Washington, D.C. — The following are opening remarks, as prepared for delivery, from Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Rick Larsen (D-WA) and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Salud Carbajal (D-CA) during today’s hearing titled, “Changes in Maritime Technology: Can the Coast Guard Keep Up?”
Video of Ranking Member Larsen’s and Carbajal’s opening statements can be found here and here.
More information on the hearing can be found here.
Ranking Member Larsen:
Thank you, Chair Ezell and Ranking Member Carbajal, for holding today’s hearing.
Automation will play an increasingly important role in both the commercial maritime industry and Coast Guard operations.
Coast Guard UAVs, engine automation, use of uncrewed vessels and the better collection and use of data will expand the reach of the Service.
However, new technology comes with increased costs. To be most effective, the Coast Guard should adopt technology that supports its missions and lightens the load for servicemembers.
For instance, UAVs can increase the reach of Coast Guard search and rescue operations, but no technology can replace cutters in the water or helicopters in the air.
Technology must supplement and not supplant servicemembers.
Technology in the commercial maritime industry presents great opportunities, including lowering emissions and improving safety, but we need rules to govern the use of new technologies.
The international maritime industry—where ships are often owned by investors, built in one country, registered in a different country, and operated by mariners from all over the world—is defined by a complicated framework of regulations and oversight.
In 2021, the Mayflower Autonomous Ship, a full-sized research vessel, crossed the Atlantic without humans on board to demonstrate the progress and rapid development of autonomous vessel technology.
At the time of this voyage, the Coast Guard classified the vessel as a “pleasure craft” because it lacked an appropriate regulatory framework. In the years since, the Coast Guard has failed to update regulations to ensure maritime safety.
Current law assumes that vessels are crewed by people. Developing effective regulations to govern the use of autonomous vessels will be a major undertaking—requiring coordination between Congress, the Coast Guard, labor, industry and the International Maritime Organization.
We must also consider automation’s impact on maritime jobs. Maintaining strong middle-class jobs associated with the maritime industry is integral to maintaining safety and security at sea and in our ports.
When something goes wrong, I take comfort in knowing that there are capable captains, engineers and longshore workers ready to respond.
The development of new vessels is an opportunity to incorporate low- and zero-carbon emission technologies into vessel design.
Many vessels in use today use bunker fuel, which emit gasses and pollutants linked to climate change and respiratory disease.
I’m very pleased that, in my home state of Washington, we are in the process of building a fleet of hybrid-electric ferries.
Washington State Ferries is the largest ferry system in the U.S. and is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions among Washington state agencies.
This transition to hybrid-electric ferries will greatly reduce pollution in the Puget Sound.
The rest of the world is moving in the same direction, and I believe that, with targeted investments, U.S. carriers, ports and shipyards could lead the way.
At their best, new technologies increase safety and efficiency, reduce emissions and create better opportunities for workers. At their worst, new technologies introduce security vulnerabilities, decrease safety, increase the risk of accidents and displace workers.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can ensure a smooth and safe transition to new maritime technologies.
And while I was originally excited about the topic of this hearing and planned to use my time to address all the ways in which we can better improve the Coast Guard’s technological capabilities, I am disappointed in how the Coast Guard has chosen to move forward with their new anti-harassment policy that downgrades hateful and divisive symbols in the workplace.
I will reserve some of my questions to discuss this decision by the Commandant.
Ranking Member Carbajal:
Good afternoon, and thank you, Chair Ezell, for calling today’s hearing.
In recent history, Congress has recognized the importance of innovation in the maritime industry and the importance of providing the U.S. Coast Guard with state-of-the-art technology. Just this year, with the passage of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 and the budget reconciliation package, the Coast Guard is poised to make huge strides toward modernization that will significantly increase its capabilities.
It is important, however, that Congress complement any reconciliation funding with robust, sustained support through increased annual appropriations.
On December 8, the Coast Guard transmitted their report on the Implementation Strategy on their Unmanned Systems Program.
In this report, the Coast Guard detailed its plan resulting from the National Academy of Sciences report. I am looking forward to hearing more about this strategic plan during today’s hearing.
The two major themes that come to my mind as we start to discuss the Coast Guard’s investment in autonomous systems are mission enhancement and implementation.
We know that Coast Guard operations have been utilizing both autonomous and UAV technology for quite some time. Having eyes in the sky without a traditional pilot provides the service with the opportunity to save flight hours and resources. Not to mention the technology is highly effective.
But as we enter a new era of sophistication, I have concerns that the Coast Guard does not have the experience or expertise to effectively leverage new technology.
New technology must be laser focused on bolstering the capacity of servicemembers to conduct operations.
Turning to the commercial maritime sector, there is no question that the Coast Guard and the IMO are lagging with regard to the development of regulations that govern new technology.
In cases that have resulted in delayed adoption of new technology such as alternative fuels and others, the absence of regulations has created safety and environmental risk.
The Coast Guard is the premier agency for setting safety standards on the water. We must give the Coast Guard the tools and authorities they need to ensure safety in the future. The Coast Guard must also be proactive.
A thorough approach to the regulation of new technology must include labor organizations, technology experts, international collaboration, and port and vessel operators.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the impact that automation has on the cybersecurity infrastructure of U.S. ports and vessels. I would like to hear about how the Coast Guard is currently addressing automation and the associated risks to national security and the supply chain.
While I planned to focus my questions on the topic of today’s hearing, I must second the thoughts of the Ranking Member. It is inexcusable that, just yesterday, the Coast Guard published a policy that classifies the display of swastikas and nooses as “potentially divisive.” Nooses and swastikas are not “potentially” divisive. Their display constitutes a hate crime. We’ll discuss further during my 5 minutes of questions.
With that, I yield back.
--30--