help. In partnership with Congress, the Department of
Defense and the Department of the Navy have taken meaningful steps to
reduce prevalence of sexual assault, as evidenced by the findings of
the most recent annual report on sexual assault in the military. If
confirmed, I will ensure these programs have the support and resources
they need to succeed and continue making progress.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to increase focus on the
prevention of sexual assaults?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the emphasis on addressing
problematic behaviors before they escalate and focus on evidenced-based
prevention programs. I will review the Department of the Navy's current
prevention strategies and prioritize data-driven initiatives that
leverage behavioral science and lessons learned from both civilian and
military sectors. I will encourage the implementation of tailored
prevention strategies to reduce harmful behaviors by equipping leaders
at all levels with the skills and resources necessary to quickly
address emerging behaviors that are harmful and set conditions for
healthy climates.
Question. What is your view of the necessity of affording a victim
both restricted and unrestricted options to report sexual harassment?
Answer. Statistics seem to indicate that sexual harassment may be
underreported. I am committed, if confirmed, to look more closely at
this issue. I believe the Department of the Navy should explore
available avenues to eliminate barriers for sailors, marines and
civilians to come forward and report sexual harassment. Ensuring sexual
harassment victims have options for reporting fosters trust in the
system and encourages survivors to come forward.
domestic violence and child abuse in navy and marine corps families
Question. What is your understanding of the extent of domestic
violence and child abuse in the Navy and Marine Corps, and, if
confirmed, what actions would you take to address these issues?
Answer. Domestic violence and child abuse have lasting consequences
for military families, negatively impact the readiness and resilience
of the total force and are unacceptable. My understanding is that data
concerning these cases is reflective of national trends. Understanding
the unique pressures of deployment, extended family separations, and
warfighting is vital to addressing these issues. If confirmed, I will
work with Navy and Marine Corps leadership to improve victim safety,
ensure access to available resources and reporting options, and promote
help-seeking behaviors of sailors, marines, civilian personnel, and
their families.
Question. In your view, what more can the Navy and Marine Corps do
to prevent child abuse and domestic and intimate partner violence?
Answer. If confirmed, I will focus on promoting the health, safety,
and well-being of Navy and Marine Corps members and their families. I
will ensure leaders prioritize efforts to strengthen the resiliency of
our warfighters and emphasize the importance of seeking help and
encourage early intervention.
whistleblower protection
Question. Section 1034 of title 10, U.S. Code, prohibits taking or
threatening to take an unfavorable personnel action against a member of
the armed forces in retaliation for making a protected communication.
Section 2302 of title 5, U.S. Code, provides similar protections
protected communication. Section 2302 of title 5, U.S. Code, provides
similar protections protected communication. Section 2302 of title 5,
U.S. Code, provides similar protections protected communication.
Section 2302 of title 5, U.S. Code, provides similar protections
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that sailors,
marines, and civilian employees of the Department of the Navy who
report fraud, waste, and abuse, or gross mismanagement to appropriate
authorities within or outside the chain of command, are protected from
reprisal and retaliation, including from the very highest levels of the
executive branch?
Answer. I fully appreciate the important role that whistleblowers
play in combatting fraud, waste, abuse, and gross mismanagement. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of the Navy abides by the
applicable laws, regulations, and rules regarding whistleblower
disclosures and protections; reprisal allegations are properly
investigated; and appropriate administrative or disciplinary actions
are taken against personnel who engage in illegal reprisal or
retaliation.
joint officer management
Question. What modifications, if any, would you recommend to Junior
Qualified Officer (JQO) prerequisites necessary to ensure that military
officers are able to attain both meaningful joint and Service-specific
leadership experience, as well as adequate professional development?
Answer. From my experience in the private sector, leaders capable
of thinking and working beyond siloed responsibilities can play an
outsized role in advancing strategic objectives. If confirmed, I will
consult with the Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine
Corps to assess the needs, benefits, and challenges of joint
qualification requirements. I understand Joint Professional Military
Education opportunities are intended to ensure the Navy and Marine
Corps provide competent, well-educated, and qualified officers capable
of operating in the joint force and the Service echelon commands. If
changes to joint qualification requirements are necessary, I will work
with the Secretary of Defense to propose statutory and/or policy
changes as appropriate.
Question. What are your ideas for improving the JQO system better
to meet the needs of Reserve component officers?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps Reserves are critical components
of the Total Force and are integrated into current Joint Training
Requirements. We will continue to prioritize Joint integration and
innovative solutions to ensure the Reserve Components continue to
receive the training needed to operate in the Joint environment. I am
not aware of any modifications that are needed at this time. However,
should present circumstances change, I will review the new information
available and solicit the advice and views of relevant individuals
before making any decision that may come before me on this matter.
Question. In your view, should the requirement to be a JQO be
eliminated as a consideration in selecting officers for promotion and
assignment?
Answer. I believe the joint qualification requirement as a
consideration in selecting officers for promotion and assignment has
historically provided the Navy and Marine Corps with a highly qualified
cadre of officers capable of working strategically with cross-Service
partners. If confirmed, I will consult with the Services to assess the
need for, as well as benefits and challenges of, joint qualification
requirements for promotion and assignment. Should change be warranted,
I will work with appropriate stakeholders to address that need.
officer promotion policies and processes
Question. In your judgment, how effective are the Navy and Marine
Corps at identifying, promoting, and rewarding top performers?
Answer. I understand Navy and Marine Corps promotion selection
board processes, informed by the performance evaluation system, are
designed to select the very best of fully qualified officers for
promotion. These processes should be fair, objective, and merit based.
If confirmed, I will require regular review of these processes to
ensure they are effective in building a capable, ready, and lethal
force.
Question. Similarly, how effective are the Navy and Marine Corps at
identifying and removing underperforming or counterproductive
servicemembers?
Answer. It is my understanding that both Services have mechanisms
in place to identify and, when necessary, remove underperforming and/or
counterproductive members. Such individuals are identified by their
reporting seniors in the annual performance evaluation process,
resulting in direct inputs to the promotion selection board process. I
am committed, if confirmed, to reviewing these policies and procedures
to ensure they are aligned with the principles of retaining the best
talent and restoring lethality and deterrence.
Question. In your view, what should be done to improve Navy and
Marine Corps talent management, both in the Active and Reserve
components?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look closely at this issue. I
understand both the Navy and Marine Corps are currently modernizing
their talent management systems. I will assess, in consultation with
the Services, whether any additional authorities and flexibilities are
needed to optimize the development, evaluation, assignment, selection,
and promotion of high-performing, high-potential sailors and marines
who can outthink and outfight any adversary.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure compliance with the
requirements of law and regulation regarding the investigation and
promotion board consideration of adverse and reportable information in
the context of both general and flag officer and O-6 and below
promotion selection processes?
Answer. It is my understanding the law and DON policy provide the
parameters to ensure promotion boards properly consider adverse and
reportable information in the selection process. If confirmed, I will
ensure that the Department of the Navy continues to adhere to these
directives. I also will consult with the Chief of Naval Operations and
Commandant of the Marine Corps to review mechanisms for holding leaders
accountable. Accountability is essential Marine Corps to review
mechanisms for holding leaders accountable. Accountability is essential
Question. Do you believe Navy and Marine Corps procedures and
practices for reviewing the records of officers pending the President's
nomination for promotion or assignment are sufficient to enable fully
informed decisions by the Secretary of the Navy, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President?
Answer. I understand the procedures and practices for reviewing the
records of officers pending nomination for promotion are robust and
include collaboration with appropriate investigatory agencies to
identify any adverse or reportable information concerning selected
officers. If confirmed, I will consider, in consultation with the
Service Chiefs, whether any improvements are necessary to ensure
promotion and assignment decisions are based on merit.
Question. In your view, are these procedures and practices fair to
the individual military officers proceeding through the promotion or
assignment process? Please explain your answer.
Answer. I understand promotion and assignment processes are
designed to ensure the right personnel are placed in the right roles.
If confirmed, I will review these processes to verify that they are
fair and merit-based and will be vigilant in identifying opportunities
for improvement.
professional military education (pme)
Question. What is your view of the Commandant of the Marine Corps'
proposal to replace ``non-observed academic fitness reports'' with an
evaluation that documents how well a Marine did at a professional
school, assigns the marine a class rank, and differentiates high-
performing marines from low performers?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek a briefing on this practice. It
is my understanding that the Marine Corps introduced observed academic
fitness reports in 2020. I have not formed an opinion on this matter
and will consult with the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Question. What changes or reform would you recommend to the PME
system to ensure that tomorrow's leaders have the intellectual acumen,
military leadership proficiency, and emotional maturity necessary to
ensure the Navy and Marine Corps meet the national defense objectives
of the future?
Answer. I am committed to review this matter if confirmed. I
believe that professional military education could be improved through
use of cutting-edge technologies, expansion of joint-service training,
and emphasis on critical thinking and strategic decisionmaking. These
reforms will ensure our leaders are intellectually equipped and
strategically proficient to meet current and future national defense
objectives. I will consult with the Chief of Naval Operations and
Commandant of Marine Corps to review, explore, and implement necessary
changes and reforms.
department of the navy civilian personnel workforce
Question. In your judgment, what is the biggest challenge facing
the Navy and Marine Corps in effectively and efficiently managing their
civilian workforce?
Answer. I believe the biggest challenge facing the Navy and Marine
Corps in effectively and efficiently managing their civilian workforce
is work underway right now to size this workforce appropriately to meet
the Department of the Navy's most pressing missions. We cannot afford
an oversized civilian workforce working on the wrong things. If
confirmed, I am committed to working with leaders across the Department
of Defense to build and sustain a lean and highly technical civilian
workforce that contributes directly to readiness and lethality or our
naval forces.
Question. In your view, do Navy supervisors have adequate
authorities to address and remediate employee misconduct and poor duty
performance, and ultimately to divest of a civilian employee who fails
to meet requisite standards of conduct and performance?
Answer. It is my understanding there are adequate authorities to
take various informal and formal corrective actions, such as
suspensions and removals, but they appear to be overly burdensome and
time-consuming. If confirmed, working with Congress and leaders across
the Department of Defense, I would explore ways to streamline the
disciplinary process.
Question. What recommendations do you have to improve DOD's
management of its civilian workforce?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's highly technical civilian
workforce plays a vital role in supporting warfighting readiness,
contributing to Department of Defense mission capabilities and
operational effectiveness. Our civilians are able partners with our
warfighters, and essential to maintaining the strength of the all-
volunteer force. As we right size and refocus the civilian workforce,
we must likewise commit to a campaign to recruit America's best talent
to public service.
Question. What do you see as the impact of the Navy civilian
workforce on Navy and Department of Defense missions? Are there
``health metrics'' that the Navy is or could be using to help ensure
that the civilian workforce is adequately sized for all of the tasks
assigned to it?
Answer. The civilian workforce plays a critical role in mission
readiness. Within the Department of the Navy, civilians provide
continuity and expertise to our sailors and marines, and many of them
are veterans themselves. It is my understanding the Department conducts
workforce analysis to determine civilian and military staffing
requirements for peacetime and mobilization operations. I also
understand that the Department has been advancing data-driven
decisionmaking regarding workforce composition, readiness, and
allocation. If confirmed, I will review existing metrics and drive
improvements.
Question. In what ways does the Navy civilian workforce take on
tasks that would otherwise have to be done by military personnel, and
thus taking them away from their core warfighting functions?
Answer. The civilian workforce primarily relieves military
personnel of non-core duties by managing business, technical, and
logistical support functions, such as base maintenance, IT systems
management, acquisition of major weapon systems and other supplies and
services, financial management, acquisition of major weapon systems and
other supplies and services, financial management, acquisition of major
weapon systems and other supplies and services, financial management,
acquisition of major weapon systems and other supplies and services,
financial management, acquisition of major weapon systems and other
supplies and services, financial management, acquisition of major
weapon systems and other supplies and services, financial management,
acquisition of major weapon systems and other supplies and services,
financial
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee, its
subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress receive
timely testimony, briefings, reports, records--including documents and
electronic communications, and other information from the executive
branch.
Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on request,
to appear and testify before this committee, its subcommittees, and
other appropriate committees of Congress? Please answer with a simple
yes or no.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
provide this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees
of Congress, and their respective staffs such witnesses and briefers,
briefings, reports, records--including documents and electronic
communications, and other information, as may be requested of you, and
to do so in a timely manner? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
consult with this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate
committees of Congress, and their respective staffs, regarding your
basis for any delay or denial in providing testimony, briefings,
reports, records--including documents and electronic communications,
and other information requested of you? Please answer with a simple yes
or no.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
keep this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees of
Congress, and their respective staffs apprised of new information that
materially impacts the accuracy of testimony, briefings, reports,
records--including documents and electronic communications, and other
information you or your organization previously provided? Please answer
with a simple yes or no.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on
request, to provide this committee and its subcommittees with records
and other information within their oversight jurisdiction, even absent
a formal Committee request? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
respond timely to letters to, and/or inquiries and other requests of
you or your organization from individual Senators who are members of
this committee? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
ensure that you and other members of your organization protect from
retaliation any military member, Federal employee, or contractor
employee who testifies before, or communicates with this committee, its
subcommittees, and any other appropriate committee of Congress? Please
answer with a simple yes or no.
Answer. Yes.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator M. Michael Rounds
diagnostic testing technology
1. Senator Rounds. Mr. Phelan, almost 3 years ago the Department of
Defense estimated that the inability to detect and isolate electronic
faults resulted in over 383,000 non-mission capable days each year and
over $5.5 billion in non-value-added sustainment costs. In response to
this readiness and sustainment challenge, the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD) proposed funding for the purchase of a readily
available, effective, and proven technology to address this issue. The
Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) fully supports this technology,
and the fiscal year 2024 defense appropriation included $35.2 million
for it. My concern is that, under the previous administration, the Navy
resisted its acquisition. If confirmed, would you commit to following
up with me on this technology?
Mr. Phelan. I recognize the importance of a loss of mission capable
days and sustainment costs associated with the inability to detect and
isolate electronic intermittent faults. If confirmed, you have my
commitment to followup with you regarding employment of these
technologies.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
shipbuilding and maintenance
2. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, the Chinese Communist Party is on
pace to surpass a 400-ship fleet this year, giving them an advantage of
over 120 ships compared to us. While the ``quality'' of these ships
could be debated, as the saying goes, ``quantity has a quality all its
own''. In 2023, China added 30 ships to its fleet, 15 of which were
large surface combatants; we added 2. This is an existential threat to
our national security and economic prosperity. Republican Presidents
have a long and proud tradition of building great Navies: Teddy
Roosevelt's ``Great White Fleet'' and Ronald Reagan's ``600-ship navy''
come to mind. If confirmed, how will you work with the Department of
the Navy and industry to revive American shipbuilding?
Mr. Phelan. Strengthening America's maritime industrial base is an
Administration priority and has my full attention. If confirmed, I will
ensure that the Department of the Navy undertakes efforts to revitalize
American shipbuilding through focused investments to build capacity, to
scale and deploy modern manufacturing technologies, and to support the
development of a new generation of skilled workforce. Additionally, I
am committed to working with industry, as well as Federal, State, and
local agencies to ensure the Nation's maritime industrial base is
capable of supporting the Navy and ensuring our national and economic
security. This requires leveraging the full strength of American
ingenuity, economy, and innovation, and requires integrating the public
and private sectors to meet this Nation's demand.
3. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, President Trump has expressed a
vision where we work with our allies to make use of their existing
shipbuilding capacity, leverage lessons learned from their shipyards,
and encourage their investment in our own maritime industrial base.
What is the role that you see our allies playing in expanding our navy
shipbuilding infrastructure and growing the Navy?
Mr. Phelan. As a maritime Nation, the United States must have a
strong and resilient maritime industrial base capable of securing our
national and economic security. Working with Allies to leverage their
shipbuilding and ship repair capacity and expertise, while encouraging
them to invest in the U.S. maritime industrial base, is a multifaceted
approach that involves whole-of-government collaboration, shared
knowledge, and strategic investments. If confirmed, I am committed to
working within the Administration and with our Allies in executing
President Trump's vision.
4. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, what is your view on expanding the
authorities for overseas preventive maintenance on U.S.-based ships?
Mr. Phelan. I understand that the Navy appreciates the authority
provided by 10 USC Sec. 8680, which was recently expanded to allow
preventative maintenance not to exceed 21 days in duration or impact
any homeport by more than 2 percent of its workload. If confirmed, I
will continue to operate within the confines of statute to support the
readiness of the Fleet.
5. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, last year, we introduced the
Expanding Naval Shipbuilding and Growing the Navy (ENSIGN) Act to
address the chronic issues plaguing our Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise.
Provisions include:
Reducing turnover and increasing the rank of the
Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)
Requiring independent cost estimates for our ships by
NAVSEA
Requiring the lead ship in class to have fully mature
designs prior to the start of construction
Incorporating shipbuilding best practices from industry
leaders in Japan and South Korea
Identifying locations for two new private shipyards west
of the Panama Canal
Require the Navy to assess the potential for
collaboration with or investment by foreign-owned shipbuilding
companies
Will you work with me to help shape this important legislation,
pass these critical provisions into law, and rebuild our American Navy?
Mr. Phelan. The Department of the Navy faces many challenges in
shipbuilding, including high costs, labor shortages, and inconsistent
demand. These challenges have resulted in backlogs, overruns, and a
widening gap in shipbuilding capabilities between the United States and
China. For this important problem solving, I further commit to working
with Congress to build the most lethal naval force to ensure our
freedom of maneuver and protect our national interests.
6. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, what, in your mind are the biggest
barriers facing our Naval Shipbuilding Industry and how do you plan to
approach them, if confirmed?
Mr. Phelan. The Naval Shipbuilding Industry faces several
significant barriers that are impacting performance and efficiency. Key
challenges include workforce recruitment, training, and retention
issues, choke points in the supply chain and growing material lead
times, and slow integration and adoption of manufacturing technology.
The Navy's Maritime Industrial Base program office is focused on
removing these barriers through targeted initiatives and investments
with the support of industry partners. If confirmed, I am committed to
reviewing key elements of the Navy's program to identify whether any
changes or additional investments are required to achieve the
President's objective of strengthening America's maritime industrial
base.
7. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, I am very concerned about both our
ship and submarine readiness. I know the Navy has established an 80
percent surge readiness goal, but we are nowhere near there today.
Chinese President Xi is deathly afraid of our submarines. What will you
do to get subs in and out of maintenance on time and what will you do
to simultaneously increase sub maintenance capacity?
Mr. Phelan. Completing availabilities on time and with the required
work completed, remains the top focus and challenge to the maintenance
and acquisition communities. If confirmed, I will ensure continued
focus to revitalize and modernize the Navy's public shipyards, to
include the introduction of technology to make the shipyards more
effective and efficient. Additionally, I will continue to support
efforts to identify and resolve capacity constraints for submarine
maintenance. If confirmed, I am committed to improving Navy warfighting
readiness.
8. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, we need new icebreakers as soon as
possible and dedicated engagement from Program Executive Offices (PEO)
Ships on the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) project is essential to making
that happen. Will you commit to helping accelerate the PSC acquisition
and making future icebreakers a priority?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, if confirmed, I am committed to working with the
Coast Guard in accelerating PSC acquisition. While icebreaking is a
Coast Guard mission, the Navy has equities in supporting the Coast
Guard with developing and acquiring new icebreakers to supplement the
current Coast Guard fleet. If confirmed, I will continue the Navy and
Coast Guard collaboration to recapitalize the Nation's fleet of
icebreakers by leveraging the Navy's shipbuilding and acquisitions
expertise.
9. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, we spend millions of dollars each
year to maintain and modernize the fleet, but unplanned maintenance and
supply chain issues prevent ships from completing their maintenance
availabilities on time. This means that our surface fleet is not ready
when it needs to be, and I am particularly worried about Amphibious
Warfare Ship readiness and their ability to meet the 3.0 Amphibious
Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) requirement. Despite
having 31 ships on the books, we have ships that haven't deployed since
2013, and recent Amphibious Ready Groups have been delayed or
unavailable. This affects deterrence and posturing for conflict or
crisis. Do I have your commitment to work on improving surface ship
maintenance so that we have ships available to support combatant
commanders?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to working to improve surface
ship maintenance on-time delivery from maintenance availabilities.
10. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) released a study in December 2024 and another this January
that highlighted the issues of Navy Surface Ships, specifically the
Amphibious Warfare Fleet. The reports list many actions that would help
address maintenance and readiness issues. Currently the Navy has not
implemented all of the actions recommended by the report. If confirmed,
will you commit to reviewing these prescribed actions and, if
necessary, implementing them to improve the readiness of our Fleet?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, you have my commitment to review all
recommendations provided to the Navy by the GAO and to identify and
implement corrective actions that will generate Fleet readiness.
11. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to working with
the Senate Armed Services Committee to review military specification
requirements for naval vessels created and executed by Naval Sea
Systems Command (NAVSEA) and to proactively recommend the removal of
those deemed most burdensome?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to reviewing
specifications and removing or revising them, as appropriate, based on
such factors as their currency, necessity, and reasonableness.
12. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to reviewing
programs like Blue Forge and the recruitment plans of U.S. private and
public shipyards to ensure they are aligned and that they are exploring
recruitment pools in the interior of the country?
Mr. Phelan. I understand the Navy, with a range of partners in
State and local government, industry, academia, and training
organizations have launched hundreds of initiatives to attract,
recruit, train, and retain the vital maritime manufacturing workforce
across the country. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that Navy
investment to support maritime industrial base workforce development is
aligned to the workforce requirements at U.S. private and public
shipyards, as well as industry members throughout the supply chain and
across the country.
13. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, last year, Military Sealift
Command (MSC) and the Navy said it could sideline up to 17 support
ships due to workforce issues and maintenance concerns. How do you plan
to review the Navy's requirements for support ships, reinvigorate the
MSC, and communicate to Congress the need for resourcing for these
ships?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, my review of Navy support ship
requirements will be a central part of my overall assessment of the
current State of the Navy. I will review logistics and support ship
capabilities and capacity against current and future requirements to
identify any potential gaps and necessary investments to close those
gaps. My review will include any challenges faced by the Military
Sealift Command and applicable initiatives to eliminate these
challenges. I will not hesitate to engage with Congress and address the
resourcing of Navy logistics and support ships, if confirmed.
14. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, over the last year we've seen a
worrying trend of destruction of undersea cables in Europe and threats
to cables in the Indo-Pacific. As security and repair of cables becomes
more important, will you commit to review the need for cable layers in
operation plans (OPLAN) for communications security and ensure that
Congress is building enough of these ships?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to review the need for Cable
Laying/Repair Ships in operation plans for communications security and
to identify requirements for these ships.
15. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, the delays identified by the
previous Secretary of the Navy's 45-day shipbuilding review paint a
damning picture whereby five major ship classes are delayed by 12-36
months. Do you believe the regular congressional authorization and
appropriation cycle and DOD PPBE [Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and
Execution] process can deliver ships on time and on budget?
Mr. Phelan. The delays identified in the previous Secretary of the
Navy's 45-day shipbuilding review are certainly concerning, and they
highlight significant challenges within the shipbuilding process. There
are many factors that I need to better understand to opine on this
issue, however, if confirmed, you have my commitment to prioritizing
efforts to address shipbuilding delays and identifying areas the PPBE
process may be negatively affecting delivering ships on time and on
budget.
16. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, what will be your personal
involvement in DOD's efforts to address significant cost and massive
time overruns in the Navy's major ship procurement programs?
Mr. Phelan. Addressing the significant cost overruns and delays in
the Navy's major ship procurement programs will require close
collaboration with Navy leadership, industry partners, and other
stakeholders. If confirmed, I am fully committed to being actively
involved in this process, including identifying root causes, refining
acquisition strategies, and improving coordination across the
Department of Defense, the Navy, and the shipbuilding industry.
Additionally, my focus will be on enhancing transparency,
accountability, and flexibility in funding and program management to
ensure more efficient, timely, and cost-effective shipbuilding while
setting the stage for long-term improvements.
17. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, recognizing that attack
submarines are one of our biggest advantages compared to the People's
Republic of China (PRC) do you agree that our inability to produce at
least two submarines per year (and deliver them on time) increases risk
in the Indo-Pacific during this decade?
Mr. Phelan. The production rate and timely delivery of attack
submarines are critical factors in maintaining a competitive advantage
in the Indo-Pacific region and remains a challenge in trying to keep
apace of China's production rates. The inability to produce at least
two submarines per year and deliver them on time increases risk in the
region. Attack submarines play a vital role in providing undersea
dominance, intelligence gathering, and deterrence capabilities. A
consistent production rate is essential to ensure a robust and present
submarine fleet to effectively respond to regional challenges and
threats. Delays in production and delivery lead to gaps in operational
capacity and capabilities, impacting readiness and strategic deterrence
efforts in the Indo-Pacific region. If confirmed, I am committed to
addressing these challenges for attack submarines as this will be
essential to any efforts to maintain operational advantage and maintain
a strong naval presence in the region.
australia, the united kingdom, and the united states partnership
18. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, I have been a strong supporter of
AUKUS [Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States] since its
launch, and believe it is a potential game changer for U.S. and allied
posture in the Indo-Pacific as well as the weapons capabilities at
allied disposal. The nominee for Secretary of State, Senator Marco
Rubio, was enthusiastically supportive of AUKUS in his confirmation
hearing and I agree with him that AUKUS is a ``blueprint'' for future
consortium partnerships with allied nations facing global threats. Do
you agree?
Mr. Phelan. AUKUS is a powerful example of defense cooperation. The
sale of United States Nuclear powered submarines to Australia will
expand the respective submarine industrial bases, strengthen undersea
capabilities, and increase the cumulative deterrence effect. By growing
our defense industrial bases together and by removing barriers to
technological cooperation, our countries become more capable and
lethal. The ``AUKUS blueprint'' demonstrates how likeminded countries
are able to work toward a common security goal through equitable burden
sharing that will pay mutual dividends for all partners.
19. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to working with
the State Department to strengthen AUKUS and break down some of the
bureaucratic challenges it has met with in our own Government?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to working closely with
Secretary Hegseth to implement ways to streamline and eliminate
bureaucratic processes between the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, and the broader Interagency. These efforts will
strengthen the AUKUS trilateral partnership in ways that retain our
strategic advantages over our regional adversaries and enhance our
lethality in future combat.
20. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, our inability to produce at least
two submarines per year obviously creates doubt in Australia that we
can deliver 3-5 Virginia-class submarines as part of the optimal
pathway for Pillar I. What will you tell your Australian counterparts
to assure them of our commitment to increasing Virginia production and
executing the optimal pathway?
Mr. Phelan. The AUKUS alliance reflects the shared understanding
that an interoperable and ready submarine force is essential to
securing a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The addition of allied
conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines serves as a powerful
deterrent against any actors who threaten international law and norms
in the region.
To strengthen this deterrent, Australia is investing $2 billion USD
in the United States Submarine Industrial Base this year and an
additional $1 billion over the next 10 years. This funding is designed
to augment the United States' own investment of more than $17 billion
to increase production to 2.33 Virginia-class submarines per year by
the early 2030's to offset the sale of submarines to Australia. This
combined Australia and United States investment confirms the shared
commitment of both governments to the success of the AUKUS Optimal
Pathway.
8(a) contracting
21. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, in your hearing and in our
meeting, you mentioned the need to thoroughly review our existing
contracts and contract vehicles to ensure they are providing the best
benefit to the taxpayer. The Small Business Act 8(a) program, created
by Congress, provides a contract vehicle through which sole source and
set aside contracts can be awarded to small businesses owned by Alaska
Native corporations, Community Development Corporations, Indian tribes,
and Native Hawaiian organizations. These corporations are tied to
political relationships, not racial classifications. They also are some
of our most efficient contractors, earning stellar Contractor
Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) marks. Last many of
these small businesses employ veterans at rates far exceeding the
national average, allowing our Nation's finest to continue to serve
after they take off the uniform. Will you commit to me to work to
preserve and strengthen 8(a) contracting for the Department of the
Navy?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to leveraging the 8(a)
program in alignment with mission requirements. The acquisition
strategies prioritize the mission needs and when an 8(a) firm is the
best suited provider, if confirmed, I will fully support and sustain
those procurements. Additionally, I will encourage the workforce to
conduct market research to identify and engage emerging 8(a) firms that
can meet evolving Navy and Marine Corps requirements ensuring a mission
focused approach while fostering partnerships that strengthen the
Defense Industrial Base and support our sailors and marines.
adak and arctic posturing
22. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
continues to disrupt regional dynamics and intimidate neighbors, many
of which are American partners and allies. We also know that the CCP's
strategic objectives extend beyond Taiwan and the South China Sea,
ultimately aiming for global primacy at the expense of a free and open
Indo-Pacific. Our ability to deter adversaries and respond decisively
in crises and conflict underpin our commitments and serve as the
bedrock of regional security. Our forces are positioned around the
world, postured to defend American interests and our treaty
obligations. Yet, in the Northern Pacific, we have retreated from bases
we once held in the Aleutians. Our adversaries have taken note, and
continue to probe the Exclusive Economic Zone and Air Defense
Identification Zone at our Northern Border for weaknesses.
President Trump recently said:
``We will ensure Alaska gets even more defense investment as we
fully rebuild our military, especially as Russia and China are making
menacing moves in the Pacific.''
Do you think the United States Navy should maintain a presence in
the Aleutian Islands?
Mr. Phelan. To defend American interests around the globe, the U.S.
Navy must remain prepared to execute this timeless role, as directed by
Congress and the President. The Navy has a unique role operating
forward in support of national defense and global deterrence. U.S.
naval forces are underway conducting operations globally, 24 / 7 / 365,
under the responsibility and authority of the Secretary of Defense and
his Combatant Commanders. Navy vessels and aircraft assigned to the
Commander, U.S. Northern Command and Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific
Command, routinely operate without restriction in the vicinity of the
Aleutians, and in the international waters and airspace of the Northern
Pacific and Bering Sea bordering Russia, respectively. If confirmed, I
pledge to work with you, the Secretary of Defense, and the Combatant
Commanders to maintain this presence as we defend freedom, preserve
economic prosperity, and keep the seas open and free.
23. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, do you think this need could be
best met by rebuilding the Naval Air Station at Adak Island to give our
surface and air forces needed reach into the Northern Pacific?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to reviewing the Navy's
recent analysis of options to redevelop the airfield, port, and
supporting infrastructure at Adak, Alaska, and I am committed to
working with Secretary Hegseth, U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Indo-
Pacific Command to ensure Navy is postured to defend the homeland and
deter adversaries in the Northern Pacific.
24. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, in the Fiscal Year 2025 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) report, we directed a report on Arctic
refueling capabilities in response to the 2024 joint Russian-Chinese
incursion into our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in Alaska. Will you
commit to releasing this report to the Committee?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to working with Congress
regarding our Arctic refueling capabilities.
25. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, I've been informed that the Navy
is looking for more pier space in Kodiak, Alaska and has contracted to
remove derelict pilings in Women's Bay on Kodiak Island. In addition to
restoring naval forces to Adak, can you commit to working with me to
expand the Navy's presence on Kodiak?
Mr. Phelan. I am currently unaware of pier space requirements in
Alaskan ports; however, I am aware of the Naval Cold Weather Maritime
Training Facility in Kodiak. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing the
Naval footprint and infrastructure on Kodiak and ensuring appropriate
resourcing.
force design and unit deployment program
26. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, Marine Corps Force Design and its
``divest to invest'' initiatives are a bold idea to create an agile and
lethal force that can maneuver effectively in a maritime environment.
However, many Marine Corps advocates--myself included--are concerned
that Force Design may be hollowing out certain critical combat
capabilities that will detract from the Marine Corps' mission as the
Nation's premiere ``9-1-1'' rapid response force. Militaries around the
world have long understood ``combined arms'' to mean employing a
combination of infantry, tanks, cannon artillery, engineers, and close
support aircraft in a coordinated manner. Those same military today are
endeavoring to add these systems to their inventories and we see their
utility on battlefields in Ukraine. Yet, the Marine Corps has divested
all the Marine Corps' tanks, two-thirds of its cannon artillery, nearly
all its engineering equipment to breach enemy minefields and obstacles,
all its engineering equipment that enables clearing and proofing of
minefields, all its bridging, and nearly a third of its close support
rotary and fixed wing aircraft. How is it possible for the Corps to
have ``the most proficient combined arms teams on the globe'' without
these needed weapons and items of equipment?
Mr. Phelan. I understand that Force Design divestitures enabled
investments in expeditionary Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs)--
such as the Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU)
and Marine Littoral Regiments (MLRs)--that enhance lethality, agility,
and all-domain integration with the Navy and Joint Force. If confirmed,
I am committed to leveraging lessons learned and refining these
capabilities to ensure that the MAGTFs remain the most proficient
combined arms teams by leveraging advanced technologies and joint kill
webs, rather than relying solely on legacy systems. If confirmed, I
will ensure the Marine Corps balances these innovations with its rapid-
response mission, maintaining readiness to meet Combatant Commander
needs across all domains.
27. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, part of Force Design rests on the
assumption that the Marine Corps will be able to fill gaps in its
combat power (i.e. borrowing tanks, bridging assets, etc.) from other
services including the Navy and Army, if the need arises. While the
services do train together, there are concerns that training for
specialized equipment between the services as well as inventory
constraints in a major conflict will hinder the Marine Corps' ability
to operate effectively. Given the assumptions of Force Design regarding
equipment support, will you commit to reviewing integration between the
Marine Corps and other services in support of OPLAN execution to
include the readiness of outside branches?
Mr. Phelan. I recognize the concerns regarding Force Design's
assumptions about the Marine Corps leveraging equipment like tanks and
bridging assets from other services, such as the Navy and Army, and the
potential challenges posed by training disparities and inventory
constraints in a major conflict. If confirmed, I will delve into the
Marine Corps' ongoing Campaign of Learning to ensure active refinement
of capabilities, such as rebalancing artillery, reorganizing amphibious
assault battalions, and pursuing new expeditionary bridging and
breaching assets, to ensure operational effectiveness while adapting to
contingency plan demands. Additionally, if confirmed, I commit to
reviewing the integration and readiness of the Marine Corps with other
services to support OPLAN execution, ensuring that training, equipment
availability, and inter-service coordination are robust enough to meet
evolving threats.
28. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, the Marine Corps is making a lot
of assumptions in my opinion about Navy and Army support for Force
Design to be successful. If confirmed, how do you intend to work with
General Eric Smith and Admiral James Kilby in order to ensure alignment
across the Department?
Mr. Phelan. To ensure alignment across the Department, I will work
with the Commandant and the Chief of Naval Operations to ensure the
readiness, training, equipment availability, and inter-service
coordination between the Navy and Marine Corps are robust enough to
support OPLAN execution to meet evolving threats.
29. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to reviewing the
need for a formal agreement or memorandum of understanding between the
services for equipment sharing and training in support of Force
Design's assumptions and OPLAN execution?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to reviewing this matter.
Continuous improvement and leveraging lessons learned to assess and
implement necessary changes informed by real-world conditions is
important. I understand that Force Design is fundamentally about
modernization to ensure that the Marine Corps remains agile and lethal
in distributed maritime environments and future conflicts. As those
warfighting concepts are evaluated and refined, if confirmed, I will
continue working across the services to enhance interoperability in
support of operational requirements. Additionally, I will remain
committed to continuously refining the approach to ensure effective
execution of operational plans, adapting to emerging challenges, and
balancing modernization with operational readiness.
30. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, the Marine Corps' ability to
conduct shore-to-shore operations in a contested maritime environment
relies on its ability to field sufficient numbers of medium-sized
ocean-going craft that can execute movement and landing operations at
the operational and tactical level. The Landing Ship Medium (LSM)
program is supposed to create a new ship that will achieve those
operational requirements. The LSM program however has hit a major snag
as the projected costs and time needed to construct these ships is much
higher than anticipated requiring the Navy and Marine Corps to look for
alternative solutions. These ships are vital to any contingency in the
South China Sea or elsewhere. Will you commit to review the LSM program
with the Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, and
Commandant of the Marine Corps and place influence on the need for
speed in this program both within the services and in your
communications with Congress?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to working with the Chief
of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to review
the LSM program. I understand the importance of this capability to the
Marine Corps.
31. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, 6 years ago, the Marine Corps was
poised to alter its Indo-Pacific force laydown to account for the
inherent risk of access, basing, and overflight (ABO) denial and
limited training opportunities on Marine Corps bases across the Indo-
Pacific. The 37th Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Robert
Neller, sent several teams to Alaska to assess infrastructure and
training opportunities to support a Unit Deployment Program (UDP) to
preposition assets the Marine Corps would need to surge forward in the
event of conflict with the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Alaska's
benefits were as obvious then as they are now: Alaska provides year-
round training for the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) in nearly
every clime and place found on the globe; Alaska's cold weather
training opportunities are cheaper than other overseas options and
permit significantly larger forces to train simultaneously; perhaps
most importantly, Alaska is in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command
(INDOPACOM) area of responsibility (AOR). Will you work with me to
ensure we resource our Marine Corps appropriately so that we can
support a UDP and take advantage of the unique opportunities afforded
by the great State of Alaska?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed I will continue to work with you to ensure
the Marine Corps is appropriately resourced and afforded training
opportunities that support UDP matters. I recognize the importance of
the vast and wide-ranging training opportunities that exist in Alaska
as well as highlight its strategic importance to the Indo-Pacific. If
confirmed, I will remain focused on the optimization of existing force
laydowns and the allocation of resources that best support current
operational requirements as outlined by the Secretary of Defense and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
camp lejeune justice act
32. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, as you may remember from our
first meeting, the passage of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act is an
important priority to me, as it should be to all Americans. While
attorney fees were not included in the bill, The Attorney General under
President Biden put these cases under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The
Navy then accepted the Federal Tort Claims Act attorney fee caps for
their expedited pathway. Despite multiple Navy staff telling me those
fee are far too high, the Navy has not chosen to fight these caps. Do
you think 20-25 percent attorney fee caps are appropriate?
Mr. Phelan. I appreciate your concern regarding how excessive
attorney's fees could negatively impact the Government's ability to
fund restitution to those injured. My understanding is that the Camp
Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) does not include a specific cap for
attorney's fees. In the absence of such a provision, the Government
applied the attorney fee cap from the Federal Tort Claims Act, a
statute which covers complex, personal injury litigation, to the CLJA
settlements. I view this as a policy issue, and I will work with
lawmakers to ensure appropriate allocation of resources to support our
servicemembers.
33. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to reviewing
these fee caps and lowering them?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing the attorney fee
cap structure to ensure appropriate spending in keeping with the
objectives of the CLJA.
34. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, the expedited pathway to settle
Camp Lejeune cases allows individuals to get settlements with or
without an attorney. While the Navy has instituted attorney fee caps,
my understanding is that the Navy is not enforcing these fee caps. This
has resulted in some attorneys still charging up to 60 percent
contingency fees. Will you commit to enforcing attorney fee caps for
our veterans and those exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to fully supporting the DOJ in
all enforcement actions they deem appropriate in connection with the
Department of the Navy's adjudication of CLJA claims.
2025 government accountability office report
35. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Phelan, in a 2025 GAO report on ship
building, one of the recommendations was for the Secretary of the Navy
to develop performance metrics to assess the programmatic and aggregate
effect of investment in the Navy's ship industrial base. This echoes a
similar recommendation from a 2024 GAO report on Amphibious Ship
readiness. Will you commit to me that you will work to develop
necessary metrics to better track our shipbuilding and maintenance
capability against?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to addressing these
recommendations from the GAO. It is vital that the Navy understands and
assesses the return on investment that it makes across the ship
industrial base.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Budd
naval aviation
36. Senator Budd. Mr. Phelan, if confirmed, what steps will you
take to ensure that as the carrier fleet is upgraded, that those
upgrades are able to integrate with naval aviation needs in the future?
Mr. Phelan. I consider every carrier maintenance availability to be
a modernization opportunity in order to realize the inherent
flexibility of the Navy's large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
to evolve along with the needs of the Fleet and embark increasingly
lethal platforms, weapons, and capabilities organic to the combined
carrier and carrier air wing team.
37. Senator Budd. Mr. Phelan, how do you plan to ensure naval
aviation maintains a high level of readiness and operational
availability, especially in the face of increasing operational tempo
and aging equipment?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will prioritize readiness and buildupon
aviation's process reforms since 2019, the year F/A-18s hit 80 percent
mission capable rate. To sustain readiness and maintain high
operational availability requires a balance between current readiness
and future capability growth.
Investment in outfitting spares procurement, maintenance best
practices, and aircraft flight hours supports maintaining readiness
forward. I understand that fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2024
invested $657 million to increase deployed spares range and depth for
the air wing across seven CVNs.
The Naval Aviation Enterprise must continue to gain efficiencies
through sustainment process reforms and internal cost savings which can
be internally reinvested back to logistical improvements, engineering
expertise, and organic repair.
marine corps air station cherry point modernization projects
38. Senator Budd. Mr. Phelan, last years' Marine Corps requested
included significant investments in Cherry Point North Carolina for
projects support for F-35 aircraft maintenance and operational
readiness. However, last year the F-35 Flightline Utilities
Modernization project was not integrated into the 2025 Department of
the Navy budget. Taxpayers have heavily invested in facilities at
Cherry Point, and the Navy should follow through on supporting the
utilities to run them. If confirmed, do you commit to updating my
office on plans for Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North
Carolina and the corresponding utilities modernization project?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will work to understand the status of
this effort, and I commit to ensuring that Congress is kept informed of
all key updates and developments related to the F-35 Flightline
Utilities Modernization Phase 2 improvements at MCAS Cherry Point.
department audit
39. Senator Budd. Mr. Phelan, the Marine Corps passed its second
straight audit this year, setting the standard for every military
service. What steps will you take to replicate these successful audits
for the Navy?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I intend to make achieving a clean audit
a priority for all echelons of the Navy and I will hold individuals
accountable. Commanders will update me on their audit plan, status, and
metrics associated with achieving a clean audit by 2028 and I will
evaluate options to accelerate. Additionally, I intend to hold senior
leaders personally accountable for audit outcomes to ensure
accountability starts at the top.
recruiting and retention
40. Senator Budd. Mr. Phelan, if confirmed, what will you do to
ensure we are able to meet our recruiting goals without lowering
standards?
Mr. Phelan. I believe that enormous value comes from serving in the
world's greatest Navy, and that we can more effectively communicate the
exciting opportunity of naval service to our Nation's best and
brightest eligible recruits. If confirmed, I would consider all
potential options to expand our reach across the country so that the
Department of the Navy maximizes our ability to find high-quality young
Americans interested and able to serve. I believe higher-quality
recruits are more likely to succeed. If confirmed, I would work with
the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to
better understand what is working in the Services' approach to
recruiting, and what could be improved upon so we can make any
necessary adjustments while ensuring that all accessions meet standards
required of high-quality recruits.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Eric Schmitt
critical minerals
41. Senator Budd. Mr. Phelan, China has gained an outsized control
of the mining and refinement of rare earth minerals that are crucial to
almost all aspects of American manufacturing and defense technologies.
What steps do you and the administration of President Donald Trump feel
can and should be taken by the Defense Department, directly and through
procurement, to better develop domestic sources of critical materials
for national and economic security and reduce our dependency on foreign
supplies?
Mr. Phelan. Economic security is national security, and access to
reliable supply chains for critical minerals are vital to military
programs. Rare earth minerals are a point of emphasis in President
Trump's America First Investment Policy. If confirmed, I will support
interagency efforts to increase access to domestic and allied mineral
capacity.
naval aviation
42. Mr. Phelan, the Navy's subsurface and surface procurement
budgets have increased by $18 billion over the past decade. The Naval
Aviation budget, however has not seen a similar increase. Given its
critical role, how will you ensure Naval Aviation remains a budget
priority and appropriately resourced?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I intend to lead a DON program in balance
with strategic priorities and fiscal guidance. However, fiscal
constraints and competing priorities have forced the Navy to make
difficult choices in recent budget cycles.
With each decision, I will assess risk to the sailors and our
mission as well as the industrial base. At times it is more feasible to
accept risk in areas where reductions do not pose long-term
implications to the industrial base.
With the President's Budget submission, and the associated Future
Years Defense Program, I will support prioritizing Naval Aviation
accounts based on strategic and fiscal guidance, program risk, and
warfighting requirements to maintain a combat credible maritime force.
43. Mr. Phelan, how will you make sure our Super Hornets have spare
parts and upgrades, and that we prioritize the sixth gen capabilities
we need to win a fight in the Pacific?
Mr. Phelan. Ensuring our Super Hornets have the spares and upgrades
needed for combat readiness is a priority. To support sustained
operations, particularly in contested logistics environments, the Navy
has increased investments in spare and repair parts, and I understand
that includes $98 million in fiscal year 2024.
As to 6th Gen capabilities, I look forward to gaining insight into
the capability of this program and ensuring that the carrier air wing
remains lethal, flexible, and survivable.
submarine batteries
44. Mr. Phelan, Congress is aware and applauds the Navy for
awarding Blue Forge for phase I of submarine nickel zinc battery
manufacturability, which includes buying equipment, facility expansion
and obtaining necessary certifications. It is also Congress's
understanding that there may be additional phases to this project. In
order to meet the Navy's stated completion of nickel zinc battery
manufacturability in fiscal year 2028 and reach full rate production to
support future submarine procurements, please provide a status update
with a plan, schedule, and funding amounts for executing any additional
phases of nickel zinc submarine battery manufacturing capacity funding
beyond funds awarded in September 2024. Congress would encourage the
Navy to consider concurrent overlap of phase I any additional, planned
phases of funding to help ensure the Navy will meet its stated,
projected schedule for low-rate initial and full production.
Mr. Phelan. Production of submarine batteries is critical to the
Navy's ability to meet the required submarine production rate. I
understand that this is a top priority for the Navy and that the Navy
has made investments to accelerate capability and capacity of nickel
zinc submarine batteries.
shipbuilding innovation
45. Mr. Phelan, President Trump has expressed great interest in
leveraging our allies' shipbuilding capabilities, specifically South
Korea, to assist with ship production in the near term. How would you
pursue this capacity while also ensuring the integrity of U.S.
shipbuilding?
Mr. Phelan. As a maritime Nation, the United States must have a
strong and resilient maritime industrial base capable of securing our
national and economic security. Working with Allies to leverage their
shipbuilding, and ship repair capacity and expertise, while encouraging
them to invest in the U.S. maritime industrial base, is a multifaceted
approach that involves whole of Government collaboration, shared
knowledge, and strategic investments. If confirmed, I am committed to
working within the Administration and with our Allies in executing
President Trump's vision.
46. Mr. Phelan, expanding our shipbuilding capabilities to
additional facilities could reduce the strain on existing shipyards and
make us more resilient and reduce risk concentration to cyber or
physical attacks. Can I have your word to examine possibilities of
building large components in areas like Missouri and then sending them
to existing yards for final construction via the Mississippi River?
Mr. Phelan. I understand that the Navy and prime shipbuilders are
actively pursuing opportunities for strategic outsourcing, shifting
non-core workload from shipbuilder locations to industrial base
suppliers across the country so the shipbuilders can focus on work that
must be performed at the shipyards. Locations outside of final delivery
yards should consider constructing a range of components to increase
the supply chain, allowing final delivery yards to focus on critical
production elements, and support a higher rate of assembly. This is a
critical component of Navy and shipbuilder plans to grow capacity in
the submarine industrial base to meet increased demand. The U.S. Navy's
Maritime Industrial Base program is working with industry to develop
additional outsourcing capacity to further reduce the strain on
existing shipyards, improve resiliency, and leverage excess capacity
across the maritime industrial base. If confirmed, you have my
commitment to conduct a review of the Navy's outsourcing plans to
include any assessments of untapped industrial base capacity in areas
such as Missouri.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
importance of autonomy inside the people's republic of china's first
island chain
47. Mr. Phelan, the People's Republic of China's anti-access/area-
denial (A2/AD) strategy is designed to overwhelm our command-and-
control networks and degrade our ability to respond in real-time. If
our unmanned systems require constant human intervention, they risk
becoming liabilities rather than force multipliers. How critical is
increased investment in advanced mission autonomy to ensure our
autonomous platforms can make independent tactical decisions, operate
effectively in communications-denied environments, and integrate
seamlessly with manned assets?
Mr. Phelan. Advanced mission collaborative autonomy is critical to
countering the China's A2/AD strategy. Autonomous platforms equipped
with advanced artificial intelligence must be able to make independent
tactical decisions (exercised with appropriate levels of human judgment
for lethal effects), ensuring they remain effective even in
communications-denied environments. This capability reduces dependency
on constant human intervention, transforming unmanned systems from
potential liabilities into true force multipliers. Seamless integration
with manned assets through enhanced autonomy ensures cohesive
operations, maintaining our strategic advantage and operational
effectiveness in contested domains.
procurement of the submarine industrial base
48. Mr. Phelan, if confirmed, where would you advise Secretary
Hegseth to direct additional resources to accelerate this capability?
Mr. Phelan. Strengthening America's maritime industrial base,
including the submarine industrial base, is an Administration priority
and has my full attention. I understand that the Department of the Navy
is undertaking efforts to revitalize American shipbuilding through
focused investments in building capacity, to scale and deploy modern
manufacturing technologies, and to support the development of a new
generation of skilled workforce across submarine construction and
repair capacity. If confirmed, you have my commitment to advise
Secretary Hegseth on the adequacy of funding to execute President
Trump's priority to strengthen America's maritime industrial base to
meet the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding and ship repair needs.
49. Mr. Phelan, the submarine industrial base is a critical
component of the United States' defense manufacturing sector,
supporting the construction, maintenance, and modernization of the
Navy's undersea fleet. Our Navy's submarine building efforts have
persistently fallen behind schedule threatening our national security
and strategic deterrence. To remedy the delays, major ship builders and
their suppliers have hired thousands of employees to meet the demands
of our submarine programs. It is estimated that they will need tens of
thousands more over the coming decade to enable the ``two and one''
cadence of Virginia- and Columbia-class boats. If confirmed, do you
believe it is possible to get the Columbia program back on track to
deliver a vessel in fiscal year 2027?
Mr. Phelan. A submarine-based strategic deterrence fleet is the
most survivable leg of the Nuclear Triad. As such, the generational
recapitalization of SSBNs is of the utmost importance. If confirmed, I
commit to continue aggressively engaging with both Electric Boat and
Newport News shipbuilders to proactively identify and implement
opportunities to pull the schedule left and mitigate first-of-class
program risks.
50. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to requesting two Virginia-class
boats and one Columbia-class in each fiscal year that you're Secretary
of the Navy?
Mr. Phelan. Maintaining our submarine shipbuilding pace is vital to
expand our asymmetric advantage in the undersea domain against our
adversaries. If confirmed, I commit to submitting an annual
shipbuilding plan to Congress which aligns with our Navy's priorities
while also acknowledging the very real capacity limitations of the
shipyards and fiscal constraints we face.
submarine funding
51. Senator Budd. Mr. Phelan, the Navy and its nuclear
shipbuilders, General Dynamics/Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls
Industries/Newport News Shipbuilding, collaborated on a novel approach
to address wage and infrastructure investments, known as the Shipyard
Accountability and Workforce Support (SAWS) Initiative. SAWS features
(1) financial management reform, to end a practice of billions in
appropriated funds remaining unspent for years; (2) reset of the
workforce, by applying $10 billion in unspent funds to immediate and
sustained wage increases and shipyard investments; and (3) prevent
further cost growth on Virginia-class submarines now in construction.
Implementing SAWS should be seen as quick win for the Administration by
saving between $17 to $30 billion of taxpayer dollars, and holding the
shipbuilders more accountable to meeting schedules and increasing
efficiency. If confirmed, will you work with the shipbuilders to
implement SAWS expeditiously so that the Virginia-class submarine
schedule can start improving at its needed pace?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to maximize the effective
use of our taxpayer dollars in support of our National Defense
Strategy. If confirmed, I will direct my staff to work collaboratively
across Government and industry stakeholders to highlight the sense of
urgency and accelerate the implementation of options that will yield
necessary improvements to support delivering submarines on-time and
within fiscal controls. I will strongly consider any and all options
could produce positive results to improving delivery schedules,
including SAWS.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
specifics on quality of life and operational readiness plans
52. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, in your opening statement, you
reference multiple broadly themed priorities you plan to focus on if
confirmed, including quality of life reforms and increasing operational
readiness. Please name three specific initiatives or policies you plan
to implement to improve the quality of life of our sailors and marines
and increase the operational readiness of the Fleet.
Mr. Phelan. Quality of life initiatives are integral to the success
of our Navy and Marine Corps team. If confirmed, I will endeavor to
implement policies that will focus on decreasing suicide rates and
address the supply and quality of housing. On operational readiness,
the overwhelming focus will be the on-time delivery of ships. Last, if
confirmed, I will begin work to implement these initiatives which will
shape morale and deliver operational results.
allies and partners
53. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, our strong network of allies and
partners in the Indo-Pacific is one of our greatest advantages and a
key part of our National Defense Strategy. Maintaining these
relationships requires adequate budgeting for joint and multilateral
exercises and training, which bolsters military readiness and
deterrence. Given the constrained fiscal environment, how do you plan
to prioritize Navy and Marine Corps campaign funding for multilateral
exercises and training in the Indo-Pacific?
Mr. Phelan. I recognize the importance of the Department of the
Navy remaining committed to strengthening the network of Allies and
partners, especially those that operate in the Indo-Pacific. In a
fiscally constrained environment and if confirmed, I will work closely
with Secretary Hegseth to ensure the Department of the Navy prioritizes
the resources available to train, man, and equip sailors and marines
that will provide the greatest operational advantage, increase
lethality, enhance interoperability, and maintain deterrence. I will be
diligent in ensuring the Navy and Marine Corps team focuses on high-end
warfighting readiness and will work to leverage existing bilateral
alliances, multilateral frameworks, and joint exercises to maximize
impact while balancing resources effectively and growing our
interoperability with our Allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific.
navy leadership
54. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, you are stepping into this role at
a time of immense instability. The Chief of Naval Operations was fired
without cause, and Secretary Hegseth has asked for nominations for the
Judge Advocate General. Essentially, you'll immediately be looking for
a new Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel in a massive
organization you believe your business background qualifies you to
lead. Given your lack of military experience, what three specific,
measurable actions will you take in your first 90 days to restore
confidence, ensure operational continuity, and reassure sailors and
marines that their leadership is intact and capable?
Mr. Phelan. I recognize the importance of ensuring stability and
maintaining morale. If confirmed, I plan to directly engage with
sailors, marines, and civilians within the Department of the Navy.
During these visits I will encourage team members to voice their
concerns, share experiences, and provide feedback. I will reinforce the
commitment of leadership to our servicemembers' well-being and
professional development. I will build trust and transparency through
open and honest communication, ensuring that personnel understand the
strategic direction the Navy is taking and how it impacts their daily
lives.
environmental responsibility
55. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, the environmental stewardship of
the Navy is a critical issue, particularly in the wake of incidents
like the Red Hill fuel spill. Ensuring proper remediation efforts,
engaging with local communities, and implementing long-term strategies
to prevent future disasters are essential responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Navy. These questions seek to clarify how you will
approach environmental restoration, transparency, and accountability in
Navy operations. What specific actions will you take as Secretary of
the Navy to guarantee that remediation efforts at Red Hill are fully
funded, executed with urgency, and meet the highest environmental and
public health standards?
Mr. Phelan. Nothing is more important than the health, safety and
well-being of sailors, marines, civilians, their families, and our
local communities. Protecting the environment, the aquifer and public
health will remain a priority for the Department of the Navy (DON) if I
am confirmed. The DON has established the Navy Closure Task Force--Red
Hill (NCTF-RH) for the sole mission of tank closure and remediation
efforts. If confirmed, I intend to ensure that DON organizational
leadership remains aligned to the task of expediently executing
closure, investigation, and remediation activities under the regulatory
oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Hawaii
Department of Health (DOH).
56. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, how will you work with local
Hawaiian leaders, environmental experts, and affected families to
ensure their voices are heard throughout this process?
Mr. Phelan. Navy leadership is committed to rebuilding trust with
the people and communities of Honolulu and across the State through
public and private cooperation and partnership. The Navy Closure Task
Force--Red Hill (NCTF-RH) conducts extensive community outreach related
to tank closure, remediation, and safe drinking water, providing
numerous opportunities to both share information and to listen to
community inputs. If confirmed, I expect the Navy will continue these
efforts.
57. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, beyond the tank-cleaning process,
what specific benchmarks and milestones will the Navy establish to
ensure full environmental restoration of the site and surrounding
areas?
Mr. Phelan. It is my understanding that the NCTF-RH has developed
an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that details the closure and
remediation process. I understand that the major milestones and
corresponding benchmarks for achieving them under the IMS are subject
to regulatory approval.
58. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to allowing
independent environmental agencies, scientists, and watchdog groups to
review and validate the Navy's remediation efforts?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will seek to work with Navy officials
and other stakeholders to ensure the Navy's remediation efforts at Red
Hill are appropriately reviewed.
59. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, how will their findings be
incorporated into the cleanup process?
Mr. Phelan. DON conducts the remediation process in accordance with
applicable law, regulations, and promulgated testing procedures as
overseen by the EPA and Hawaii DOH as the regulators. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the applicable authorities and experts to
ensure an optimal cleanup process.
pearl harbor naval shipyard and budget/readiness
60. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard
(PHNS) plays a vital role in maintaining the readiness of our Pacific
Fleet. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations and I had a very good
discussion about his assessment and the performance of PHNS. I was
pleased to hear that--by far--PHNS produces the best throughput at the
greatest efficiency of the public shipyards. We need to build ships,
but we also need to support and maintain them. That is why investments
into our public shipyards are so important. We need to continue on the
path of modernizing the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and our other three
public shipyards and investing in our shipyard workforce. How will you
prioritize public shipyards and ensure proper investment in the
facilities and the workforce?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will commit to uphold the DON focus on
strengthening maritime dominance by recapitalizing and optimizing our
public shipyards, enhancing our warfighting capabilities, and readiness
of the fleet, which includes sustained investment in key programs, to
ensure long-term success and effectiveness.
61. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, besides completing the Pearly
Harbor dry dock project, the Navy has also begun planning and design to
co-locate a multi-billion-dollar waterfront production facility as part
of Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP), scheduled to
begin construction in 2027 just as the dry dock project is being
completed. Planning and design costs for this project have already
begun ballooning and I have significant concerns about the project
slipping to the right, even though it is a critical part of increasing
submarine maintenance efficiency at PHNS--what steps are you planning
to take to ensure the cost of this project remains on time and on
budget?
Mr. Phelan. I appreciate the importance of adhering to schedule and
cost in a constrained fiscal environment. If confirmed, I look forward
to reviewing the costs and schedule for all SIOP projects and will be
transparent on the status of projects with the Congress.
62. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, SIOP projects were unfortunately
not included in the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) list of protected and
prioritized programs following his directive to implement an 8 percent
budget cut across the board at the Pentagon--what steps are you
planning to take to prioritize the SIOP dry dock and waterfront
production facility projects at PHNS to ensure these items are not
among the list of items the Pentagon cuts to save money?
Mr. Phelan. In alignment with the Secretary of Defense, I am fully
committed to rebuilding the Navy and reestablishing deterrence by
enhancing our warfighting capabilities and readiness, which includes
sustained investment in key programs to ensure long-term success and
effectiveness.
63. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, the Navy faces significant
financial constraints while striving to maintain fleet readiness and
modernization. With mandated budget cuts impacting all branches of the
Department of Defense, ensuring that operational effectiveness remains
uncompromised is a major challenge. Given the Defense Secretary's
directive to implement an 8 percent budget cut across the Pentagon,
totaling $50 billion, how do you anticipate these reductions will
impact the Navy's long-term readiness and shipbuilding efforts?
Mr. Phelan. I support Secretary Hegseth's budget review for Fiscal
Year 2026, and I understand the Navy team has been diligently working
to provide valuable input to the Department. I anticipate the Navy's
submission will focus on ensuring resourcing the fighting force needs
and identifying options for curbing unnecessary spending. To mitigate
the impact to current and future fleet, focusing on making the most
efficient use of available resources and prioritizing those
shipbuilding programs that are most essential to long-term readiness
and national security are critical.
64. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, the SIOP is essential for
modernizing our public shipyards. Are there concerns that budget cuts
could lead to maintenance backlogs and reduced operational availability
of critical assets like aircraft carriers and submarines?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to the modernization of
our public shipyards to ensure the readiness of the Navy's nuclear
submarines and aircraft carriers. I also support Secretary Hegseth's
budget review for Fiscal Year 2026, where I anticipate focus on
resourcing the fighting force we need and identifying options for
curbing unnecessary spending. I will work to ensure that budget
reductions minimize the impacts to the Navy's efforts to increase
effectiveness, efficiency, and modernization of our nations' public
shipyards and to reduce impacts to operational availability and
maintenance throughput for critical assets like aircraft carriers and
submarines.
65. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to working with
Congress to prioritize and protect funding for the Pearl Harbor Naval
Shipyard and other public shipyards, given their strategic importance
to national security?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will commit to addressing public
shipyards and any associated operational issues through prioritization
and resourcing to support them and I will work diligently to ensure
these concerns are appropriately considered.
66. Mr. Phelan, the ship repair piers at PHNS are in disrepair,
with only 4 of the 13 berths available for use. How are you planning to
address this shortfall, and will you commit to ensuring all of the
projects necessary to repair these berths are included in the Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP)?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will identify a plan to ensure that
PHNS can provide the berths necessary to support our current and future
fleet needs. I am committed to prioritizing and resourcing efforts
aligned with the priorities outlined by the Secretary of Defense,
particularly in the critical work of rebuilding and reestablishing our
deterrence capabilities.
67. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, there currently exists tension
between the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) and U.S.
Pacific Fleet (PACFLT) on the need date for a floating dry dock at
PHNS--PACFLT argues one is required by 2028, and OPNAV's view is that
one is not required until 2034. Where do you stand on this issue?
Mr. Phelan. Based on the current submarine maintenance plan, the
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) is tracking a
mission need date of fiscal year 2034 for the FDD. U.S. Pacific Fleet's
request for an FDD in fiscal year 2028 is to provide a surge
capability. If confirmed, I will examine both views and make a
determination as to whether FDD can be accelerated in accordance with
current schedules and resourcing.
sexual assault
68. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, in 2023, DOD combatted sexual
assault by focusing on significant military justice reforms, including
establishing independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel to prosecute
sexual assault cases, improving victim support, implementing
comprehensive prevention programs, and emphasizing a culture shift
within the military to prioritize respect and dignity, aiming to
restore trust among servicemembers by taking a more proactive approach
to addressing sexual assault allegations. Throughout that year, the
Department continued to support and execute the Secretary of Defense's
initiatives to reduce sexual harassment and sexual assault across the
Armed Forces. What would be the measures of progress you would use in
the Navy in eliminating or reducing the scourge of sexual assault,
harassment, and retaliation?
Mr. Phelan.
workforce and retention
69. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, the success of the Navy depends on
a strong, well-trained, and motivated workforce. However, recruiting
and retaining skilled personnel has become increasingly challenging.
Many servicemembers and their families face inadequate or substandard
housing. Can you name three specific initiatives you will implement
within your first year to improve military housing conditions?
Mr. Phelan. Sexual harassment and assault have no place within the
military, and I will work on a comprehensive set of metrics to measure
our actions as we work to eliminate this issue. Prevention is my number
one priority.
70. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, what measurable benchmarks will you
use to determine if these initiatives are successful?
Mr. Phelan. Once briefed, I will develop a comprehensive set of
metrics to measure the progress of our housing initiatives. I look
forward to coming back to the committee with a measurable set of
benchmarks to ensure the initiatives are being implemented
successfully.
71. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, suicide rates among servicemembers
remain a significant concern. Can you provide three specific actions
the Navy will take under your leadership to expand mental health
resources and support networks?
Mr. Phelan. Long-term combat readiness depends on the well-being of
sailors and marines. My understanding is that nationwide shortages of
healthcare personnel and providers, especially in more remote
locations, have created accessibility issues that hamper the ability of
sailors and marines to access the right level of care at the right
time. If confirmed, I will encourage the Department of the Navy to
explore deliberate actions to address concerns regarding availability
of, and access to, a range of programs and services to support the
health, safety, and well-being of sailors and marines.
72. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to setting concrete
hiring goals for mental health professionals within the Navy and Marine
Corps?
Mr. Phelan. I believe it is critical for sailors and marines to
cultivate their mental, physical, and spiritual well-being to continue
their mission to protect our Nation and remain combat-ready, lethal
fighters. If confirmed, I will support their efforts to ensure the
staffing of mental health professionals remain a high priority.
73. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, the Navy struggles to fill key
positions in cyber, nuclear engineering, and special warfare. What
three specific incentives will you introduce to recruit and retain
high-skilled personnel?
Mr. Phelan. My understanding is that sailors in these three fields,
as well as marines in the cyber and special warfare fields, are among
the mostly highly compensated military members in the Department of the
Navy. While I support continued use of monetary incentives where
appropriate and where resources allow, recruitment and retention
challenges demand renewed focus on quality-of-life issues. If
confirmed, I will ask Navy and Marine Corps leadership to more
thoroughly explore non-monetary incentives to recruit and retain highly
skilled personnel in these key positions. Specifically, I will ask them
to find ways to improve work experience and quality of life for these
sailors and marines that can positively increase retention. I would be
interested in understanding what sailors and marines think would
actually make a difference. If confirmed, I will ask the Chief of Naval
Personnel to engage our sailors and marines on what monetary and non-
monetary incentives would compel higher retention behaviors, allowing
the service to be more targeted, responsive, and efficient with its
retention efforts. To the extent supporting positions in some of these
fields are filled by civilian employees, I will employ recruitment,
relocation, and retention incentives, and the student loan repayment
program, which are already in place. If confirmed, I would explore
alternative incentives to expand recruitment and retention in these
critical specialties.
74. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, how will you adjust training
pipelines or career progression to keep talented servicemembers in the
force?
Mr. Phelan. My understanding is that the Navy and Marine Corps are
focused on retaining top quality sailors and marines, and that the
Services appreciate the officer career flexibilities authorities
authorized by Congress. If confirmed, I will seek to understand what
bottlenecks exist in current training pipelines or career progressions
to ensure efficiency and maximum retention.
geopolitical strategy
75. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, maintaining maritime superiority
and deterring adversaries requires strong alliances, strategic
planning, and investment in emerging technologies. As geopolitical
tensions rise, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, the Navy must ensure
its forces are adequately prepared to counter threats from China,
Russia, and other potential adversaries. How do you see the Navy's
continued engagement with our allies in the Indo-Pacific Theater?
Mr. Phelan. Mutually beneficial alliances remain critical to
warfighting advantage. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
Department of the Navy will continue to engage with partners to
leverage their strengths and encourage burden sharing to re-establish
deterrence, reinforce shared security, and grow prosperity in the Indo-
Pacific. Engagements will seek to increase combined lethality of the
maritime force to enable Combatant Commanders to create effects at the
time and place of their choosing and within the guidance provided by
the Secretary of Defense.
Engagements will also increase readiness by enabling access,
basing, and overflight to ensure the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps
have the reach required of them by the Joint Force. As Secretary of the
Navy, these engagements will seek to ensure the Department of the Navy
has the right capabilities and is ready alongside our Allies and
partners in the Indo-Pacific to deter, disrupt, deny, or defeat
adversarial forces or their proxies.
76. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, do you foresee any efforts that
could be established, developed, and/or improved to enhance deterrence
of potential Chinese aggression and counter China's military
modernization efforts?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I expect to receive classified briefings
on China's military modernization and the Department of the Navy's
ongoing efforts to deter and counter China. The Department of the Navy
has a strong history of fielding capabilities and adapting concepts of
employment to counter the evolving threat. I am confident in the
ingenuity of our sailors and marines, innovation of our Naval Warfare
Centers, and partnerships with academic and industry leaders will lead
to the development of multiple lines of effort to enhance deterrence
and counter China's military modernization.
77. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, with respect to AUKUS, how can
Congress and the Navy work together to identify issues related to
equipment transfers and information-sharing to prevent further delays
in AUKUS implementation?
Mr. Phelan. The AUKUS alliance strengthens interoperability and
shared capabilities with other partners. A prime example is the SSN-
AUKUS, a groundbreaking project marking the first time in history that
three nations have collaboratively designed a submarine. This future
SSN, which will be built and operated by both Australia and the UK,
will leverage the most advanced submarine technologies from all three
AUKUS nations.
Crucially, the U.S. Congress supports the Excluded Technology List
(ETL), which enables the sharing of specific, vital technologies while
maintaining reasonable and appropriate control over the release of
information related to the United States' most sensitive capabilities.
Additionally, fully funding the Maritime Industrial Base will help
ensure the Navy is building submarines and surface ships at pace to
maintain deterrence.
equity and inclusion
78. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, a diverse and inclusive military
enhances operational effectiveness and ensures all personnel have equal
opportunities for success. The Navy has taken steps to support
initiatives aimed at recruiting and retaining women and
underrepresented groups. Given the political climate, how do you intend
to support programs like the Navy's Women's Initiatives Team (Navy-
WIT), which are designed to enhance recruitment, retention, and
readiness by addressing barriers for women in service?
Mr. Phelan. Throughout my career in business, I have overseen and
funded large, complex organizations, managed significant budgets, and
driven operational efficiency in dynamic and challenging environments.
If confirmed, I would consider all potential options to expand our
reach across the country so that the Department of the Navy maximizes
our ability to find high-quality young Americans interested and able to
serve. I would also ensure the Navy is making informed investments to
focus on retaining top quality sailors and marines, both men and women,
and that our policies remain fair, objective, and merit-based.
79. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, do you believe the presence of
women in combat roles, including submarines and fighter squadrons,
strengthens the force?
Mr. Phelan. Yes. Women have served as combat pilots since the
1970's, on surface ships since the 1990's, and on submarines since
2010. I believe every sailor or marine who can meet objective
uncompromising standards should have the opportunity to compete for
jobs in any career field, including combat roles.
80. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, how will you ensure continued
opportunities for women in these roles?
Mr. Phelan. It is my understanding that the current policy
permitting women to serve in all military occupations was based on the
unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff more than a
decade ago. I believe every sailor or marine should be able to serve in
all combat roles provided they can meet the high occupational standards
of those critical jobs. I would defer to the Secretary of Defense on
any future policy changes.
political interference and leadership stability
81. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, recent removals of senior Navy
leaders have raised concerns about continuity, stability, and morale
within the service. As Secretary of the Navy, it will be critical to
maintain a steady hand during this transition period. With the removal
of senior Navy leaders in recent weeks, how do you foresee this
impacting the Navy's operational continuity?
Mr. Phelan. As with any business or organization, managing change
is crucial to success. The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps possess
extraordinary operational expertise and adaptability within their
ranks, and if confirmed, I intend to lean on those experts to ensure no
critical operational gaps occur.
82. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, considering these high-level
dismissals, what steps will you be taking to ensure that the Navy
maintains stability and morale during this period of leadership
transition?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will work shoulder-to-shoulder with the
combatant commanders, the Acting Chief of Naval Operations, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps to ensure our servicemembers have the
appropriate tools needed to defend our country, restore deterrence, and
fight and win our Nation's wars.
83. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, I am concerned about the stability
and continuity in military legal affairs. How will you ensure that the
legal support structure within the Navy remains strong and independent,
particularly in handling sensitive issues such as military justice and
legal protections for sailors?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will leverage the four independent
pillars of the Navy's military justice system, which are critical to
its strength.
defense policy review initiative
84. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, given China's ongoing actions in
the straits of Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the larger Indo-Pacific
region, what are your thoughts on the implementation of the Defense
Policy Review Initiative (DPRI) which includes relocating combat-
credible forces off Okinawa to areas outside the weapons engagement
zone of China's military and away from the first island chain, which
could leave our forces, as well as allies and partners, vulnerable in a
future conflict?
Mr. Phelan. I understand that the Department is reviewing all
possible options on the force laydown of our units and rotations in the
region. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Defense to
ensure we examine all force laydown to determine the optimal posture
for our naval forces.
united nations convention on the law of the sea and maritime law
85. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a legal framework for maritime
operations and territorial disputes. Many Navy leaders have advocated
for U.S. ratification to strengthen global maritime law enforcement and
support Freedom of Navigation Operations. Many of your predecessors and
those in senior leadership positions in the Navy have advocated for
ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Do you support ratification as Secretary of the Navy?
Mr. Phelan. The Convention codifies a global legal framework for
freedoms of navigation and overflight that reflects customary
international law. The U.S. Navy has long acted in a manner consistent
with those provisions. If confirmed, I will work with my colleagues in
the Administration, Department of Defense, and Department of State to
determine the most beneficial way ahead for our maritime forces.
personnel and readiness
86. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, ensuring that the Navy maintains a
robust and resilient workforce is a key challenge, particularly given
recruitment and retention difficulties. You committed to addressing
recruitment and retention challenges. Beyond marketing, what policy
changes would you implement to improve retention rates for critical
Navy roles?
Mr. Phelan. While I support continued use of monetary incentives
where appropriate and where resources allow, recruitment and retention
challenges demand a renewed focus on quality-of-life issues, such as
medical care and quality housing for our sailors and marines. If the
Navy is to attract and retain the best talent, it needs to become a
place where men and women see not just a job, but a future career.
87. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, given the current operational
tempo, how will you ensure sailors and marines maintain a healthy work-
life balance while meeting strategic demands?
Mr. Phelan. I recognize that service in the Navy and Marine Corps
comes with certain hardships. It is critical for sailors and marines to
foster their mental, physical, and spiritual well-being to continue
their mission to protect our Nation and remain combat-ready, lethal
fighters. If confirmed, I will assess the programs and policies
addressing stressors caused by high operational tempo, like quality of
life, and geographic stability. My focus will be on balancing
operational requirements and national security interests with the well-
being, career development, and readiness of our servicemembers.
88. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, military recruitment has
historically benefited from policies supporting immigrants and non-
citizens serving in exchange for a pathway to citizenship. Do you
support reinstating initiatives that allow legal immigrants to serve
and gain citizenship, particularly given the recruitment shortfalls?
Mr. Phelan. I understand the law currently allows a pathway to
citizenship for those who have served honorably, and this opportunity
has been used as a retention incentive. I would have to defer to the
Secretary of Defense on any future policy changes.
retention challenges and quality of life
89. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, providing quality-of-life support
programs, including housing, healthcare, and family services, is
essential for retaining skilled personnel. Will you commit to
advocating for stronger family and quality-of-life support programs,
including housing, healthcare, and family services, to enhance
retention?
Mr. Phelan. Quality of life programs are key elements for overall
readiness and combat effectiveness. I understand the importance of
these programs, including housing and healthcare, and how these
benefits help us recruit and retain our personnel. If confirmed, I will
commit to strengthening programs to take care of our sailors, marines,
and their families.
90. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, how do you plan to balance
operational tempo with the need to prevent burnout and attrition among
servicemembers?
Mr. Phelan. Efforts to balance operational requirements with the
well-being of our servicemembers undoubtedly have a culminating point.
Recruiting challenges in the Navy have left critical positions
unfilled, and this has placed the burden on sailors to make up for
shortfalls. If confirmed, I would consider all potential options to
expand our outreach to maximize our ability to find high-quality young
Americans interested and able to serve. I would also ensure the
Department of the Navy is making informed and right-sized investments
to recruit effectively in an evolving market for talent and effectively
convey the value of military service.
military culture and political interference
91. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, the perception of political
interference in military affairs has raised concerns about the impact
on recruitment, retention, and force cohesion. How will you ensure that
recruitment and retention efforts are not hindered by political purges
or the perception that the Navy is being used as a political tool?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to maintaining the military's
long-standing tradition of being apolitical. The Department of the
Navy's recruiting and retention efforts are improving, which I believe
is due to a renewed focus on the warfighting ethos.
92. Senator Hirono. Mr. Phelan, reports indicate that younger
recruits, particularly Gen Z, are deterred from military service due to
perceptions that it is becoming more politicized. What steps will you
take to make the Navy a welcoming and professional environment for all
Americans, regardless of political affiliation or background?
Mr. Phelan. I commit to holding leaders at all levels appropriately
accountable for fostering a climate that allows all sailors and marines
to serve, advance, and be evaluated based on individual merit, fitness,
capability, and performance.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
ethics
93. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, please list all investments you own
in companies that have a contract with any component of the Department
of Defense (DOD).
Mr. Phelan. Please refer to the Public Financial Disclosure Report
(OGE Form 278e) dated January 21, 2025 that I filed in connection with
my nomination as Secretary of the Navy.
94. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, please specify which of these
investments you plan to retain even if confirmed.
Mr. Phelan. Please refer to my Public Financial Disclosure Report
(OGE Form 278e) and my Ethics Agreement signed on February 14, 2025. If
confirmed, consistent with my Ethics Agreement, I will divest my
interests in certain entities as soon as practicable but not later than
90 days after my confirmation.
95. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you currently own any
investments in Palantir Technologies Inc.?
Mr. Phelan. Please refer to the Public Financial Disclosure Report
(OGE Form 278e) dated January 21, 2025 that I filed in connection with
my nomination as Secretary of the Navy.
96. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, please describe the nature of your
relationship with Palantir Technologies.
Mr. Phelan. Please refer to the Public Financial Disclosure Report
(OGE Form 278e) dated January 21, 2025 that I filed in connection with
my nomination as Secretary of the Navy.
97. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how much have you made from your
Palantir investments since Palantir's founding?
Mr. Phelan. I have submitted a public financial disclosure report
(OGE Form 278e) dated January 21, 2025 that provides information on my
reportable investments.
98. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to divesting all
holdings in defense contractors?
Mr. Phelan. I have worked with the Office of Government Ethics and
the DOD Standards of Conduct Office to review my investments and, as
noted in my Ethics Agreement signed on February 14, 2025, which sets
for my divestiture requirements, if confirmed.
99. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to not repurchasing
any such holdings after your service?
Mr. Phelan. I have signed an ethics agreement related to this issue
and I will comply with the agreement.
100. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit, if confirmed, to
recuse yourself from all particular matters involving your former
clients and employers, for at least 4 years while serving as Navy
Secretary?
Mr. Phelan. I have signed an ethics agreement related to this issue
and I will comply with the agreement.
101. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to not seek
employment or board membership with, or another form of compensation
from, a company that you regulate or otherwise interact with while in
Government, for at least 4 years after leaving office?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to following applicable laws and
relevant guidance from DOD ethics officials with respect to post-
government employment restrictions.
102. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to not lobby DOD--
including work as an informal ``shadow lobbyist''--for at least 4 years
after leaving office?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to following applicable laws and
relevant guidance from DOD ethics officials with respect to post-
government employment restrictions.
103. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, during your nomination process,
did anyone on the Trump campaign, transition team, or other closely
related entity approach you about your loyalty to President Trump?
Mr. Phelan. No.
104. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you sign a loyalty pledge or other
similar oath? If so, please provide a copy of the text of that pledge
or oath.
Mr. Phelan. I was not approached.
105. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you were approached about your
loyalty to President Trump, did you make any verbal representations of
loyalty? If so, please describe this representation.
Mr. Phelan. I was not approached.
106. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, did you ask to be considered for a
position in President Trump's administration in return for your
donations to Trump's campaign?
Mr. Phelan. No.
107. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, did you ever give payments to any
person or entity in exchange for using their influence to promote your
candidacy for a Presidential nomination from President Trump?
Mr. Phelan. No.
108. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, in November 2024, the New York
Times and other news outlets reported that Boris Epshteyn, a top
adviser to President-elect Trump, allegedly requested payment from
prospective political appointees to promote their candidacies for top
positions within the Administration. Did you discuss the possibility of
joining the Administration with Mr. Epshteyn at any time?
Mr. Phelan. No.
109. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if so, did Mr. Epshteyn seek
payment from you for promoting your candidacy for a position within the
administration?
Mr. Phelan. No.
110. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, at any time, did lawyers for
President Trump or members of President Trump's team approach you
regarding Mr. Epshteyn and the allegations cited above? If so, please
explain the information that they provided you, including copies of
documents, what was discussed during any calls, and any other
information pertaining to this interaction.
Mr. Phelan. No.
111. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, please provide a summary of any
payments made by any presumptive or potential nominee for a
Presidential appointment to you or your agents or associates, or any
entity owned or controlled by Boris Epshteyn or his agents or
associates.
Mr. Phelan. I am not aware of any such payments.
foreign influence
112. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, have you received any payment from
a foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government
within the past 5 years?
Mr. Phelan. I have provided relevant information in connection with
my security clearance background check.
113. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if so, please provide details on
the amount of this payment, what foreign government or entity paid you,
and what the payment was for.
Mr. Phelan. I have provided relevant information in connection with
my security clearance background check.
114. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, have you communicated with any
foreign government or entity controlled by a foreign government within
the past 5 years?
Mr. Phelan. I have provided relevant information in connection with
my security clearance background check.
115. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if so, please describe the nature
of the communication, including the timing, foreign government or
entity with which you communicated, and reason for the communication.
Mr. Phelan. I have provided relevant information in connection with
my security clearance background check.
sexual assault and harassment
116. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, the most recent DOD statistics
found that about 29,000 Active Duty troops--which accounts for 6.8
percent of female servicemembers and 1.3 percent of male
servicemembers--experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2023. A Brown
University study estimates that the actual rates are two to four times
higher. How do you plan to address and reduce sexual assault and sexual
harassment in the Navy?
Mr. Phelan. I am dedicated to advancing sexual assault and sexual
harassment prevention and response efforts that result in consequential
and lasting change. I understand that both Services within the
Department of the Navy have implemented prevention measures that have
reduced rates of this unacceptable behavior. If confirmed, I will
support efforts that have a positive impact on sailors and marines,
foster healthy command climates, and provide for the capture of data to
assess progress.
117. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how do you plan to support and
protect Navy servicemembers, civilians, grantees, and contractors who
come forward with reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment?
Mr. Phelan. There is no place for sexual assault or sexual
harassment in the Navy, the Marine Corps, or the total force. I am
committed to offering high-quality response services to best support
and protect victims of all forms of sexual violence, and to holding
offenders appropriately accountable. If confirmed, I will support the
Department of the Navy's (DON's) ongoing efforts to prevent and reduce
sexual violence through a dedicated and full-time response workforce
and will demand that DON leaders at all levels set the conditions for
healthy command climates, including the robust reporting of these
crimes and the prevention of retaliation.
agreements
118. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, have you, in any professional or
personal capacity, signed or agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement,
confidentiality agreement, confidential disclosure agreement,
proprietary information agreement, non-disparagement agreement, and/or
secrecy agreement and for what reasons did you do so?
Mr. Phelan. I have signed agreements that are typical for the
business activities in which I have been engaged, such as in connection
with potential investments.
119. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, have you, in any professional or
personal capacity, agreed to pay, paid, or receive payment or services
in conjunction with any of the aforementioned instances?
Mr. Phelan. I have signed agreements that are typical for the
business activities in which I have been engaged. Some of these
agreements have been related to payments and/or services.
120. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you have in any professional or
personal capacity, agreed to pay, paid, or receive payment or services
in conjunction with any of the aforementioned instances, please provide
a breakdown of the amount(s) agreed to pay, paid, or received and an
explanation of services rendered and include a timeline of when any of
these agreements, payments, or services rendered occurred.
Mr. Phelan. 1I have signed agreements that are typical for the
business activities in which I have been engaged. Some of these
agreements have been related to payments and/or services.
whistleblowers
121. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you believe that
servicemembers, civilians, grantees, and contractors should be
protected from any form of retaliation for coming forward about an
illegal order, sexual assault or harassment, negligence, misconduct, or
any other concern that they wish to raise?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, I believe that all whistleblower laws should be
followed, and that bona fide whistleblowers should be afforded the
protections provided them by applicable statute.
122. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of the Navy, will you Senator Warren. commit to protecting
whistleblowers?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, if confirmed, I will commit to protecting bona
fide whistleblowers in accordance with applicable laws.
123. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how will you protect
whistleblowers?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will follow all laws related to
whistleblowers and will ensure the protections required by law.
124. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your understanding of the
purpose of Federal whistleblower protection laws?
Mr. Phelan. Whistleblowers perform an important service when they
report evidence of wrongdoing. Federal whistleblower protection laws
exist to protect those individuals from retaliation for making a
protected disclosure.
125. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, have you ever retaliated against
any individual for cominSenator Warren. g forward about an illegal
order, sexual assault or harassment, negligence, misconduct, or any
other concern that they wish to raise?
Mr. Phelan. No.
126. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, have you ever been accused of
retaliating against a whistleblower?
Mr. Phelan. Not to my knowledge.
127. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your understanding of the
role of the Office of Special Counsel and civilian whistleblowers?
Mr. Phelan. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) operates as a
secure channel for Federal employees to blow the whistle by disclosing
wrongdoing. Federal law establishes a unique process for disclosures
made to OSC, intended to protect the confidentiality of the
whistleblower and ensure that the alleged wrongdoing is investigated
and, where necessary, corrected.
128. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what role do you think
whistleblowers should play in identifying wasteful spending?
Mr. Phelan. I believe that bona fide whistleblowers play an
important role in ensuring transparency and accountability within an
organization.
oversight and transparency
129. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your understanding of the
role of the DOD Inspector General and the Navy Inspector General?
Mr. Phelan. I understand the DOD Inspector General's (DODIG) role
to be the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on fraud,
waste, and abuse, charged with auditing/inspecting, conducting criminal
investigations, issuing subpoenas, and providing a semi-annual report
to Congress. The Naval Inspector General's (NAVIG) role is to
independently and objectively inspect, investigate, and inquire into
matters of importance to the Department of the Navy, to include waste,
fraud, and abuse. I understand that the NAVIG will report directly to
me as the Secretary of the Navy if I am confirmed.
130. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you ensure your staff
complies with any Inspector General deadlines established for requested
communications, providing witnesses, providing documents, and that
those witnesses will be protected from reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure my staff complies
with applicable legal requirements related to the DOD Inspector General
and the Navy Inspector General.
131. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are not able to comply with
any Inspector General requests and deadlines, will you notify the
Republican and Democratic members of the committee regarding the basis
for any good faith delay or denial?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to providing any legally
required notification to the Committee.
132. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of the Navy, will you commit to refusing to follow illegal orders from
any individual, including the President?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I expect to receive only legal orders,
which I commit to following.
133. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to testify before
Congress if you are called upon by Congress to provide a deposition or
if you are issued a subpoena?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to complying with applicable
legal requirements regarding testifying before Congress.
134. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to providing
information or documents to Congress if you are requested to do so or
issued a subpoena?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to complying with applicable
legal requirements regarding providing information or documents to
Congress.
135. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to following
current DOD precedent for responding to information requests,
briefings, and other inquiries from Congress, including the Senate and
House Armed Services Committees and their minority members?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to complying with applicable
legal requirements regarding responding to requests from Congress.
136. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if confirmed, will you commit to
posting your official calendar monthly?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to meeting all legal
disclosure requirements.
137. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you think the Navy has an
overclassification problem and if so, can you commit to providing this
committee an estimate of the number or percentage of Navy documents
that are overclassified?
Mr. Phelan. The vast majority of Naval Intelligence documents
derive their classification from the original data owners--agencies
such as NSA, NGA, CIA, etc. I understand that the Navy does not have
the independent ability to change the classification of that data,
although its works very closely with those agencies to ensure the
ability to responsibly use their data to the maximum extent possible.
For information for which the Navy is the Original Classification
Authority, the respective classification security guides need to be
analyzed to ensure they strike the proper balance between sharing
information and protecting sources and methods.
138. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, to the best of your knowledge, are
Navy components identifying records for proactive posting in compliance
with the Freedom of Information Act?
Mr. Phelan. I have not received any briefing on the Department of
the Navy's current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) program. If
confirmed, I will review that program to ensure it is aligned with law.
139. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if not, how would you ensure that
they do so to comply with public records law?
Mr. Phelan. I have not received any briefing on the Department of
the Navy's current FOIA program. If confirmed, I will review the
program.
140. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if confirmed, do you think the
Navy should pursue strategic technology to support automated
declassification?
Mr. Phelan. Declassification of material at the appropriate time is
an important task for transparency for the American people. However,
this is not a task unique to the Navy, and having Navy independently
develop an automated declassification system itself could be
inefficient. Such a system would be best pursued at the DOD or even
interagency level, with Navy as a partner.
141. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your understanding of the
role of safety and accident board investigations?
Mr. Phelan. Safety and Occupational Health is core to all Navy and
Marine Corps operations and activities. Performing the Naval mission
safely is a readiness enabler through the preservation of our
personnel, materiel, and resources.
It is my understanding that the DON's safety investigations are
conducted solely to protect military and civilian personnel from
accidental death, injury, or occupational illness; to protect the
public from risk of death, injury, illness, or property damage caused
by DON activities, and to protect DON property from damage.
Accident Investigations are the legal investigations conducted
outside of the safety process and review the facts and circumstances
surrounding operational and training accidents. The DON is committed to
ensuring the timeliness and completeness of legal Accident
Investigations.
142. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you share the findings of
safety and accident board investigations with Congress to address
programmatic failures to prevent accidents that will harm or kill
sailors and marines?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to providing information
in accordance with all legal disclosure requirements, and I will work
with Congress to ensure the safety of our sailors and marines.
rule of law
143. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth
said he removed the Judge Advocate Generals for the Army, Navy, and Air
Force so they would not ``be roadblocks to anything that happens.''
What do you understand to be the role of Judge Advocate Generals for
commanders and the military?
Mr. Phelan. I understand the Judge Advocate General serves three
primary roles under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy: 1)
provides independent legal advice to the Secretary of the Navy and the
Chief of Naval Operations; 2) ensures the execution, oversight, and
management of the military justice system; and 3) oversees the Judge
Advocate General's Corps of the Navy in the provision of independent
legal advice to the Fleet.
144. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what will you do if you receive
legal advice that an action you would like to take or are being asked
to take is illegal?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will uphold the Constitution and the
laws of the United States. If I have questions about the lawfulness of
an order, I will seek and carefully consider the legal opinions
available to the Secretary of the Navy, which include those of the
Office of the General Counsel, the Office of the Judge Advocate
General, and other legal offices within the Government.
145. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you refuse to take an action
that you have been advised is illegal and learn that someone else in
the Navy or DOD took action, will you inform the Committee?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to complying with all laws and
regulations that require the disclosure of certain information to this
Committee.
domestic deployments of the u.s. military
146. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, in which circumstances do you
believe that the Insurrection Act should be used?
Mr. Phelan. Congress granted authority to the President of the
United States in the Insurrection Act, and its lawful uses are detailed
in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Sec. Sec. 331-335. Past Presidents have
used the authority to suppress insurrections, rebellions, obstructions
to justice, and other unlawful activities.
147. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you believe that the
Insurrection Act should be used only as a ``last resort''?
Mr. Phelan. Pursuant to 10 USC Sec. Sec. 331-335, it is the
President's prerogative to invoke the Insurrection Act when
appropriate. The Secretary of the Navy does not have this authority.
148. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you believe that military
forces should be deployed to respond to civil unrest only in situations
where State and local authorities are overwhelmed?
Mr. Phelan. Historically, military forces have responded to unrest
in our country, at the President's direction, when civil authorities
were heavily taxed and disorder had become widespread.
149. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you believe that the parties
best positioned to determine whether State and local authorities are
overwhelmed are those authorities? If not, why not?
Mr. Phelan. Through the Insurrection Act, Congress provided the
President the lawful authority to respond to insurrections,
obstructions to justice, and domestic violence. The statute lays out
conditions for use of that authority. State and local authorities may
or may not be able to assess or convey they are overwhelmed depending
on the totality of the circumstances.
150. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if confirmed, would you support
using the military for immigration enforcement, including for mass
deportations, despite the military's lack of relevant training and the
harm it would almost certainly do to military readiness?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will support and execute all lawful
direction and guidance from the President of the United States and the
Secretary of Defense.
impoundment control act
151. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, on January 27, 2025, President
Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo calling for
all Federal financial assistance programs (excluding ``assistance
provided directly to individuals'') to be suspended. Do you agree with
OMB's decision to issue this memo?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to better understanding
the impact of this memo on Department of the Navy functions.
152. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you believe that the Secretary
of Defense or the Secretary of the Navy has the legal authority to
block the disbursement of funds appropriated by Congress?
Mr. Phelan. My understanding of the Impoundment Control Act is that
it provides the President the authority to propose budget authority
rescissions. The Act also provides the President, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Secretary of the Navy the authority to propose
deferrals of budget authority to provide for contingencies, or to
achieve savings made possible by changes in requirements or greater
efficiency in operations, or as specifically provided by law.
153. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your understanding of the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Phelan. Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, my
understanding is that an impoundment is an action or inaction by an
officer or employee of the United States that delays or precludes the
obligation or expenditure of budget authority. The Act divides
impoundment into two categories: recissions or deferrals. Proposals for
budget authority recissions rest in the President, and deferrals of
budget authority may be proposed by the President, Secretary of
Defense, or the Secretary of the Navy.
154. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you commit to following the
Impoundment Control Act?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to following the law.
155. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you commit to notifying the
Senate and House Armed Services Committees, including the majority and
minority, if you are asked not to follow the Impoundment Control Act or
not to expend the money that Congress appropriates or authorizes?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to complying with applicable
legal requirements regarding responding to requests from Congress.
156. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, the Constitution's Spending Clause
(Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1) and Appropriations Clause (Art. I, Sec. 9,
cl. 7) give Congress, not the Executive, power of the purse. The
Supreme Court has unanimously upheld this power. Do you believe that
impoundments are constitutional?
Mr. Phelan. In my previous experiences, I have not reviewed the
constitutionality of impoundments.
157. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you agree with the following
statements? The funding levels in appropriations bills passed into law
are not targets or ceilings; instead, they are amounts the executive
branch must spend unless stated otherwise. Congress could--if it wanted
the President to have discretion--write those amounts as ceilings.
Mr. Phelan. I understand that both the Impoundment Control Act and
the U.S. Government Accountability Office identify situations where not
spending an entire appropriation complies with the Act.
158. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your understanding of the
requirements for DOD to obligate funding that Congress authorizes and
appropriates, in accordance with the time period that Congress deems it
to do so?
Mr. Phelan. My understanding is the balance of an appropriation or
fund limited for obligation to a definite period is available only for
payment of expenses properly incurred during the period of availability
or to complete contracts properly made within that period of
availability and obligated consistent with the law. However, the
appropriation or fund is not available for expenditure for a period
beyond the period otherwise authorized by law.
159. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you commit to expending the
money that Congress appropriates and authorizes?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to being a good steward of
Department of the Navy appropriations and to comply with all applicable
law regarding their obligation and expenditure.
160. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you commit to following and
implementing the annual National Defense Authorization Act passed into
law?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to complying with applicable
legal requirements.
civilian harm
161. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you agree that one difference
between the United States and its potential adversaries is the greater
value that the U.S. Government puts on protecting human life and
liberty at home and abroad?
Mr. Phelan. Promoting the protection of human life is clearly
something that sets the United States apart from our adversaries and
makes an example for others to follow.
162. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your understanding of
title 10 U.S.C. section 184, which established the Civilian Protection
Center of Excellence?
Mr. Phelan. I have not been briefed on the Civilian Protection
Center of Excellence as the law establishes this operation under the
Secretary of Defense.
163. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, the U.S. military has spent many
years working to improve its ability to prevent and mitigate civilian
harm without sacrificing lethality--including through the development
of DOD Instruction on Civilian Harm under the first Trump
administration, which I commend. These efforts received bipartisan
support from Congress and grew out of a recognition from the U.S.
military itself that, after over 2 decades of U.S. wars, warfighters
needed better tools and trustworthy systems to prevent civilian harm,
uphold U.S. values, and prevent moral injury and psychological trauma
that too often comes with deadly mistakes. The Civilian Protection
Center of Excellence (CPCOE), which provides direct support to
operational combatant commands on civilian harm issues, has been
enshrined in U.S. law via the James M. Inhofe National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023. If confirmed as
Secretary of the Navy, will you commit to advancing the Navy's civilian
harm prevention efforts?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Defense
to ensure our sailors and marines improve efforts that prevent and
mitigate civilian harm without sacrificing lethality.
164. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what do you understand to be your
roles and responsibilities regarding civilian harm mitigation and
response?
Mr. Phelan. I have not been briefed on the specific actions
assigned to the Secretary of the Navy under the CHMR program. If
confirmed, I will request a briefing to ensure that I understand the
responsibilities assigned to the Department of the Navy.
165. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what do you understand to be the
importance of mitigating civilian harm in military operations?
Mr. Phelan. I understand it is incredibly important to mitigate
civilian harm in any military operation, and that doing so aligns with
the Department of the Navy's core values driving daily Navy and Marine
Corps actions.
166. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to supporting and
protecting the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I commit to following all relevant laws
and the direction of the Secretary of Defense, who is charged with such
operations.
167. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how will you prevent and mitigate
civilian harm?
Mr. Phelan. Again, I have not been briefed on this program. If
confirmed, I will request a briefing on the Department of the Navy's
specific role in preventing and mitigating civilian harm and commit to
following all relevant laws and Secretary of Defense direction
regarding the same.
168. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to supporting and
implementing the Civilian Harm Mitigation Response and Action Plan
(CHMR-AP)?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will request a briefing on the
Department of the Navy's specific role in preventing and mitigating
civilian harm as directed by the Secretary of Defense.
169. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you believe that our troops are
at higher risk for retribution as the number of civilian deaths from
U.S. military operations or U.S.-led military operations increases?
Mr. Phelan. I believe that our military personnel face significant
risk in every operation and that they are well-trained for their
mission.
blast overpressure
170. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will you commit to protecting
servicemembers from blast overpressure and increase their options for
seeking care after being exposed?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, I fully support the DON efforts to protect
servicemembers from blast overpressure and the care they receive after
being exposed. The Navy is an active participant in the Department of
Defense's ``Warfighter Brain Health Initiative,'' which is an effort
that includes blast overpressure concerns and supports research,
prevention, and response to brain injury.
171. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what steps will you take to
protect servicemembers from blast overpressure and increase their
options for seeking care after being exposed?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed, in coordination with the
Defense Safety Oversight Council, to continuing research on blast
overpressure that will help inform treatment and continuing our
relationship with the Defense Health Agency and TBI clinics around the
globe to provide care, including for blast overpressure.
172. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how do you plan to work with the
Department of Veterans Affairs to make sure that servicemembers,
veterans, and their families are aware of the risks of blast
overpressure and traumatic brain injury?
Mr. Phelan. As we begin to understand more about the link between
blast overpressure exposure and effects, we must share that information
with the VA to form an information campaign to ensure servicemembers,
veterans, and their families are well informed. One means by which the
Navy and DOD achieves this is through including environmental exposure
data into the individual Longitudinal Exposure Record so that the data
is available to DOD and VA clinicians.
173. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you support establishing logs
for sailors on blast overpressure exposure and traumatic brain injury?
Mr. Phelan. A better understanding of the link between blast
overpressure exposure and effects must be researched so we know what
elements are important to monitor and respond to over time. If
confirmed, I look forward to learning more about this issue and how it
can be enhanced.
174. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you support requiring
neurocognitive assessments of sailors annually, before they begin
training to establish a baseline, and before they leave the military to
determine when their change in cognitive health over time?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will request a briefing on this
important assessment for sailors and marines and take appropriate
action on this important issue.
175. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how will you address the links
between blast overpressure exposure and increased risks of suicide?
Mr. Phelan. It is my understanding that this link is not yet well
defined or understood. If confirmed, I will ensure that we will focus
on better understanding this relationship through research and then
create evidence-based policies to moderate the risk.
176. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you support addressing the
risks of blast overpressure to servicemembers through the swift
implementation of sections 721 through section 725 of the Fiscal Year
2025 NDAA?
Mr. Phelan. Yes, I support implementation of these sections. I am
committed to working with our DOD partners in the Defense Health Agency
and our sister services to ensure benefit to all servicemembers.
right-to-repair
177. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you believe giving the Navy
access to the technical data rights needed to repair its own equipment
could advance the Navy's readiness?
Mr. Phelan. Yes. It is my understanding that the DON is actively
working with program managers to ensure the procurement and delivery of
the technical data and data rights necessary to support efficient
sustainment and optimized readiness of the fleet. Access to technical
data enables organic repair capability or allows a vendor to perform
the required efforts on behalf of the Navy.
178. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you believe giving the Navy
access to the technical data rights needed to repair its own equipment
could help reduce the Navy's repair and sustainment costs?
Mr. Phelan. Yes. Access to technical data is a key enabler in
assuring the DON has the ability to procure the products and services
needed to support the warfighters. Access to technical data enables
organic repair capability or allows a vendor to perform the required
efforts on behalf of the Navy.
179. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how will you ensure servicemembers
who are stationed abroad can timely and cost-effectively repair
equipment that is damaged, especially in a contested logistics
environment?
Mr. Phelan. It is my understanding the department recognizes
contested logistics has emerged as a critical factor in shaping the
success of the Naval forces and is committed to ensuring servicemembers
are equipped with the appropriate tools required to conduct timely
repairs. One of the areas in which the department is seeking to
strengthen warfighter self-sufficiency is through progressing
deployable Organization and Intermediate level advanced manufacturing
capabilities. Advanced Manufacturing offers rapid response capability
to sustain operations in austere environments. If confirmed, I am
committed to advancing and continuing these efforts.
180. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of the Navy, will you commit to including right-to-repair/technical
data rights clauses in acquisition contracts that the Navy enters into?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will ensure the DON continues to
implement current policies and practices regarding right-to-repair and
technical data rights within acquisition contracts. Additionally, if
confirmed, I will work with my counterparts in the Office of the Under
Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment to explore how to best
leverage right-to-repair and technical data rights within acquisition
contracts to enable organic repair capability.
181. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of the Navy, will you commit to ensuring contractors deliver technical
data rights to the Navy when their contract requires or allows it?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring contractors
deliver technical data required by contract. I will use all legal tools
available to ensure that delivery.
182. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, in your hearing you stated that
the Navy's contracts ``really need to be reviewed''. In your review of
the Navy's contracts, will you assess whether the Government has
received the technical data rights from a defense contractor if the
contract requires it?
Mr. Phelan. Yes. If confirmed, I will ensure the DON will continue
to evaluate and ensure that all requirements of contracts have been
satisfied, and that the technical data delivered has the appropriate
markings.
183. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, in your hearing you stated that
the right-to-repair effort for the military ``is something that [you]
intend to study and look at.'' If you are confirmed as Secretary of the
Navy, will you commit to understanding the cost of not having the
right-to-repair/technical data rights for the Navy's equipment through
an assessment, the results of which you would make public for review by
Congress and the Department of Government Efficiency?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will continue the commitment to
understanding the costs of not having technical data and/or
appropriately marked technical data. Such information would improve the
DON's ability to assess the value of technical data delivery
requirements during contract formation. Additionally, if confirmed, I
will provide results in accordance with all legal requirements.
184. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your understanding of the
Navy's Taxpayer Advocacy Project?
Mr. Phelan. As I understand it, the Taxpayer Advocacy Project was
developed to help reduce sustainment and operating costs. If confirmed,
I look forward to learning more about this program and hopefully
enhancing it to provide a proper return on investment for the American
taxpayer.
185. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you support the Navy's Taxpayer
Advocacy Project?
Mr. Phelan. I support all efforts to ensure that the taxpayer
receives what they paid for.
186. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your understanding of
DOD's Intellectual Property Cadre?
Mr. Phelan. My understanding is that the IP Cadre was created with
the goal of establishing a group of personnel who are experts in
intellectual property matters. If confirmed, I look forward to learning
more about this capability and supporting the DON's participation to
ensure we are implementing effective IP practices.
187. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you think reducing the Navy's
acquisition and sustainment costs is important?
Mr. Phelan. I believe that finding ways to reduce the Navy's
acquisition and sustainment costs is critical. First, the Navy owes it
to the taxpayer to be good stewards of the resources they provide to
us. Second, I believe such reductions will be a multiplying function
for the Department of the Navy, allowing for savings to be reinvested,
particularly in research and development but also in increased
quantities, in order to regain our lead compared to peer competitors.
188. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, what is your strategy to reduce
the Navy's acquisition and sustainment costs?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
acquisition community, requirements community, Defense Department, and
Congress to determine the optimal budget for the Department of the
Navy. I believe that it will be critical to that effort to ensure that
our acquisition programs are designed with flexibility and sustainment
in mind in order to plan for efficiency from day one. This is necessary
to ensure that the programs we are acquiring today can be more easily
and cost effectively modernized in the future.
managing the federal workforce
189. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, the Trump administration has
removed a number of probationary employees across the Federal
Government. Many of these probationary employees were recently promoted
or hired to fulfill urgently needed gaps in U.S. capabilities. Why
should Congress provide the Navy expedited or additional hiring
authorities if they will be disregarded without any public
justification or consultation with Congress?
Mr. Phelan. I support President Trump's goal to streamline the
Federal workforce and Secretary Hegseth's focus on rebuilding the
military by matching threats to capabilities. Therefore, if confirmed,
I will support hiring and personnel actions that promote these visions
by focusing on recruiting and retaining the best and brightest to
positions key to supporting the warfighter and national security.
190. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, press reports indicate DOD has
paused four trainings, including harassment prevention and No Fear Act
training. Do you support harassment prevention training?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will support training that focuses on
addressing problematic behaviors before they escalate, and training
that sets the conditions for healthy behaviors. I will ensure these
programs have the support and resources they need to succeed.
191. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum called ``Guidance on Agency RIF and
Reorganization Plans Requested by Implementing The President's
`Department of Government Efficiency' Workforce Optimization
Initiative'' on February 26, 2025. The memo outlines phases for which
agencies will submit agency reductions in force and reorganization
plans. If confirmed, how will the Navy comply with this OMB memo?
Mr. Phelan. I fully support the President's commitment to reform
the Federal workforce, to promote lethality and readiness, increase
productivity, and achieve efficiency and cost savings. If confirmed, I
will partner with Department of Defense (DOD) leaders to develop
reorganization plans and generate workforce reductions that further the
President's priorities. I will base these efforts on a thorough and
methodical review of the size and structure of the DON workforce, in
light of mission priorities.
192. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how will the Navy ensure that any
reductions in force preserve military preparedness and national
security?
Mr. Phelan. I believe the Department of the Navy's (DON's) efforts
to reduce and reshape the civilian workforce will prioritize the DON's
mission-critical requirements and identify reductions in functions with
an attenuated relationship to lethality and readiness. The civilian
workforce plays a critical role in the accomplishment of the DON's
mission. Any reductions in the DON workforce should target the
elimination of redundancies and unnecessary spending that could be
reallocated to support the warfighter.
193. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, will the Navy conduct a review of
any reductions in force pursuant to title 10 USC section 129a?
Mr. Phelan. While I am not intimately familiar with the
requirements of the statute, if confirmed, I will work closely with the
Secretary of Defense and other senior DOD leaders to ensure that
reductions in the civilian workforce are carried out in accordance with
all applicable laws, including, as appropriate, section 129a.
194. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how will the Navy ensure
transparency and inform all members of the Senate Armed Services
Committee about the findings of the review conducted pursuant to title
10 USC section 129a?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to building and sustaining
a lean and highly capable civilian workforce, to holding the Department
of the Navy (DON) accountable for compliance with applicable law, and
for maintaining a forthright and transparent relationship with all
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. If confirmed, I will
inform the members of the Committee of the substance of the DON's
analysis under section 129a.
military housing
195. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of the Navy, how will you address the affordability and supply issues
within the military housing market?
Mr. Phelan. Affordability and supply issues will remain a focus for
the DON. If confirmed, I will continue the DON's formal Housing Market
Requirement Analyses for all installations. In addition to monitoring
occupancy in DON housing, this tool helps inform decisions for
potential expansions to address housing deficits where required.
Currently, the Navy is analyzing this important issue for Naval Station
Everett, Naval Air Station Fallon, and Naval Air Weapons Station China
Lake.
196. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of the Navy, how will you address the quality problems in the military
housing inventory?
Mr. Phelan. I am committed to thoroughly reviewing the DON's
improvement plans and associated construction projects, with a focus on
prioritizing the most severely degraded housing facilities. This will
ensure that we address the most urgent needs while aligning with our
broader goals for overall infrastructure enhancement and operational
readiness. Additionally, if confirmed I will look at opportunities to
enhance base housing and expand unaccompanied housing.
197. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of the Navy, how will DOD strengthen its oversight of the private
military housing market?
Mr. Phelan. Our sailors and marines and their families deserve high
quality housing. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of
Defense and DOD to ensure oversight of the private military housing
market is effective.
198. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of the Navy, how will the Navy strengthen its oversight of the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will be committed to continuous
improvement of the Department of the Navy's Military Housing
Privatization Initiative (MHPI) program through maintaining resident
trust, reinforcing DON oversight, and exercising active leadership. If
confirmed, I will continue to use the tools developed to better analyze
our processes, policies, and overall program to ensure higher levels of
service and satisfaction for our sailors, marines, and their families.
199. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of the Navy, will you commit to implementing and enforcing the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative Tenant Bill of Rights?
Mr. Phelan. I have not received any briefings on this specific
program. If confirmed, I will work through the Department of the Navy's
oversight processes and with this committee to ensure our sailors and
marines and their families' rights are properly represented.
childcare
200. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, there are ongoing staffing
shortages at Department daycares and months-long waiting periods for a
child to get a spot at on-base facilities military families rely on.
How do you plan to improve childcare access for military families?
Mr. Phelan. I understand that access to childcare is a top concern
for military families. Similar to the obstacles faced in the private
sector, staffing shortages contribute most acutely to the ability to
meet the demand for quality childcare. If confirmed, I will ensure the
Department of the Navy focuses on recruiting and retaining staff
members to strengthen the childcare workforce and improve access to
childcare.
201. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, a bipartisan and months-long study
on military quality-of-life issues concluded that childcare staff are
leaving because of low pay that was not competitive. Would you agree
that increasing childcare workers' pay structure will help address the
shortage of childcare for military families?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I am committed to finding innovative
solutions to recruit, competitively pay, and retain childcare
professionals to support our servicemembers' families. I will ensure
the Navy and Marine Corps are using the authorities granted that allow
increased wages, fee discounts to employees, and hiring and retention
bonuses to improve military access to childcare.
price gouging
202. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, do you support efforts to make
sure contracting officers have the cost and pricing data they need to
negotiate fair deals for taxpayers?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will encourage the maximum use of
competitive procedures and purchase of commercial off the shelf
solutions to foster a best value procurement. When commercial products
or competitive procedures are not possible, I support contracting
officers obtaining cost and pricing data which is critical in
determining the fair and reasonable price of products and services.
203. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, the Government Accountability
Office's 2023 High-Risk Report identifies vulnerabilities in DOD's
contracting processes, emphasizing systemic risks of fraud, waste, and
abuse. Notably, it highlighted that sustained leadership commitment and
robust internal controls are critical for addressing contractor
misconduct and preventing overcharges in government contracts. What
measures would you implement to ensure contractors do not engage in
price gouging of our military and U.S. taxpayers?
Mr. Phelan. I believe that in order to ensure fair and reasonable
pricing is obtained for products and services, the DON must rely on
competition and commercial procurement practices as appropriate. If
neither competition nor commercial practices are available for the
procurement in question, the DON, if I am confirmed, will ensure that
it obtains the necessary cost and pricing data to support meaningful
analysis and establish a fair and reasonable price.
204. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, how would you enhance competition
at DOD to prevent price gouging?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will seek and promote competition
throughout the course of the acquisition process, which leads to a
best-value procurement. If confirmed, the Department of the Navy will
continue to clearly communicate with the industrial base as to when
opportunities are present and when possible, obtain sufficient data
rights in products to allow for a long-term competitive environment.
205. Senator Warren. Mr. Phelan, should DOD have more access to
cost and pricing data for sole source contracts?
Mr. Phelan. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department of the Navy
will maximize use of competitive procedures to the maximum extent
possible which should minimize our contracting officers' need for cost
and pricing data. For sole-source military-unique requirements, cost
and pricing data is critical in determining a fair and reasonable
price.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Jacky Rosen
fallon range flooding
206. Senator Rosen. Mr. Phelan, the Sheckler Reservoir outside of
Fallon, Nevada, has experienced more frequent overflows in the past
decade, causing flooding to Fallon's B-16 range, which renders it
inoperable for ground combat training. While the Bureau of Reclamation
owns the reservoir, its infrastructure and water flow impact Navy
operations, all while the Navy is investing millions of dollars into
range modernization. If confirmed, can you commit to working with the
Bureau of Reclamation to route water around the B-16 range so that it
no longer floods the range, halts training, and risks flooding to the
city of Fallon?
Mr. Phelan. I am committed to collaborating with the Bureau of
Reclamation and relevant local agencies to proactively address any
impacts resulting from or affecting any installation.
______
[The nomination reference of Mr. John C. Phelan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The biographical sketch of Mr. John C. Phelan, which was
transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Mr. John C.
Phelan in connection with his nomination follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the Committee
questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
are contained in the Committee's executive files.]
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
[The nomination of Mr. John C. Phelan was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Wicker on March 11, 2025, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on March 24, 2025.]
APPENDIX A
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]