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, “Snowed In: United States Disinvestment in the Arctic”
Videos of Ranking Members 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, Chairman Webster, for calling this hearing on a topic of great importance: icebreaking capabilities.
We could have just as easily called this hearing, “Iced Out.” Whether we’re iced out or snowed in, we’re stuck when it comes to icebreaking capability.
There has never been a more important time for the United States to maintain and expand its leadership in the Arctic.
The region is rich in natural resources including 90 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and $1 trillion in rare earth minerals.
Depending on which actors develop these resources—and how—the Arctic could either challenge or accelerate the global transition to clean energy and transportation.
In the last decade, we have also seen the rise of Arctic shipping routes. Over 400 ships transited the Northern Sea Route between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans in 2021—a route previously impassible without an icebreaker.
However, this activity has been dominated by Russian-flagged vessels, and both Russia and China have jockeyed for control of the region.
In addition, the region hosts a $3 billion seafood industry, increasing tourism activity and critical scientific research missions.
To do any of this work, the U.S. relies on the Coast Guard—and its icebreakers—to represent our interests in the region, including leadership roles on international bodies governing navigation, search and rescue, vessel safety, fisheries and pollution.
Icebreaking vessels are critical for the Coast Guard to effectively traverse the treacherous polar conditions, provide access for other stakeholders and complete its missions in the Arctic. Our presence equals our sovereignty.
However, decades of underinvestment have left the Coast Guard with only two ocean-going icebreakers: the medium icebreaker HEALY and the heavy icebreaker POLAR STAR, which has already been extended far past its regular service life.
In conjunction with the Polar icebreaking missions, the Coast Guard is charged with domestic icebreaking in three of its nine districts. The Coast Guard also needs to expand its domestic icebreaking capability and infrastructure to support that domestic mission.
Plans to home port Polar Security Cutters in Seattle, Washington, necessitate improvements to Base Seattle.
Base Seattle is the gateway for our Arctic missions and supports critical maintenance.
All of this is in contrast to Russia who operates a fleet of 55 icebreakers, including 18 military icebreakers. China also operates a fleet of two medium and two heavy icebreakers, with more planned for construction.
These nations have recognized the value of the Arctic and invested heavily in securing dominance in the region.
Make no mistake, the United States’ growing fleet disadvantage presents an existential threat to U.S. interests, leadership and national security in the Arctic.
That is why the Coast Guard is working to replace and expand its fleet of icebreakers, including an effort to acquire three heavy icebreakers through its Polar Security Cutter program.
Originally, construction of the first Polar Security Cutter was scheduled to begin in 2022, with delivery in the mid-2020s.
Unfortunately, we have reached the mid-2020s, and the shipyard that won the contract has been sold, the design is only 60 percent complete and the Coast Guard has not determined the delivery date or the final cost for the cutters.
It is important to note that acquiring these vessels is no easy task. This is the first domestic construction of a heavy icebreaker in the United States in over 50 years, which only underscores the need for continued investment in U.S. shipyards and shipbuilding capabilities.
Without a robust domestic shipbuilding industry, the Coast Guard will continue to face challenges acquiring any vessel.
That is why it is so critical that the United States yesterday signed the ICE Pact, a collaboration between the U.S., Canada and Finland to share information and technology and increase the supply of icebreakers for our allies. Leveraging these international partnerships is crucial if the U.S. hopes to increase production, reduce costs and rebuild its domestic shipbuilding industry.
However, despite repeated requests from this Committee, the Coast Guard has also not committed to a timeline or cost for construction of the first Polar Security Cutter.
Today’s hearing is an opportunity for this Committee to receive more information about the Coast Guard’s plans to complete construction. I also look forward to hearing how the Coast Guard intends to improve its Polar Security Cutter program, including addressing the Government Accountability Office’s open recommendations.
Finally, Congress must recognize that the Coast Guard will require additional resources in future years to complete construction and expand its icebreaking fleet in the Arctic. While the Coast Guard has received appropriations for two vessels, that funding is now unlikely to cover construction for the first Polar Security Cutter.
Chairman Webster and Ranking Member Carbajal, thanks for holding this important hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Ranking Member Carbajal:
Thank you, Chairman Webster, for calling today’s hearing.
The Coast Guard is the premier agency tasked with projecting sovereignty in the Arctic, which is a critically important mission.
The region is slowly opening to all forms of commerce. The Arctic region has a 3-billion-dollar seafood industry vulnerable to overfishing and contains billions of dollars of oil and natural gas.
A U.S. presence is required to ensure safe and responsible development and the protection of resources and the environment.
Unfortunately, the Coast Guard’s icebreaking mission is woefully under-resourced. The service’s only two ocean-going icebreakers are well past their service life and often the victims of machinery casualties. This is simply unacceptable.
I have had the privilege of seeing firsthand the capability of our Coast Guard icebreakers, and I understand the important service they provide the nation.
While recapitalization of the icebreaking fleet was identified as a priority almost two decades ago, we are still several years and over $1 billion away from the delivery of the first Polar Security Cutter.
As a result, the U.S. is missing out on the opportunity to enforce rules-based order and freedom of navigation in a geo-politically competitive arena in the Arctic. It’s not simply about breaking ice.
On the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard operates nine icebreakers, and only one is a heavy icebreaker.
For the region itself, which is heavily dependent on commercial shipping, the need for more capable assets cannot be understated. Fifty-five percent of the regional economy is dependent on key shipping channels and two-thirds of the domestic icebreaking operations happen on the Great Lakes.
It is no secret that the United States has fallen behind the curve when it comes to the number of ice capable ships in our arsenal and the time spent in the Arctic. This hearing today is focused on the need for the U.S. to invest in newer and better ships, more sophisticated technologies and the capabilities to sustain the invaluable geostrategic presence in the region.
While the Coast Guard has done as much as they can with only two ships, we need to give them the opportunity to do more with more.
I have major concerns about the delayed PSC program and the amount of funding actually needed to get just one ship built. This is a far cry from the over 55 ships that are at our adversary’s disposal. From a national security perspective alone, this is unacceptable.
I want to be clear: the resources required to build, homeport, and maintain Polar Security Cutters are substantial. If Congress does not double the Coast Guard’s budget in 2026, the service will either have to abandon the program, cease construction of Offshore Patrol Cutters or cut significant portions of its operations.
The House passed an authorization bill earlier this year that begins to appropriately resource the Coast Guard, and I implore my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to follow suit.
The service has proven time and time again that even in the face of ship casualties and little to no resource support, they continue to sail onward—but how much can we keep asking of them? It’s time for Congress to step up.
I am proud to advocate for America’s great Coast Guard and advocate for increased resources. I look forward to the testimony today to hear about how Congress can better support the service.
I yield back.
--30--