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, “Future of United States. Maritime: Review Of Fiscal Year 2027 Maritime Administration and Federal Maritime Commission Budget Requests.”

More information on the hearing can be found here.

Ranking Member Larsen:

Thank you, Chairman Ezell and Ranking Member Carbajal, for scheduling today’s hearing to review the Fiscal Year 2027 budget requests of the Maritime Administration and the Federal Maritime Commission.

These agencies work to support and develop the United States’ maritime industry and protect consumers and shippers against unfair practices across the globe.

Before I turn to the President’s budget request, I first need to address the ongoing Jones Act waiver. To mitigate a gas price crisis of his own making, President Trump issued the longest Jones Act waiver in history. We all know it has done nothing to lower gas prices—but what has it done?

It has halted investment in U.S. shipbuilding. It’s stolen jobs from American mariners. It’s allowed Chinese state-owned vessels to operate in an unprecedented fashion in U.S. waters.

I’d like to hear from Administrator Carmel today on how the waiver has supported the President’s Maritime Action Plan and the ongoing initiatives to bolster the domestic maritime industry.

From the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to the disruptions caused by ongoing international conflicts, we continue to learn just how essential it is to maintain a robust and efficient maritime industry. Now is the time to strengthen and support the maritime sector, not to continue business as usual.

Although the President’s fiscal year 2027 request includes $2.6 billion for the Maritime Administration, over half of this funding is tied to the creation of a new trust fund that has not been approved by Congress.

I am concerned that the flat budget request for the FMC will mean that the agency will not have the resources it needs to maintain a fair and competitive shipping industry.

The MARAD budget request includes $1.4 billion for a proposed Maritime Security Trust Fund (MSTF), without providing any substantial details about how the trust fund would be operated or how it would be funded in the future.

This ambiguity creates risks for the funding MARAD needs to carry out its key role in safeguarding and advancing the maritime industry.

While the $1.2 billion in discretionary funding represents a 10 percent increase from the enacted Fiscal Year 2026 levels, it falls short of what the agency needs and comes at the expense of important initiatives.

By proposing to fully eliminate funding for programs like the Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program, this budget request jeopardizes MARAD’s role in supporting emerging technologies which act to level the international playing field for the U.S.

In addition to eliminating funding for the Cable Security Fleet Program and the National Defense Reserve Fleet Recapitalization, the budget request reduces funding for the Port Infrastructure Development Program and the State Maritime Academy Operations.

I am disappointed to see that the Port Infrastructure Development Program faces a 51.6 percent cut in funding from 2026 enacted levels. This program invests in seaport infrastructure to strengthen our economy, safeguard our supply chain, create and sustain jobs, and keeps us competitive globally. PIDP funding supports small ports that are indispensable to local communities, strengthens local and regional economies, and eases congestion at our ports.

While the budget attempts to supplement these cuts through the proposed Maritime Security Trust Fund, in reality, it jeopardizes the funding by moving the request to a trust fund for which the Administration has provided no details and that is unlikely to be approved by Congress by the time Fiscal Year 2027 appropriations are enacted.

I appreciate that the budget request includes $105 million for the Small Shipyard Grant Program. Small shipyards are integral to the maritime industrial base. Although, I want to be clear—the Small Shipyard Grant Program must remain a small shipyard grant program and not an “all shipyard grant program” as the President’s Maritime Action Plan proposes.

It’s unacceptable that this budget requests flat funding levels for the FMC despite the growing need for more personnel to address its new responsibilities mandated in the bipartisan Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022. Since OSRA’s enactment, the FMC has used its investigative and persecutorial authorities to improve shipping practices that have led to lower costs for consumers.

However, the FMC is still understaffed in the legal and investigative departments, which will prevent the agency from ensuring fair competition among ocean carriers transporting the nation’s exports and imports.

Simply put, shortchanging the FMC puts foreign shipping companies’ interests ahead of American consumers and threatens to raise prices even further. If the Administration were serious about reducing costs for Americans, it would invest in the FMC.

Congress has asked a lot from these two agencies and the President’s budget does not include the funding required to ensure that MARAD and FMC are able to carry out their responsibilities.

I look forward to engaging with our witnesses on MARAD and FMC’s ongoing work to strengthen our supply chain, grow the United States maritime industry and to discussing how we can work to ensure they receive the resources that they need.

Thank you and I yield back.

Ranking Member Carbajal:

Good Morning. Thank you, Chair Ezell, for calling today’s hearing.

Welcome Mr. Carmel and Ms. DiBella, I look forward to hearing from you both on the President’s budget request and agency priorities for the upcoming year.

The FMC is vital to ensuring fairness for American shippers, carriers, and consumers; safeguarding transparency and enforcing equitable maritime commerce.
The FMC’s impact on US commerce may go unnoticed by many, but we know that the FMC keeps fair commerce flowing, which keeps shelves stocked and prices stable for American consumers.

After the passage and implementation of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 or OSRA, vessel congestion at ports has decreased. In the three years since the enactment in 2022, more than $5.8 million in unfair fees have been waived or refunded to shippers. If the agency is funded and staffed, the agency works.

The FMC is also currently undertaking a rulemaking aimed at ensuring that exporters are given fair access to cargo space. These are the kinds of changes that we need to keep American jobs thriving.

Last year the FMC launched an investigation into flagging practices of foreign governments, otherwise known as “Flags of Convenience.”

These practices undermine flag states that employ rigorous standards, ensure fair pay, and provide basic human rights.
After the President’s disastrous Jones Act waiver, I believe we have shown why our robust flagging practices are necessary, and why reliance on foreign flag vessels hurts Americans.

I’m concerned that if this extended waiver is allowed to continue, we will quickly become fully and needlessly reliant on foreign ships – owned and crewed by foreign companies – for our economic security. American ships, crewed by American mariners, should be carrying American commerce.

As prices have skyrocketed over the past year and a half, it is vitally important that American businesses and American consumers get some relief. The FMC must be properly funded so that it can conduct proper oversight.

The Maritime Administration is vitally important to our national defense and economic security. By law, the agency is tasked with promoting the American maritime industry.

Unfortunately, it is unclear to me whether this administration supports the American maritime industry or not.

Despite having issued the Maritime Action Plan, and lip service, to grow the maritime industry, President Trump has levied the strongest attack on the domestic maritime industry ever. The unjustified 150 day waiver of the Jones Act is the opposite of what needs to be done to grow the industry and strengthen our national and economic security.

From a budget standpoint however, the President’s proposal for MARAD looks like an increase in funding, but only if a new Maritime Trust Fund is created. Otherwise, there is a significant decrease in funding for key programs like the Port Infrastructure Development Program. This is unacceptable.

Furthermore, the budget zeros out funding for the Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program, the Cable Security Program, and the National Defense Reserve Fleet Recapitalization.
This is not just questionable, but it really shows the lack of prioritization by the Administration.

I look forward to a robust discussion about how the FMC and the Maritime Administration’s ongoing actions will ensure stronger maritime industry.

With that, I yield back.

--30--