House’s Continuing Resolution Would Provide $1.5 Billion for Extra, Unrequested Warship

WASHINGTON — The continuing resolution the House passed Tuesday would add more than $1.5 billion to start building a warship that the Navy did not request and that experts suggest the shipbuilder may have trouble constructing on time and on budget.

The fiscal 2025 stopgap measure, which the Senate must clear by March 14 to avoid a government shutdown, would provide $892.5 billion for defense. That is $6 billion more for defense than was appropriated in fiscal 2024, a growth rate of less than 1% and not enough to outrun inflation.

Despite the funding constraints, members would add the sizable tranche of funds for the third, unrequested Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, a warship that is built in states represented by senior defense lawmakers, in addition to proposing funding for the two Arleigh Burke ships that were requested.

Three destroyers are not listed in any one year in the service’s future purchasing projections, and in some of those years the Navy plans to buy only one. Nor was the third vessel included in the Chief of Naval Operations’ list of “unfunded priorities” for fiscal 2025 that the service wants but that did not make it into the formal budget proposal.

Jobs and Security

The Arleigh Burke destroyers bristle with missiles, long-range guns, torpedoes, anti-missile interceptors and highly capable radars.

The ships are built in Maine and Mississippi, the home states of Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R- Maine, and Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker, R- Miss. The chair of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, Republican Trent Kelly, also hails from Mississippi.

The shipyards in those states are among the largest employers in their regions.

Collins said Tuesday that the Navy had previously wanted to buy three Arleigh Burke destroyers per year. Moreover, she said, they should buy three a year once more because the destroyer fleet needs to grow to deter China’s burgeoning armada.

“China is expected to have 435 ships by the year 2030, and we have under 300 right now,” Collins said. “The value of destroyers has really been underscored by the activities of destroyers in the Red Sea in keeping open the shipping lanes and shooting down Houthi missiles.”

The destroyers, along with Navy aircraft, other surface vessels and submarines, engaged more than 400 Houthi drones and missiles in a 15-month period since October 2023, Navy officials told an industry conference in January.

Congress set in motion the funding for the unrequested destroyer in last year’s spending bill. Even though the Biden administration did not request a third Arleigh Burke destroyer in fiscal 2024, Congress added $1.3 billion in that year’s bill, or about half the cost, for it. The Navy included an option to complete construction of the ship in a contract with the shipbuilders.

The CR money was required this year in order to complete the construction of that ship, a Senate aide said.

‘Just Data’

The CR’s proposed boost to Navy shipbuilding accounts comes as the Trump administration is attempting to wring savings out of federal programs. Included in this push is a proposed 8% cut from purportedly less necessary Pentagon programs so as to reallocate some or all of the money to the administration’s defense priorities.

The last time the Navy asked to build a third Arleigh Burke destroyer was two years ago, during the fiscal 2024 budget writing process, officials have said.

But the Biden administration turned down the Navy’s request, arguing that the shipyards lacked the capacity and personnel to produce three of the ships per year.

After the fiscal 2024 budget was submitted, Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord told an industry conference: “We don’t see the yards being able to produce three [ Arleigh Burke destroyers] a year. We don’t see them being able to produce two a year. And that’s just data. It’s not what we wish to be true. But everybody’s struggling with skilled labor. Everybody’s struggling with supply chains.”

In October, the Navy announced it is extending the service lives of a dozen Arleigh Burke class destroyers before retiring them. That will increase the size of the fleet and reduce the pressure to replace retiring vessels, said Eric Labs, the Congressional Budget Office’s top naval analyst, at a House Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday.

Industry-wide Woes

It is not clear that the shipyards in Maine and Mississippi will be up to the task of building Arleigh Burke vessels at the rate of three per year. The entire industry is wracked with problems keeping skilled personnel and retaining qualified subcontractors.

The cost of the Navy’s fleet has nearly doubled in the last two decades but the number of vessels is about the same, said Shelby S. Oakley of the Government Accountability Office at Tuesday’s Armed Services hearing.

Destroyers, like some other classes of Navy ships, are taking longer to build for more money, experts have said.

Destroyers used to take five years to build and now take nine years, which has led to cost growth for each ship, Labs said Tuesday.

“Destroyers used to cost $1.9 billion, and now they cost $2.5 billion — and only about a third of that cost growth can be attributed to shipbuilding inflation,” CBO’s Labs testified.

$1 Billion Net Shipbuilding Boost

The substantial boost in funding proposed in the CR for the Arleigh Burke destroyers is one of several big changes that the pending measure would have in store for Navy shipbuilding.

The CR would allocate a total of $33.33 billion for Navy shipbuilding, which is more than $1 billion above the president’s request.

That is a far cry from the $4.64 billion that Senate appropriators proposed adding above the shipbuilding budget request for fiscal 2025.

But the Senate panel had more room to maneuver because they added some $21 billion in so-called emergency funds to their bill’s topline, above the Defense subcommittee’s share of the overall defense cap set by the debt-limit law.

By sharp contrast, House appropriators hewed to the budget cap in their Defense bill, and they proposed reducing the overall ship procurement funding by $760 million.

The CR would allocate $7.95 billion for the three Arleigh Burke ships, as opposed to the request of $6.4 billion for two of the ships — a roughly $1.55 billion difference.

The CR also would provide $83 million in advance procurement money to acquire parts for a future Arleigh Burke vessel.

Additions and Subtractions

Within the CR’s $1 billion-plus boost for Navy shipbuilding are several other notable additions and subtractions.

The CR would:

• Add $480 million for ship-to-shore connector ships that were not a part of the budget request. Both House and Senate appropriators had wanted to see the ships built.
• Provide $233 million for a Navy frigate program, compared to a $1.1 billion request. House appropriators wanted to zero out the request, while Senate appropriators had planned to provide it and then some.
• Cut a $1 billion request for nuclear refueling and overhaul of atomic-powered vessels to $833 million, as the Senate bill, but not the House’s, had recommended.
• Essentially leave untouched the budget requests for the Columbia and Virginia class submarine programs, which together would garner $16.9 billion, on top of the $5.69 billion that the current CR allocated for attack submarine industrial capacity and payrolls.
• Allocate $2.39 billion to cover cost growth on previously appropriated Navy ships.

© 2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Visit cqrollcall.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Story Continues