[Senate Hearing 119-512]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-512
THE BLUE ECONOMY:
ADVANCING AMERICAN FISHERIES, MARITIME STRENGTH, AND COASTAL ECONOMIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD, MARITIME,
AND FISHERIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 2, 2026
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-450 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TED BUDD, North Carolina TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOHN CURTIS, Utah BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
TIM SHEEHY, Montana JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD, MARITIME, AND FISHERIES
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska, Chairman LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware,
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
JOHN CURTIS, Utah BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio GARY PETERS, Michigan
TIM SHEEHY, Montana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 2, 2026..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Blunt Rochester............................. 3
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 5
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Witnesses
Tommy Sheridan, Director, Alaska Blue Economy Center (ABEC),
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)........................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Jeremy Woodrow, Executive Director, Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute...................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Nathan Wardwell, Managing Partner, JOA Surveys LLC............... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Clayton Heil, Vice President, Global Government Relations,
Crowley........................................................ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Tommy Sheridan by:
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 41
Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester.................................... 43
Response to written questions submitted to Nathan Wardwell by:
Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester.................................... 45
Response to written questions submitted to Clay Heil by:
Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester.................................... 46
THE BLUE ECONOMY: ADVANCING
AMERICAN FISHERIES, MARITIME
STRENGTH, AND COASTAL ECONOMIES
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2026
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Maritime, and
Fisheries,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 p.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Wicker, Moreno,
Sheehy, Blunt Rochester, and Cantwell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Good morning. I want to welcome our
distinguished witnesses. Apologize for my tardiness, but I
think at least three of you understand. I just got in from
Alaska last night, and you know what that's like. So welcome,
especially to the Alaskans.
And this is a subcommittee hearing that examines the
importance of America's blue economy and the opportunities it
presents for economic growth, innovation, job creation, and
national security. The blue economy encompasses the industries,
activities, and of course, the communities that rely on our
oceans, coasts, Great Lakes to create economic opportunities,
support jobs, strengthen national security, and sustain coastal
communities, including the American fishermen.
The blue economy is also central to America's economic
strength. In 2022, It generated more than $470 billion in goods
and services and supported 2.4 million jobs. It is one of the
fastest growing sectors in America, in our economy, and indeed
the world, encompassing commercial fisheries and seafood, sport
fisheries, subsistence fisheries, maritime transportation,
ports, tourism and recreation, and much more.
For the United States, and especially for coastal states
like my state, the great state of Alaska, these industries and
community are not optional. They are essential. I always do a
little bit of bragging about the great state of Alaska here,
but when we talk about coastline, we have more coastline than
the rest of the country combined. I have a colleague from
Minnesota here who I respect a lot. She talks about her State
having 10,000 lakes. My state has 3 million lakes.
America is a maritime Nation. Our economic success, food
security, supply chains, and national defense depend on safe,
healthy, and productive oceans. This hearing comes at a
critical time as our Nation races to strengthen our maritime
industries and secure our place in the global blue economy. But
so are other countries.
The Federal Government is making significant investments
and taking important steps to ensure America remains
competitive and our coastal communities continue to thrive.
Seafood, and of course our fishermen and coastal communities,
remains one of the pillars of the blue economy.
Alaska is the superpower of seafood, I like to say,
producing more than 60 percent--harvesting more than 60 percent
of all commercial sport and subsistence seafood in America and
providing roughly 10 billion meals of healthy protein--wild
Alaskan fish--each year. Our fisheries support thousands of
jobs, sustain coastal communities, and help feed both our
Nation and the world.
President Trump's executive order on restoring American
seafood competitiveness recognizes an important reality:
seafood competitiveness is economic security and even national
security. At the same time, Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated fishing remains a major threat not just to global
fish stocks and fair competition, but to the economic and
national security of the United States.
That is why my bipartisan Fighting Foreign Illegal Seafood
Harvests, or the FISH Act, which strengthens enforcement,
improves international coordination, and targets foreign bad
actors, particularly China, is so important to stop this
illegal fishing, what Senator Whitehouse calls pirate fishing.
We passed that in the Senate recently, and I believe it's going
to be passed in the House soon. That will be the most
comprehensive IUU fish legislation in the history of the
country.
This builds on the bills Senator Whitehouse and I passed
the Save Our Seas Act, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, which were
the most comprehensive ocean cleanup legislation in American
history. And right now in this committee, we are working on my
comprehensive bycatch bill that we introduced last year. We are
hoping to mark that up. That will be the most comprehensive
bycatch legislation in American history. Healthy oceans are
both an environmental priority and an economic necessity, and a
national security issue. Tourism, charter fishing, wildlife
viewing, and countless small businesses depend on sustainable
fisheries and healthy marine ecosystems.
Alaska is also seeing exciting innovation through our
growing mariculture industry, where kelp and shellfish growers
are creating new opportunities and jobs in coastal communities.
Science and data collection are foundational to the long-term
success of the American blue economy. Fishery surveys and stock
assessments support sustainable fisheries management, and that
is NOAA's key mission. And this committee reminds them of that
very regularly.
Likewise, hydrographic services, including coastal mapping,
charting, and biometric surveys, are essential for safe
navigation, commerce, and maritime operations across every
sector of the American blue economy. Advancing our blue economy
also requires strengthening America's maritime transportation
network. Ports, marine highways, vessels, terminals, and
logistics systems are essential to moving goods, supporting
coastal states, maintaining resilient supply chains while
enhancing our national security.
That is why the administration's Maritime Action Plan is so
important. Strengthening America's maritime transportation will
require long-term investment, workforce development, and strong
public-private partnerships that improve port capacity, modern
infrastructure, support domestic vessel operators, and ensure
reliable transportation networks for coastal communities within
and across states.
Tourism is another driver of the American blue economy.
Visitors bring significant revenue directly to our local
communities, making it important that America remains
competitive as a global destination. That is why I introduced
the VISIT USA Act to fully fund Brand USA, the public-private
partnership responsible for promoting the United States as an
international travel destination.
Ultimately, this all comes back to people. The blue economy
supports millions of Americans; fishermen, processors,
mariners, sport fishermen, welders, scientists, engineers,
military personnel, charter operators, tourism workers, and
small business owners across the United States. Yet workforce
shortages remain one of the great challenges across nearly
every sector.
We are serious about advancing the blue economy. We must
invest in workforce development, training, apprenticeships, and
educational opportunities to prepare the next generation of
maritime professionals. The United States possesses some of the
richest ocean resources in the world, the best-managed
fisheries in the world. With the right investments, policies,
and partnerships, we can unlock the full potential of America's
blue economy while strengthening our economic and national
security and supporting coastal communities for generations to
come.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, many of
whom traveled far from the great state of Alaska like I did
last night, and to opportunities ahead, challenges they face,
and the policies needed to ensure a strong and prosperous
maritime future and blue economy for America.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for any opening
statement she may have. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, and
thank you so much to our witnesses for being here. We look
forward to your testimony.
Delaware may be small. You mentioned that you have millions
of lakes, and our colleague from Minnesota has thousands of
lakes. We have tens of lakes. We're small, but we're mighty. We
are urban, suburban, rural, and coastal. And because of that,
this conversation is particularly important to my state as well
as our country, because coastal communities like the ones that
call Delaware home rely on the maritime or blue economy.
My home state sits on the Atlantic Ocean between the
Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, putting us in a perfect location
to drive innovation and opportunity in the blue economy, and we
do. The University of Delaware, Delaware State University, and
Delaware Technical Community College collaborate on
groundbreaking maritime marine research, underwater robotics,
and coastal infrastructure.
Our growing aquaculture industry continues to create new
jobs while providing healthy, sustainable sources of food.
Thanks to funding from a Port Infrastructure Development
Program grant, the Port of Wilmington is about to begin an
historic expansion that will quadruple, quadruple its capacity.
And millions of visitors head to The First State each year to
enjoy our pristine beaches, bays, and coastline.
All told, Delaware coastal economy supports over 100,000
jobs, generates over $22 billion in economic output, and is
growing over five times faster than the rest of our state. But
this isn't unique to my state. The blue economy is a huge
driver of economic growth and job creation across the United
States. NOAA estimates that the marine--the marine economy
contributes over $500 billion in GDP annually.
Unfortunately, the administration has stifled and in some
cases refused to provide our coastal communities with the
support they need to thrive. Proposed NOAA budget cuts of over
$1 billion which will undercut the agency's critical mission to
support sustainable fisheries and give coastal communities the
tools they need to thrive. The administration terminated or
withdrew roughly $672 million in port infrastructure
development grants meant to support the offshore wind industry,
delaying critical investments in my state and the expansion of
cheap and--cheap and sustainable energy at a time when
Americans need it most.
And they pushed an unprecedented Jones Act waiver that will
further undermine American shipping competitiveness while doing
little to address the inflation and energy crisis Americans are
experiencing. And while this--and while this administration has
correctly identified our vulnerability to Chinese-made port
equipment, they imposed tariffs without any plan to support
domestic industries and bring critical manufacturing jobs home.
So while I commend the administration for trying to set a
vision to maintain economic competitiveness and ensure national
security, the actions that I have seen miss the mark for our
country and our needs right now. We can all agree we need to
invest in and grow our maritime industrial base. And what I'm
hoping to get out of today's hearing is a bipartisan path
forward to a better--to better support our coastal communities
and improve our national and economic security. And I look
forward to the conversation, and I yield back.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Blunt Rochester. And
speaking of national economic and national security, we have
the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee here. I'm very
honored. Mr. Chairman, would you like to say a few words? Also
the Senator from Mississippi knows a little bit about the blue
economy.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Well, it's hard to tell Dan Sullivan no. I
had declined to make a statement, but I do think now I'll read
a 5-minute statement in its entirety.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wicker. No, let me just say, indeed, the domestic
maritime industry has everything to do with national security,
as I hope our distinguished panelists will point out in some of
their testimony. I have a few points to make. I may try to do
those during questions, but I do appreciate the comments of the
distinguished Chair and the distinguished Ranking Member, and I
yield.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Well, we have some
distinguished witnesses, and I'd like to introduce them. Mr.
Tommy Sheridan, he's the Director of the Alaska Blue Economy
Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Mr. Sheridan has
lived in Alaska for over two decades, focusing on the
commercial fishing industry and other elements of the blue
economy. As the Director, Mr. Sheridan focuses on growing the
Alaska blue economy through balancing stewardship and
sustainable use of our marine resources, including growing
workforce development and mariculture initiatives across the
state.
Next, we have Mr. Jeremy Woodrow, Executive Director of the
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. Mr. Woodrow is a born and
raised Alaskan whose family has commercially fished in
Southeast Alaska for over five decades. He has practiced
marketing and public relations in the fields of seafood, State
and local government throughout Alaska since 2002.
We also have Mr. Nathan Wardwell, Managing Partner of JOA
Surveys. Mr. Wardwell has more than 20 years of experience
measuring water levels and vertical datums. He brings extensive
knowledge and expertise in coastal surveying, an essential part
of maintaining our ability to access and navigate our coasts
and waterways safely.
And finally, we have Mr. Clayton Heil, Vice President of
Global Government Relations at Crowley Maritime Corporation.
Mr. Heil leads the company's engagement with Federal, State,
and local and international government stakeholders on policy
and regulatory matters affecting its transportation, logistics,
and energy in maritime operations.
Welcome again to our witnesses. You will each have five
minutes to deliver an oral statement. A longer written
statement will be included in the record, and we will begin
from left to right here, beginning with you, Mr. Sheridan. You
have the floor.
STATEMENT OF TOMMY SHERIDAN, DIRECTOR,
ALASKA BLUE ECONOMY CENTER (ABEC),
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS (UAF)
Mr. Sheridan. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member
Blunt Rochester, and distinguished members of the Committee.
Thank you truly for this opportunity. It's an honor to be with
you here today.
My name is Tommy Sheridan, and I do serve as the Director
for the Alaska Blue Economy Center at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks. However, the testimony is provided in my personal
capacity as a parent to two Alaskan schoolchildren and as a
resident of coastal Alaskan communities these past 24 years.
Several years ago, deep in the Alaskan bush, I was attacked
by a brown bear. When a bear charges, instinct screams at you
to run, but if you run, you could die. Survival depends on
preparation, tools, and the grit to stand your ground. I
survived the attack and it fundamentally changed how I look at
resilience.
Today, our coastal towns face their own existential crisis.
We are losing young families to economic stagnation and rising
costs. Right now, the instinct for the next generation is to do
what makes sense in a panic: turn around and leave. But when
families leave coastal Alaska, we don't just lose a line on a
census report. We lose a classroom. We lose a volunteer
firefighter. We lose our future.
For over 20 years, I've worked in fisheries management and
workforce development in Alaska. My wife and I are raising our
kids in coastal Alaska. This isn't an abstract policy debate
for us, it's survival. To stop the flight, we must change the
horizon. We must imagine an Alaska where science, fisheries,
workforce development, and innovation work together so the next
generation can build thriving futures in coastal communities.
For decades, we've viewed Alaska's blue economy largely
through resource extraction. It is our backbone. But the future
is a knowledge-based economy driven by data, technology, and
collaboration. Our crisis isn't just tied to an abundance of
fish. It is a gap in connectivity. We have incredible
traditional industries alongside emerging frontiers like
mariculture and marine technology. To bridge them, I believe
that we must start at the very beginning with K through 12
education.
A quiet revolution is already happening in Alaska. Tribal
partners, schools, and community and industry leaders are
joining forces. Programs like Science Olympiad, Teaching
Through Technology, and Prince William Sound College prove that
when you give a K through 12 student a drone or a data set,
they don't just learn STEM, they see a career. They realize
that marine science happens on the boats and docks right
outside their front door. When we invest in local education, we
actively build the world we need to see.
But a bridge cannot stand without pillars. Our fisheries
management system relies on world-class data. To keep Alaska
leading, we must solidify partnerships between NOAA,
universities, and tribal organizations. Senator Sullivan, your
focus on maritime infrastructure has laid the foundation, and
now we must build the superstructure.
I urge the Subcommittee to support four pillars. First,
investment in K through 12 STEM and local workforce
development. Second, funding for fishery science and NOAA
partnerships. Third, expanded community-based education and
applied research. Fourth, innovation to ensure our communities
remain economically unshakeable.
You don't survive a crisis by running away. You survive by
equipping yourself to face it head-on. We do not need to
abandon our heritage to embrace the future. We need to arm our
youth with the tools to build it. So let us choose to invest
and let us finalize a reality where we no longer have to just
imagine an Alaska where science, fisheries, workforce
development, and innovation work together so the next
generation can build thriving futures in coastal communities.
Thank you. And I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheridan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tommy Sheridan, Director, Alaska Blue Economy
Center (ABEC), University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
to participate in the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Maritime, and
Fisheries Hearing on ``The Blue Economy: Advancing American Fisheries,
Maritime Industry, and Coastal Economies.'' It is truly an honor to
provide you with this written testimony.
My name is Tommy Sheridan, and I serve as the Director for the
Alaska Blue Economy Center (ABEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks
(UAF). ABEC is housed administratively in the university's College of
Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, or CFOS, where our world-class faculty
educates future leaders in fisheries and marine science, while
addressing pressing issues in aquatic ecosystems from the Arctic to
Antarctica. ABEC's role is to connect capacities throughout the
University of Alaska, including CFOS, with problems, needs, and
opportunities relating to the state's blue economy. I come to you today
with over two decades of experience living and working throughout and
alongside Alaska's blue economy, with experience as a hatchery manager
in the state's private nonprofit salmon fishery enhancement program, as
a fishery manager for the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
in addition to roles in the seafood processing sector, most recently
serving in a variety of capacities in academia. This written testimony
and my accompanying oral comments are provided to you through my
personal capacity as a private citizen, as a parent to two Alaskan
schoolchildren, and as a resident of coastal Alaskan communities for
the past 24 years.
Introduction
Alaska's blue economy is as significant as the state is large.
Alaska is about one-fifth the size of the contiguous United States, and
if you overlaid a map of Alaska onto the ``Lower 48,'' it would stretch
from the West Coast to the East Coast. Alaska's coastline is equally
immense and complex--it is longer than the coastlines of all other 49
U.S. states combined. The State of Alaska holds an abundant supply of
natural resources including, among others, energy, mineral, timber, and
seafood, presenting the country with unique opportunities for economic
development and national security for generations to come.
Alaska is the fifth largest oil producing state in the country, and
Alaskan natural gas reserves account for over 15 percent of the total
proven gas available in the United States. Alaska holds over 56 percent
of the total U.S. marine energy potential, and is home to significant
hydroelectric and geothermal energy sources. Alaska is also a
recognized global leader in microgrid technology, hosting an estimated
10 percent of all microgrids globally, and 50 percent of all microgrids
in the United States. Alaskan oil and gas production and associated
activities are a linchpin for the state's blue economy, supporting over
45,000 direct, indirect, and induced jobs statewide.
Alaska's seafood industry continues to be one of Alaska's most
important economic drivers, contributing about 7 percent to Alaska's
gross domestic product (GDP), generating over $5 billion in economic
activity, and supporting more than 41,800 jobs. Alaskan seafood
harvests account for roughly 63 percent of total U.S. seafood landings,
producing more wild-caught seafood than all other states combined. For
communities such as Cordova, where I've lived for 16 years, this
economic activity is the lifeblood of the community, with associated
taxes paying for critical services such as schools, harbors, and roads.
Alaska's tourism industry is considered a renewable natural
resource and is a major contributor to Alaska's blue economy,
generating $5.6 billion in total economic impact in recent years, and
supporting 48,000 jobs in Alaska. With recent and pending
infrastructure investments in Whittier, Seward, Nome, and elsewhere,
expectations are for future growth. Travelers are increasingly
prioritizing nature, safety, open landscapes, and immersive outdoor
experiences. Alaska's glaciers, fjords, wildlife, national parks,
Indigenous cultural experiences, and increases in luxury expedition
offerings are luring more visitors to Alaska, with a record 2.7 million
out-of-state visitors traveling to Alaska between May and September
2025. Alaskan communities are collaborating with visitor industry
leaders to develop innovative approaches, such as regenerative tourism,
to ensure that this growth maximizes benefits to the state while
preserving its inherent characteristics and value.
Last, but not least, Alaska's construction industry is a key part
of the state's blue economy, making up one of the largest sectors in
the state, employing over 20,000 people, and accounting for over $6.5
billion in economic output annually. Federal spending acts as a major
catalyst for Alaska's construction industry, and with current and
projected construction projects, including multi-billion dollar
developments on the North Slope, Federal port and shipyard upgrades,
and massive transportation and pipeline expansions, the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development anticipates at least
17,260 new skilled trade construction workers will be needed in Alaska
by 2028.
These industries, and others such as healthcare, mining, and state
and local government, are integral components to Alaska's blue economy.
However, Alaska's greatest asset is its people-Alaskans embody the
grit, resilience, and independent spirit necessary to thrive in this
Last Frontier, making them the true foundation for the state. And,
unfortunately, that foundation is cracking.
Alaska's workforce challenge
Despite Alaska's geographic prowess and abundant resources, the
state's population has been among the country's smallest since
statehood in 1959. With a population of approximately 738,000 residents
(in 2025), Alaska is the third-least populous state in the U.S., and
the most sparsely populated state in the country. Of relevance to blue
economy development, contributing factors to the state's workforce
challenge include a shrinking working-age demographic, which has
declined by over 34,000 people over the past decade due to an aging
population, declining birth rates, and net migration (the number of
people who move to Alaska in a given year, minus the number who leave).
According to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
the prime working age of Alaskans (aged 18 to 64) reached its lowest
level (449,171 people in 2024) since 2008, and Alaska's net migration
has been negative for 13 consecutive years. Alaska's K-12 student
enrollment has also declined by more than 10,000 students since 2017
from a then-total of just over 130,000 students, further reducing the
potential for a ``homegrown'' workforce, and all the benefits this
provides.
In the absence of a local Alaskan workforce, employers must
increasingly turn to nonresident workers. According to the most recent
data available, the number of out-of-state workers has continued to
rise in recent years, is at its highest level in over 30 years, and is
nearing an all-time high. According to the Alaska Department of Labor
and Workforce Development, almost 23 percent of non-federal jobs in
Alaska were held by non-Alaskans who earned approximately $3.8 billion
in 2024, or, in other words, about 17 percent of every dollar earned
from a non-federal job is leaving the state. Among the largest blue
economy industries in the state, the seafood industry saw the highest
percentage of non-resident workers at 81.5 percent of its workforce,
which was the second highest percentage on record for the industry. The
Alaskan oil and gas industry employed 40.5 percent nonresident workers,
in a sector that pays some of the highest average wages in the state. A
variety of visitor-related industries (including restaurants, hotels,
air transportation, and tour operators) hired a nonresident workforce
that comprised 35.2 percent of its total employment in 2024, and the
Alaskan construction sector workforce was 23.4 percent nonresident that
same year.
I believe, and evidence suggests, that an expanded Alaskan-grown
workforce would be a critical economic engine for the state, offering
benefits ranging from reduced employee turnover to long-term community
stability. Local Alaskan workers are more likely to remain in the state
long-term relative to nonresident workers, thereby reducing high
recruitment costs associated with out-of-state hires common to remote
coastal and seasonal industries, such as seafood processing and
healthcare. Further, wages earned by Alaskan employees are spent
locally, thereby supporting small businesses in the communities where
they live. Alaskan workers also possess unique understandings of local
climate, geography, and cultural nuances, which are essential for
resource development activities, tourism, and other rural services.
Ultimately, by providing rewarding career paths where they live, it is
hoped that an increased focus on retaining ``homegrown talent'' can be
a boon for Alaska's blue economy, and its communities.
Alaskan solutions
To stop the flight of young Alaskan families leaving our state, we
must change the horizon. We must imagine an Alaska where science,
fisheries, workforce development, and innovation work together so the
next generation can build thriving futures in coastal communities.
In their 2021 book on developing a workforce for the New Blue
Economy, Liesl Hotaling, Rick Spinrad, and numerous contributing
authors, provide insights on how the U.S. can build off of traditional
blue economy industries, such as oil and gas, shipping, fishing, and
tourism, to a reenvisioned economy centered on data, information, and
knowledge. The authors argue that this transition will require
innovative approaches to technology, skills acquisition, and talent
development. I argue that Alaska's workforce struggles and abundance of
opportunities make it the ideal testing ground for these innovations,
and highlight several here that are well underway in the state.
The authors assert that K-12 STEM (science, technology,
engineering, math) education must move away from a traditional approach
akin to a history course, where students memorize dates and
accomplishments, to hands-on approaches where students learn
practically, in collaborative learning environments, using technology-
based problem-solving. This approach is alive and well in Alaska, where
community-based scientific organizations such as the Sitka Sound
Science Center and Prince William Sound Science Center have bridged the
gap between traditional research and the implicated communities, and
have grown to include experiential learning opportunities for students
both young and old (``K through grey''). These organizations work with
and alongside traditional resource managers, university partners, and
both in and outside of local school districts, oftentimes incorporating
citizen science opportunities into their environmental education.
The authors further recommend intentional inclusion of workforce
awareness and workforce preparation into K-12 STEM programs, regardless
of where they occur. At the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska
Science Olympiad, and Teaching Through Technology (T3) work with middle
school and high school students across the state of Alaska, where
students are exposed to skills training aligned with Alaskan industry
needs and standards, through a variety of skills assessments, tailored
curriculum, and badging or certification programs. In Cordova, students
in these programs have worked with Alaska Blue Economy Center (ABEC)
and Cordova Chamber of Commerce to connect these opportunities with
local and regional stakeholders as they observed real-world career
pathways and emerging industries that promise to transform Alaska's
blue economy.
Improving access to connectivity and equipment, and addressing
diversity, was recommended as well, and I note the role that ANSEP
(historically known as the Alaska Native Science and Engineering
Program) has played throughout the state for over 30 years as a
sequential education model rooted in Alaska Native Values. Upward Bound
is a federally funded program designed to help Alaskan high school
students from low-income backgrounds and potential first-generation
college students succeed academically and prepare for higher education.
These programs serve students across the state, with regional hubs
facilitating college-prep curriculum delivery, hands-on STEM
activities, and cultural enrichment.
Hotaling and Spinrad highlight the need for engagement with and
support of community colleges, vocational, and/or trade schools, as a
prerequisite to workforce development for the New Blue Economy. In many
cases, dual credit programs allow high school students to earn college
credit while developing relevant and marketable skills, earning
certificates and occupational endorsements along the way, with the
potential of earning an Associate's degree simultaneous to their
traditional high school diploma. These students are then adequately
prepared for direct entry into the workforce, or can pursue additional
education in traditional university programs, such as those available
at UAF CFOS, albeit with a different skillset than is common among
entry-level undergraduate students. Prince William Sound College in
Valdez, Alaska, is a notable Alaskan example whereby local high school
students can learn from renowned instructors in areas such as
Construction Skills, Marine Services Technology, Millwright, Natural
Resources Technician, Marine Natural Resources Technician, and Outdoor
Leadership. Another notable, relevant, and highly innovative Alaskan
program is the Applied Fisheries Program at the University of Alaska
Southeast's Sitka Campus, where students are immersed in the exciting
and emerging fields of aquaculture and mariculture through their highly
regarded Alaska Aquaculture Semester.
Were we to invest in and support our students in these ways, the
benefits would be significant, and our industries and communities would
be armed with a locally rooted workforce prepared to address the many
other complex problems facing Alaska. If we are to build the state's
blue economy, we must build an Alaska where science, fisheries,
workforce development, and innovation work together so the next
generation can build thriving futures in coastal communities.
Mariculture glidepath
As Alaskans look to reenvision coastal economies, and potentially
repurpose their skillsets and assets towards new industries,
mariculture (marine aquaculture of kelp and shellfish) has received
significant attention and investment in recent years. The Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill Trustee Council invested more than $30 million in Alaskan
mariculture-related projects and infrastructure in October 2021. The
U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) awarded $49 million to
the ``Alaska Mariculture Cluster'' under its Build Back Better Regional
Challenge (BBBRC) program in 2022. That same year, the Alaska
Legislature allocated $7 million to the University of Alaska to support
mariculture research and development throughout the state. Finally, in
2024, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Established Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) commenced its $20 million
``Interface of Change'' project in select communities in northern
Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Lower Cook Inlet, to
develop partnerships between researchers, Gulf of Alaska community
members, Tribes, educators, and entrepreneurs. Through these
connections, project participants have worked collaboratively to
investigate the resilience of marine species that are critical to the
subsistence way of life as well as developments in the mariculture
economy in the Gulf of Alaska.
Leveraging this momentum and these resources, and by following
guidance laid out in the Alaska Mariculture Workforce Development Plan,
the Alaska Blue Economy Center at UAF has partnered with Prince William
Sound College (at the University of Alaska Anchorage) and the Applied
Fisheries Program (at the University of Alaska Southeast) in developing
an inspirational ``glidepath'' for mariculture-related workforce
development in the state. Through these efforts, Alaskan middle school
and high school students were introduced to mariculture through Science
Olympiad and Teaching Through Technology, respectively, and were
provided with opportunities for learning and potentially for direct
entry into the state's developing mariculture industry, along with
opportunities for postsecondary vocational-technical education and/or
matriculation into baccalaureate programs. Although this ``glidepath''
was developed for the state's nascent mariculture industry, we believe
that this approach can be modified and adopted for needs and
opportunities in the state's oil and gas industry, traditional seafood
industry, visitor industry, and construction industry, and elsewhere.
Collaboration is key (capacity building)
Alaska's blue economy succeeds when we invest in people,
particularly K-12 students, connecting science, education, workforce
development, and sustainable coastal industries so future generations
can survive and thrive. In Alaska, these investments have always
involved external partners and partnerships, such as those with the
Federal government and its agencies, both U.S. and international
academic partners, and leaders from around the country and beyond, well
before the phrase ``blue economy'' was first prominently introduced by
Belgian economist Gunter Pauli in 1994. Internal collaboration in
Alaska is equally essential for economic development in the state, as
its vast geography and complex land ownership require diverse groups to
work together. Partnerships between Alaska Native Corporations,
municipalities, regional organizations, and state entities are vital to
building resilient industries and communities.
These same approaches have been implemented at ABEC, albeit on a
smaller, and oftentimes more local scale. For example, in 2022, the
City of Valdez partnered with ABEC to support the city's interests in
mariculture development and the broader blue economy, with a goal of
building capacity at ABEC, and helping to connect the City and its
stakeholders with beneficial capacities at UAF. Located in Southcentral
Alaska, Valdez is a seamlessly connected hub accessible by land, air,
and sea. Perched along miles of the pristine, clean, and deep waters of
Prince William Sound, Valdez enjoys easy access to Alaska, the Arctic,
and the world. Its strategic location allows Port of Valdez to be a
gateway to Alaska's Interior, the Arctic, the U.S. Pacific Northwest,
and the Pacific Rim. With direct access to Alaska's road system, as a
regular stop on the Alaska Marine Highway System, and as the southern
terminus of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, the Port of Valdez
ensures unparalleled access to the state and world beyond. As I
(Sheridan) am moving to Valdez in 2026, it is hoped that ABEC can be of
greater service to Valdez and its interests, including those pertaining
to port and harbor infrastructure development, and discussions
surrounding potentially home-porting U.S. Coast Guard Fast Response
Cutters, icebreakers, and joint interagency operations. Leaders across
Alaska, including those in Valdez, celebrated the Senate's passage of
the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which
includes the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2026, and are grateful to
Senator Sullivan and this Committee's work on that legislation.
Successful outcomes from this unique municipal-university
relationship between ABEC and the City of Valdez include the Alaska
Mariculture Cluster (AMC) being awarded $49 million through the
Economic Development Administration's (EDA) Build Back Better Regional
Challenge grant program, which benefited from instigation and support
by the city, including a $6 million matching resource from the City in
support of the AMC application. Further, ABEC catalyzed and supported
of K-12 STEM programming in the local school district, including
Science Olympiad and T3. ABEC has also worked closely with Prince
William Sound College over the years on a variety of initiatives,
especially mariculture.
External relationships made possible through federally funded
university initiatives have also been beneficial to ABEC's development,
and hold promise for the broader blue economy in the state. For
example, ABEC has benefitted from funding through the Alaska Regional
Collaboration for Technology Innovation and Commercialization (ARCTIC)
Program. ARCTIC is sponsored by the Department of the Navy, Office of
Naval Research (ONR), and is housed at the Alaska Center for Energy and
Power (ACEP) at UAF. The ARCTIC Program is a partnership designed to
promote capacity building and cooperation between Alaska and the Arctic
and Pacific regions through advancements in energy technology through
resiliency research, and technology development and deployment.
ARCTIC's work to explore and establish Community Innovation Hubs in
communities like Cordova and Kotzebue holds promise as testbeds for
concepts and technologies of likely benefit elsewhere in the state.
Similarly, ABEC has worked with the RISE-UP Program, which is another
ONR-funded project underway in Alaska as part of a tri-state initiative
uniting Rhode Island, Alaska, and Hawai`i, connecting education,
research, and industry to accelerate ideas into real-world defense and
commercial impact. Both programs have a core mission of building
capacity within the communities they serve, the likes of which bode
well for blue economy development in Alaska.
I also wish to illuminate the opportunity for ocean-based economic
development in coastal states and communities through the support and
development of increasingly successful ocean cluster models. The
movement towards clusters is exemplified by organizations such as the
Iceland Ocean Cluster, Maritime Blue in Seattle, the Oregon Ocean
Cluster, TMA BlueTech in San Diego, the Rhode Island Ocean Tech Hub,
along with new state efforts in Maine, Hawaii, and the Great Lakes.
Academic-based development underway at schools such as Texas A&M
University Galveston, the University of Southern Mississippi, and
Oregon State University, are all good examples of public seed funding
at the state level that is leading to systemic change and blue economy
development.
These efforts stem from increasing recognition that ocean
industries are among the fastest growing economic opportunities
globally. Organizations such as the World Bank and the European Union
have projected the value of the global blue economy will exceed $3
trillion by 2030. And in addition to growth in traditional industries
such as seafood, shipping, and energy development, emerging sectors
such as marine biotechnology, coastal resilience, mariculture, and
innovations in boatbuilding represent massive development potential.
The Ocean Regional Opportunity and Innovation (Ocean ROI) Act of 2025
(S. Bill 1392) would provide the investment needed to develop the blue
economy in Alaska, and elsewhere. Ocean ROA aspires to establish a
Federal Blue Economy strategy, creates Ocean Innovation Clusters in
each National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) region, would grant up to $10
million per cluster through 2030, and requires coordination among the
EDA, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and
Sea Grant.
Finally, I'll end with encouragement that we strive to develop
Alaskan leaders, and the organizations they work for and through. In
2008, the renowned American political scientists Ed Weber and Anne
Khademian describe the role that collaborative capacity-builders (CCBs)
play in fostering the transfer, receipt, and integration of knowledge
across networks, which can build long-term collaborative problem-
solving capacity strong enough to address complex public, or wicked,
problems, such as many that are facing Alaska today. Weber and
Khademian define a CCB as someone who has been assigned a lead role in
a network's problem-solving activities through the individual's legal
authority, whose expertise is valued within the network, and who has a
reputation as an honest broker. Although public managers are almost
always involved with such networks, Weber and Khademian contend that
CCBs do not always need to be public managers. In my opinion, any
effort to identify and foster CCBs in Alaska's blue economy is
essential to its development, and to the future of the state. An
interdisciplinary PhD program is underway at UAF that aspires to
develop such Alaskan leaders, drawing from pools of ``changemakers'' in
a variety of fields. This program offers its students the opportunity
to shape a dynamic curriculum that aligns with their unique goals and
passions. This flexible and innovative program allows students to
design a doctoral degree that spans multiple disciplines, going beyond
the traditional offerings of the university, and I believe that such
efforts can help to build and sustain Alaska's blue economy into the
future.
In closing, I encourage this subcommittee to support four pillars:
first, investment in K-12 STEM and local workforce development; second,
funding for fisheries science and NOAA partnerships; third, expanded
community-based education and applied research; and fourth, innovation
to ensure our communities remain economically unshakeable.
So, let us choose to invest, and let us finalize a reality where we
no longer have to just imagine an Alaska where science, fisheries,
workforce development, and innovation work together so the next
generation can build thriving futures in coastal communities.
Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, and
distinguished Members of the Committee and staff, thank you once again
for your invitation to testify here today, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Woodrow.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY WOODROW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA SEAFOOD
MARKETING INSTITUTE
Mr. Woodrow. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan and Ranking
Member Blunt Rochester and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. Appreciate the opportunity to testify with you
today.
My name is Jeremy Woodrow, and I serve as Executive
Director for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, also known
as ASMI. ASMI is a public-private partnership between the state
of Alaska and the seafood industry. Our mission is to increase
the economic value of the Alaska seafood resource through
marketing, education, and outreach. We work domestically and in
more than 50 international markets to build demand for Alaska's
wild, sustainable seafood, supporting fishermen and processors,
and strengthening the global reputation of the Alaska seafood
brand.
As the Chairman said, the Alaska seafood industry is
foundational not only to Alaska's economy, but to the Nation's
blue economy. Seafood is Alaska's largest private sector
employer, supporting over 40,000 jobs and generating more than
$5 billion in added economic value. Nationally, Alaska accounts
for roughly two-thirds of the U.S. commercial seafood landings
and supports more than $10 billion in economic activity.
But what truly sets Alaska apart is our dedication to
sustainability. Our fisheries are managed under a science-based
precautionary system that is enshrined in Alaska's
Constitution. Sustainability is not just a marketing claim,
it's a commitment to the future. It is reflected in every part
of our industry, from our multigenerational fishing families to
strict management practices, full resource utilization, and
rigorous third-party certification. This model has allowed
Alaska to avoid resource depletion and remain a global leader
in responsible fisheries.
To Alaskans, sustainability means that Alaska's seafood
resource, fishing families, coastal communities, and way of
life will continue to thrive for generations to come. Alaska
seafood is also a major contributor to global food security.
Alaska seafood can be found in over 90 countries, providing
high-quality wild protein to consumers around the world.
Key markets like the European Union and Japan directly rely
on Alaska products, while other countries such as China and
those in Southeast Asia play important roles in processing and
global distribution. However, the global seafood marketplace is
ever-evolving, increasingly competitive. Alaska producers face
significant pressure from foreign competitors, particularly
Russia, where lower costs and less stringent regulations allow
products to enter global markets at artificially low prices and
frequently through indirect channels.
At the same time, U.S. producers face a growing web of
tariff and non-tariff barriers. Uneven trade policies, complex
certification requirements, and new systems like the European
Union's catch traceability platform create additional burdens
for responsible producers, often without effectively targeting
bad actors.
Here at home, Alaska seafood must also compete against
imported products that are frequently produced under weaker
environmental and labor standards. Maintaining a fair and
competitive domestic market is critical to our Nation's food
security and supply chain integrity. Federal programs have been
essential in helping address these challenges.
USDA Seafood Purchasing Programs provide stability during
market disruptions while delivering nutritious seafood to
American families. Marketing investments such as the Market
Access Program have helped ASMI expand global demand and build
brand recognition, and NOAA's Saltonstall-Kennedy grants have
supported innovation, efficiency, and product development
across the industry.
The America First Trade Promotion Program offers additional
opportunity to increase demand for Alaska seafood and other
products globally. We also appreciate the establishment of the
USDA Office of Seafood, which represents an important step
toward better coordination and recognition of seafood within
Federal policy.
Looking ahead, continued Federal engagement and support
will be critical. Investments in science, innovation, market
development, infrastructure, and trade equity are all necessary
to ensure that U.S. seafood producers can continue to compete
on a level playing field.
Alaska seafood tells a uniquely American story, one of
stewardship, resilience, and leadership. With a continued
partnership of Congress and Federal agencies, we have an
opportunity to sustain the success and build upon this
incredible maritime history through supporting jobs,
strengthening food security, and reinforcing the United States'
position as a global leader in the production of wild,
sustainable seafood.
Thank you for your time today and your commitment to our
Nation's seafood industry. I look forward to working together
to address these opportunities and challenges, and I welcome
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodrow follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeremy Woodrow, Executive Director,
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
Dear Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, and Members
of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), thank
you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the critical role of
the Alaska seafood industry in strengthening our Nation's coastal
economies, advancing global sustainability leadership, and supporting
American food security and trade competitiveness.
ASMI is a public-private partnership between the State of Alaska
and the seafood industry. Our mission is to increase the economic value
of Alaska seafood through marketing, education, and outreach. We work
domestically and in more than 50 international markets to build demand
for Alaska's wild, sustainable seafood, supporting fishermen and
processors, and strengthening the global reputation of the Alaska
Seafood brand.
The Alaska seafood industry is a cornerstone of both Alaska's
economy and the broader United States seafood sector. Seafood is
Alaska's largest private-sector employer, supporting tens of thousands
of direct and indirect jobs across harvesting, processing,
transportation, and distribution. The industry adds $5.2 billion
annually in economic value within Alaska (about 7 percent of Alaska's
GDP), making it one of the most important natural resource sectors in
the state.
Nationally, Alaska seafood generates over $10 billion in economic
output and accounts for approximately two-thirds of total U.S.
commercial seafood landings by volume. These fisheries supply high-
quality, wild, and sustainably harvested protein to domestic and
international consumers. From small rural communities to major ports,
Alaska's fisheries sustain livelihoods, support infrastructure
investment, and contribute to food resilience in the United States.
Alaska sets the global standard for well-managed, sustainable
fisheries. Wild seafood is one of Alaska's most precious resources, and
the state goes to great lengths to support its continued abundance.
From fishermen and processors to scientists and law enforcement
officials, sustainability is not only crucial to Alaskans livelihoods
but is also a deeply ingrained way of life.
The five pillars of Alaska seafood sustainability tell the story of
the important work Alaska does to ensure that sustainable Alaska
seafood reaches consumers across the world:
1. Families & Communities: Alaska's fishing families are the heart
and soul of Alaska's seafood industry, handing down fishing
practices from generation to generation and believing
passionately in the importance of sustainability. The ability
for generations of seafood harvesters to thrive from well-
managed fisheries is the core definition of sustainability in
Alaska.
2. Social Responsibility: In Alaska, not only do we protect the fish
and the ecosystem, but the people that participate in the
fisheries as well.
3. Fisheries Management: Alaska represents the gold standard for
fisheries management around the world, utilizing a science-
based precautionary approach that is built to adapt to
ecosystem changes.
4. Resource Utilization: Alaska strives to use 100 percent of the
resource. Fully utilizing our abundant resources provides
greater cultural significance and economic value. Alaska's
fisheries continuously research and invest in new technologies
to further improve resource utilization.
5. Certification: Third-party certification provides a way for
fisheries to verify responsible fisheries management and strong
governance. These programs provide market access and consumer
confidence across the globe.
The principles of sustainability are embedded in Alaska's
constitution, which mandates that fisheries be managed for sustained
yield. As a result, Alaska has avoided many of the resource depletion
challenges experienced in other global fisheries.
Alaska seafood is a globally recognized premium product with a
broad international footprint that is exported to at least 94 countries
worldwide. This extensive reach underscores the industry's importance
not only to Alaska's economy, but also to the United States' role in
global seafood supply chains.
Alaska seafood maintains a diverse portfolio of export markets
shaped by consumption trends, processing dynamics, and trade policies.
In 2024, the European Union was Alaska's largest export market by
value, directly importing approximately $616 million in seafood. Key
products included sockeye salmon, Alaska pollock fillets, and surimi.
Japan closely followed, importing $571 million, with strong demand for
pollock surimi and roe, salmon roe, sablefish, and Atka mackerel.
China plays a distinct and critical role in the Alaska seafood
supply chain. While importing approximately $566 million in Alaska
seafood annually, its primary function is as a re-processing hub rather
than a final consumer market. Due to high tariffs, Alaska seafood is
generally not competitive for domestic consumption in China. Instead,
products are thawed, processed into fillets or portions, re-frozen, and
exported to other global markets.
Similarly, Southeast Asia, which includes Thailand, Vietnam, and
Indonesia, has emerged as an increasingly important region for seafood
reprocessing, helping diversify supply chains. In contrast, markets in
the Middle East and North Africa currently import relatively small
volumes, representing potential areas for future growth in domestic
demand and export to Europe.
The global seafood marketplace is highly competitive, and Alaska
faces significant challenges from foreign producers. Particularly
concerning is the continued presence of Russian seafood in global
markets. Russia remains Alaska's principal competitor for key species
such as pollock, cod, salmon, and king crab. Russian producers often
benefit from lower production costs and less rigorous regulatory
frameworks, allowing them to undercut Alaska seafood prices
internationally. Even where direct imports are restricted, Russian-
origin seafood can enter global supply chains through third countries,
distorting markets and suppressing prices for responsibly harvested
U.S. products.
While the United States has implemented a full ban on Russian
seafood imports, other major markets, for example the European Union,
Japan, and the United Kingdom, have imposed more limited tariffs or
sanctions. These uneven measures allow Russian seafood to continue
circulating in global markets, distorting price competition and
undermining U.S. producers.
At the same time, tariff and non-tariff barriers such as complex
import requirements, certification standards, and evolving traceability
systems continue to impact Alaska seafood's ability to compete
globally. Tariff disparities can place U.S. producers at a disadvantage
relative to competitors from countries with preferential trade
agreements.
Regulatory measures, certification requirements, and documentation
systems are becoming increasingly complex and burdensome. A notable
example is the European Union's CATCH system, a digital platform
designed to address illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
While the goal of the system is aligned with U.S. sustainability
values, its implementation introduces extreme administrative and
logistical challenges for exporters, particularly when requirements
overlap with existing U.S. traceability systems. Unfortunately, this
system places a bureaucratic burden on good actors, such as Alaska
seafood producers, and is a perfect example of a recent non-tariff
trade barrier.
The United States remains the largest market overall for Alaska
seafood, representing over $2 billion annually through a combination of
domestic landings and re-imported processed products.
However, Alaska seafood also faces increasing competition in the
U.S., which is one of the largest seafood-consuming nations in the
world and where imports account for the majority of seafood consumed
domestically. Alaska seafood therefore must compete with lower-cost
imported products, many of which are produced under less stringent
environmental, labor, and regulatory standards.
Maintaining a fair but competitive domestic market is essential not
only for economic resilience but also for national food security and
supply chain integrity.
Federal support has been instrumental in strengthening the value
and market position of Alaska seafood both domestically and abroad.
USDA Federal seafood purchase programs, such as Section 32, play an
important role in supporting the stability and value of Alaska seafood,
particularly during periods of market disruption. These purchases
provide a dual benefit as they help alleviate supply imbalances and
price pressures faced by U.S. fishermen and processors, while also
delivering highly nutritious, sustainably harvested seafood to American
families.
Continued and expanded use of these programs can help strengthen
domestic demand, reinforce food security, and ensure that U.S. seafood
producers remain competitive in the face of global market volatility
and import pressures.
USDA marketing investments, including long-standing programs like
the Market Access Program (MAP) funding and more recent programs such
as the America First Trade Promotion Program (AFTPP), have enabled ASMI
to expand international marketing and brand recognition, increase
consumer awareness of sustainability and quality, and develop new
market channels and product forms.
The Alaska seafood industry has also benefited significantly from
NOAA's Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Grant Program, which has supported
critical promotion, development and marketing investments that might
not otherwise occur. These funds have advanced seafood innovation and
product development, improved processing efficiency and full resource
utilization, and strengthened marketing strategies and consumer
education efforts. Targeted investments under S-K deliver measurable
returns by driving demand, increasing product value, and supporting
jobs throughout the American seafood supply chain from harvesters and
processors to distributors and retailers.
ASMI also appreciates the recent establishment of the USDA Office
of Seafood, which represents an important step toward more coordinated
Federal engagement with the U.S. seafood sector. The creation of this
office will help elevate the role of seafood within Federal nutrition,
trade, and agricultural policy, ensuring that fisheries are better
integrated into national food systems. This enhanced focus will support
American harvesters and processors, improve market access, and
strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. seafood both domestically and
overseas.
The Alaska seafood industry is an essential pillar of the U.S. blue
economy by supporting American jobs, strengthening food security, and
supplying the world with high-quality, sustainably-harvested protein.
However, this success is not guaranteed. Alaska seafood producers
are navigating an increasingly complex and competitive global landscape
shaped by uneven trade policies, rising non-tariff barriers, shifting
supply chains, and aggressive price competition from foreign producers.
Strategic Federal engagement is critical at this moment. Continued
investment in fisheries science, technological innovations, market
development, infrastructure and trade enforcement, along with
coordinated policy support through agencies like USDA and NOAA, will be
essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in sustainable seafood
production.
Alaska seafood tells a powerful American story: one of stewardship,
resilience, and global leadership. It is a model of how natural
resources can be managed responsibly while supporting hardworking
Americans, vibrant coastal communities and the national economy.
With continued partnership and support from Congress and Federal
agencies, the United States has an opportunity not only to sustain this
legacy, but to expand it and, in turn, ensure that American fishermen
and processors can remain globally competitive, consumers at home and
abroad continue to trust the Alaska Seafood brand, and our fisheries
remain among the most sustainable in the world.
Thank you for your leadership and commitment to America's seafood
industry.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeremy Woodrow,
Executive Director,
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Woodrow. Mr.
Wardwell.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN WARDWELL, MANAGING PARTNER, JOA SURVEYS LLC
Mr. Wardwell. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt
Rochester, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today.
I was born and raised in Alaska and raised in a family
there and own a small business in Anchorage that employs 15
people. I have worked in the hydrographic services for more
than 20 years. That sector that maps the seafloor, measures
water levels, and provides the foundational data that makes
safe navigation possible. That work has taken my company to
every coast of the United States, from the Arctic to the
Caribbean to the Great Lakes, and provides the foundational
data--excuse me--and almost always in partnerships with Federal
agencies.
That experience gave me a broad perspective on how many
industries depend on this data and how much is still missing.
The simple truth is this: The blue economy cannot function
without hydrographic services. Without accurate maps of the
seafloor and real-time water level information, mariners cannot
safely navigate. The same data that guides vessels safely into
port is used to model tsunamis, forecast storm surge, identify
critical mineral resources, route undersea fiber cables, and
monitor long-term sea level change.
It is the foundation beneath every sector of the blue
economy: fishing, shipping, recreation, energy, and national
security alike. Yet as of 2024, 46 percent of U.S. coastal
ocean and Great Lakes waters remain unmapped to modern
standards. In Alaska, that figure is even more striking. 62
percent of more than 1.2 million square nautical miles of
Alaska's waters are unmapped.
For a state with more than 33,000 miles of shoreline and
the Nation's only access to the Arctic Ocean, that gap is not
just a data problem, it is an economic constraint, a safety
risk, and a national security vulnerability. Closing it will
require not only sustained investment and strong partnerships,
but continued innovation in how we collect, integrate, and
deliver hydrographic data at a scale that traditional methods
alone cannot achieve. Closing that gap requires both government
and private industry working together.
The 2019 Presidential memorandum on ocean mapping of the
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and the shoreline and nearshore of
Alaska was an important step in building a plan. But not every
port in America yet has the real-time water levels and current
bathymetry that mariners need to navigate safely while
maximizing their load capacity. And as vessels continue to grow
larger, that need only intensifies.
Senator Sullivan, I want to thank you personally for your
work to bring more icebreakers to Alaska. I had the privilege
of sailing aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the
Arctic during graduate school, an experience that shaped my
understanding of how icebreakers underpin our national
security, emergency response, and scientific capabilities in
ways nothing else can replace.
I also want to thank you, Senator Murkowski, and Senator
Cantwell, for introducing the Tsunami Warning Research and
Education Act of 2026. In August 2025, a landslide in Tracy
Arm, a fjord in southeast Alaska, generated a mega tsunami with
run-up reaching nearly 1,600 feet above sea level. My company
operated a water level station in an adjacent fjord installed
on behalf of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to
provide data for a NOAA program.
That station captured the tsunami in real time, and the
data is now part of the scientific record. It exists because
someone invested in putting an instrument there and because a
State agency, a Federal program, and a private company were
working together. That is the case for this investment.
I will leave you with three points. First, hydrographic
data is not a government overhead cost, it is the
infrastructure the blue economy is built on. Second, delivering
hydrographic data at the scale of Alaska demands strong public-
private partnerships and continued investment in innovation,
from new sensor technologies to modern data frameworks to real-
time observing networks that can operate year-round in ice-
affected environments. And third, Alaska's 33,000 miles of
shoreline and its position as America's Arctic Gateway presents
an extraordinary blue economy opportunity, one we can only
realize if we invest in knowing what lies beneath the waters.
Thank you, and I look forward to further discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wardwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nathan Wardwell, Managing Partner,
JOA Surveys LLC
Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to
participate in today's hearing. It is an honor and I commend you for
focusing on the importance of growing the Blue Economy.
My name is Nathan Wardwell, Managing Partner of JOA Surveys, a
small business in Anchorage, Alaska providing coastal mapping services
nationwide for more than 20 years. After completing graduate studies at
the University of New Hampshire in ocean mapping, I have participated
in projects from the Arctic Ocean to the Caribbean Sea to the Great
Lakes, giving me a regional and national perspective on coastal and
maritime geospatial challenges.
Navigation, Commerce, and the Cost of Incomplete Data
Underkeel clearance, the vertical distance between a vessel's keel
and the seafloor, is one of the most fundamental safety parameters in
maritime operations. Accurately calculating it requires three
interlocking systems: high-resolution bathymetry, real-time water
levels, and a consistent vertical datum tying them together.
The degree to which authoritative data is available for monitoring
underkeel clearance varies from port to port. Consider the Port of West
Sacramento and its 43-mile Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel. Bar
Pilots navigating that channel have confirmed that most vessels draft
deeply enough to require tidal consideration on every transit, meaning
shippers cannot fully load vessels given current depth limitations, and
cargo moves at a fraction of each ship's capacity.\1\ A real-time water
level station tied to a consistent datum was required before pilots
could safely navigate the channel while maximizing vessel load
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District.
Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel Limited Reevaluation Report--
Appendix E: With-Project Economic Analysis (Draft). February 2011.
https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/SRDWSC/Appendix_E.pd
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Port of Alaska, with seasonal sea-ice and a 30-foot tidal
range, vessels supplying goods to 90 percent of Alaska's population
depend on the same authoritative bathymetry and real-time water
levels.\2\ Yet across Alaska, marine pilots serving remote coastal
communities routinely navigate without current bathymetry or real-time
water levels along their routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Don Young Port of Alaska. About Don Young Port of Alaska. Port
of Alaska, City of Anchorage. Accessed 2026. https://
www.portofalaska.com/about-us/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Arm Landslide: Observation Infrastructure
On August 10, 2025, a landslide above South Sawyer Glacier sent 64
million cubic meters of rock into Tracy Arm fjord, generating the
second-highest megatsunami ever recorded, with runup reaching nearly
1,600 feet above sea level.\3\ Water level stations in Juneau and
Endicott Arm detected a tsunami signal generated from the event.\4\
These stations provided the observational record researchers need to
reconstruct wave propagation and model future hazards. Without datum-
referenced water level stations distributed across Southeast Alaska,
that science cannot be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Geological Survey. 2025 Tracy Arm Landslide-Generated
Tsunami. USGS Landslide Hazards Program, August 2025. https://
www.usgs.gov/programs/landslide-hazards/science/2025-tracy-arm-
landslide-generated-tsunami
\4\ Shugar, D.H. et al., (2026). A 481-meter-high landslide-tsunami
in a cruise ship-frequented Alaska fjord. Science, eaec3187. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.aec3187
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic consequences of this event are already being felt:
five major cruise lines have removed Tracy Arm from their 2026
itineraries, redirecting passengers to Endicott Arm.\5\ Increased
cruise tourism in Alaska's fjords increases exposure to exactly these
cascading geological risks. Observation infrastructure must grow with
the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Travel Market Report. Cruise Lines Pull Tracy Arm from Alaska
Itineraries. April 6, 2026. https://www.travelmarketreport.com/cruises/
articles/cruise-lines-pull-tracy-arm-from-alaska-itineraries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Alaska: The Flood Imperative
When Typhoon Merbok struck the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in September
2022, it impacted more than 35 Alaska Native communities along 1,300
miles of coast.\6\ In 2024 the community of Kwigillingok experienced
coastal flooding with water levels higher than the community members
remember experiencing. The next year Typhoon Halong devastated
Kwigillingok along with over 40 more communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta region.\7\ In many of these communities, emergency managers
navigate blind and rebuilding efforts are hampered by a lack of
observational data. These storms are not unique to Alaska. What remains
unique is the real-time observational gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Geological Survey. Typhoon Merbok Coastal Community
Impacts. USGS Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Recovery
Activities. https://www.usgs.gov/supplemental-appropriations-for-
disaster-recovery-activities/typhoon-merbok-coastal-community
\7\ Alaska Public Media. Officials Say Storm `Completely
Devastated' Western Alaska Communities (Typhoon Halong). October 13,
2025. https://alaskapublic.org/news/public-safety/2025-10-13/officials-
say-storm-completely-devastated-western-alaska-communities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GNSS-IR: Innovative Blue Economy Technology
My company has been developing and deploying GNSS Interferometric
Reflectometry, GNSS-IR, for water and ice level monitoring in Alaska
since 2017, working with local, state, and Federal stakeholders to
expand the coastal and river observing networks across the state.\8\
GNSS-IR is a remote sensing technique that measures water and ice
levels using reflected satellite signals.\9\ Unlike conventional
sensors, GNSS-IR requires no in-water infrastructure, making it well-
suited for remote and ice-affected environments. As the Blue Economy
grows in the Arctic, this capability becomes increasingly critical.
Full-scale adoption requires interagency commitment and investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Wardwell, Nathan, Drew Lindow, Reece Robinson, and Jim
Mitchell. Adventures in Multipath: Extracting Tides & Water Levels from
Noise in Alaska. Presentation at the Alaska Geospatial Summit, April 9,
2025. JOA Surveys, Anchorage, AK. https://joasurveys.com/wp-content/
uploads/2025/04/AK-Geosummit-GNSS-IR.pdf
\9\ Larson, K.M. GNSS Interferometric Reflectometry: A New Tool for
Environmental Sensing. GPS Solutions, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10291-016-0557-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Since the precursor to NOAA's Office of Coast Survey was
established by Congress in 1807, our Nation has understood the value of
mapping its coasts and waters for navigation, land management, national
security, and long-term monitoring. Yet in 2024, 46 percent of U.S.
waters remain unmapped.\10\ Advancing American fisheries, maritime
strength, and coastal economies depends on understanding our ocean and
seafloor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Carter, Nicole T., Laura B. Comay, Caitlin Keating-Bitonti,
Eva Lipiec, and Linda R. Rowan. Frequently Asked Questions: Mapping of
U.S. Ocean and Coastal Waters. Congressional Research Service Report
No. R47623, updated July 29, 2025. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47623
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That requires strong public-private partnerships and continued
investment in ocean technology. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Wardwell. And stay tuned
on the icebreakers. Might have some more announcements coming
up here from the Coast Guard on homeporting icebreakers in
Alaska, which is, by the way, the place you would think the
Coast Guard would have done that about 50 years ago, putting
the icebreakers in the state with the ice. But that's actually
never happened. So we're working on that one, too.
Mr. Heil, you're up.
STATEMENT OF CLAYTON HEIL, VICE PRESIDENT,
GLOBAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, CROWLEY
Mr. Heil. Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt
Rochester, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Clay
Heil, and I serve as Vice President of Global Government
Relations for Crowley. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
Crowley is a privately held, U.S. owned maritime logistics
and energy company founded in 1892 and headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida. For more than 130 years, Crowley has
served commercial and government customers in some of the most
difficult environments in the world. Today, our business
includes logistics, vessel operations, fuel transportation and
distribution, ship assist and escort services, vessel
construction management, and government services.
We are also deeply committed to Alaska, where Crowley has
operated for more than 70 years. Crowley employs hundreds of
Alaskans and supports communities across the state by
purchasing, transporting, storing, and distributing the fuels
needed to heat homes, operate schools and businesses, fly
aircraft, and power the vessels that support Alaska's fishing
economy.
In western Alaska, Crowley operates coastal and river
barges serving remote communities where maritime transportation
is not just a convenience, it is the supply chain. Crowley's
work in Alaska demonstrates why this hearing matters. The blue
economy is not an abstract policy concept. It's the daily work
of fishermen, mariners, shipyard workers, port employees, fuel
distributors, tug and barge operators, seafood processors, and
the families and communities that depend upon them.
The Jones Act is essential to that system. It ensures that
cargo moving between American ports is carried on vessels that
are American-built, owned, crewed, and flagged. It also
supports the domestic maritime workforce, a U.S. shipbuilding
and repair base, and dedicated trade lanes that provide
regular, reliable service to American communities.
That reliability is especially important for the fishing
industry and for remote markets. Fishing operations depend on
steady fuel deliveries, functioning ports, trained mariners,
and vessels that can carry--can safely operate in difficult
environments. Those capabilities do not appear overnight. They
are built through long-term private investment, and the Jones
Act gives companies the confidence to make those investments.
Crowley strongly supports the administration's maritime
executive order and the bipartisan SHIPS for America Act. Both
recognize that the United States must rebuild its maritime
industrial base, expand U.S. flag shipping, grow the pool of
American mariners, strengthen domestic shipbuilding, and ensure
that our Nation has the commercial maritime capacity needed for
economic security and national defense.
Those are the right goals, and Crowley is prepared to help
meet them. For decades, we have invested in American shipyards,
U.S. built vessels, American mariners, port infrastructure, and
the domestic maritime services that support American
communities. But those investments depend on stable,
predictable policy environments. The current Jones Act waiver
undermines those efforts.
Crowley recognizes that true emergencies may require
carefully tailored waivers. Congress has provided a process for
that purpose, and the maritime industry has understood that
national defense and emergency response come first. Crowley is
proud of its longstanding role supporting national security
missions. Our commercial operations employ and train American
mariners and provide access to vessels, logistics capabilities,
and global transportation networks that support military
sealift readiness and crisis response when the Nation needs
them.
But broad or recurring waivers that are not tied to a
specific vessel need, a specific cargo need, or the actual non-
availability of U.S. vessels creates a very different problem.
Such waivers send the wrong message at the wrong time. At the
very moment the administration and Congress are calling for
more U.S. flag vessels, more American mariners, more shipyard
capacity, and more private investment. The waiver invites
foreign-flagged vessels into domestic trades and weakens the
market certainty needed to build that capacity.
The current waiver has also not solved the underlying
energy problem. It does not create new supply or make global
tanker markets less volatile. Instead, it shifts cargo away
from American vessels and American crews while weakening the
long-term business case for the domestic maritime capacity we
will need in the next crisis.
Crowley stands ready to work with this committee, the
administration, and our partners across the country to
strengthen America's maritime economy, support our fishing and
coastal communities, and ensure the United States remains a
maritime Nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heil follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clayton Heil, Vice President,
Global Government Relations, Crowley
Chairman Sullivan, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Clay Heil, and I serve as Vice President
of Global Government Relations for Crowley. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
Crowley is a privately held, U.S.-owned maritime, logistics, and
energy company founded in 1892 and headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida. For more than 130 years, Crowley has served commercial and
government customers in some of the most difficult operating
environments in the world. Today, our business includes logistics,
vessel operations, fuel transportation and distribution, ship assist
and escort services, vessel construction management, and government
services.
We are also deeply committed to Alaska, where Crowley has operated
for more than 70 years. Crowley employs hundreds of Alaskans and
supports communities across the state by purchasing, transporting,
storing, and distributing the fuels needed to heat homes, operate
schools and businesses, fly aircraft, and power the vessels that
support Alaska's fishing economy. In Western Alaska, Crowley operates
coastal and river barges serving remote communities where marine
transportation is not just a convenience; it is the supply chain.
Crowley's work in Alaska demonstrates why this hearing matters. The
blue economy is not an abstract policy concept. It is the daily work of
fishermen, mariners, shipyard workers, port employees, fuel
distributors, tug and barge operators, seafood processors, and the
families and communities that depend on them.
The Jones Act is essential to that system. It ensures that cargo
moving between American ports is carried on vessels that are American-
built, owned, crewed, and flagged. It also supports a domestic maritime
workforce, a U.S. shipbuilding and repair base, and dedicated trade
lanes that provide regular, reliable service to American communities.
That reliability is especially important for the fishing industry
and for remote markets. Fishing operations depend on steady fuel
deliveries, functioning ports, trained mariners, and vessels that can
safely operate in difficult environments. Those capabilities do not
appear overnight. They are built through long-term private investment,
and the Jones Act gives companies the confidence to make those
investments.
Crowley strongly supports the Administration's Maritime Executive
Order and the bipartisan SHIPS for America Act. Both recognize that the
United States must rebuild its maritime industrial base, expand U.S.-
flag shipping, grow the pool of American mariners, strengthen domestic
shipbuilding, and ensure that our Nation has the commercial maritime
capacity needed for economic security and national defense.
Those are the right goals, and Crowley is prepared to help meet
them. For decades, we have invested in American shipyards, U.S.-built
vessels, American mariners, port infrastructure, and the domestic
maritime services that support American communities. But those
investments depend on a stable and predictable policy environment.
The current Jones Act waiver undermines those efforts.
Crowley recognizes that true emergencies may require narrowly
tailored waivers. Congress has provided a process for that purpose, and
the maritime industry has always understood that national defense and
emergency response come first. Crowley is proud of its longstanding
role supporting national security missions. Our commercial operations
employ and train American mariners and provide access to vessels,
logistics capabilities, and global transportation networks that support
military sealift, readiness, and crisis response when the Nation needs
them. But broad or recurring waivers that are not tied to a specific
vessel need, specific cargo need, or the actual non-availability of
U.S. vessels create a very different problem.
Such waivers send the wrong signal at the wrong time. At the very
moment the Administration and Congress are calling for more U.S.-flag
vessels, more American mariners, more shipyard capacity, and more
private investment, the waiver invites foreign-flag vessels into
domestic trades and weakens the market certainty needed to build that
capacity.
The current waiver has also not solved the underlying energy
problem. It does not create new supply or make global tanker markets
less volatile. Instead, it shifts cargo away from American vessels and
American crews while weakening the long-term business case for the
domestic maritime capacity we will need in the next crisis.
Crowley stands ready to work with this Committee, the
Administration, and our partners across the country to strengthen
America's maritime economy, support our fishing and coastal
communities, and ensure that the United States remains a maritime
nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you to all the witnesses. That was
a great overview of many important topics. The topic of the
blue economy itself is kind of broad.
So, Mr. Sheridan, why don't we start with you since you
focus on this a lot at UAF, and they have a great program on
fisheries and many other things. You work across many sectors
of Alaska's blue economy. How do you define the blue economy,
and where do you see the greatest opportunities for growth over
the next decade, not just in Alaska, but I would say throughout
the United States?
Mr. Sheridan. Thank you for the question, Chairman
Sullivan. I think that your introduction on the blue economy
was very good, very inclusive. Blue economy is a very broad and
expansive term, and I like to describe it as everything that
happens in places like Cordova and Valdez, where I've lived for
16 years now.
In both communities, we have one of North America's largest
salmon aquaculture programs. We have renowned commercial
fisheries, certainly associated marine shipping. In Valdez, of
course, is the terminus for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and so
energy is a big industry in that region. And with its access to
the road system, Valdez is positioned to be a significant port
for national defense and national security.
So, it really runs the gamut in coastal Alaska. Some of the
areas of opportunity that we've been involved with and have
been tracking includes making just better use, more full use of
the existing infrastructure and resources that we have. With
the seafood industry, there has been a lot of interest lately
on Icelandic models and the work that's being done there
through the Iceland Ocean Cluster to make more full utilization
of their cod fishery resource. I think there's opportunity to
do that in Alaska.
One example of that that we've been involved with is a
discussion around the potential to integrate mariculture into
Alaska's salmon hatchery system, for example. That's something
that folks are interested in, in addition to the development of
energy in the vicinity of those sites.
Tourism is rapidly becoming one of the largest sectors in
Alaska's blue economy. There have been significant port
developments in Cordova, Valdez, Whittier, Seward, all in our
neighborhood of Prince William Sound, with additional
significant investments to come in Nome. And so I think we'll
see a growth of that industry in that direction.
But in general, just to answer your question, of course,
it's a significant opportunity. Estimates are for the global
ocean economy to grow to or beyond $3 trillion by 2030. And
certainly----
Senator Sullivan. In the U.S. or globally?
Mr. Sheridan. Globally. And certainly much more so in the
next decade. So those are a few things that we're tracking and
interested in.
Senator Sullivan. Right. Mr. Wardwell, you talk about when
people hear hydrography and ocean mapping, they may not
immediately connect that to economic growth. Can you explain
how investments in mapping directly support jobs and economic
activity? And additionally, you mentioned that not having
mapping done is a national security vulnerability.
I'm sure you recall, a lot of Alaskans did--last summer we
had a Chinese research fleet off the coast of Alaska, all
summer, that was a spy operation. We all know that, right, and
trying to map the floor and find our cables and maybe
subroutes. I mean, that's what they were doing. They weren't
doing research, wasn't friendly. They were spying on us. So can
you talk a little bit about that national security
vulnerability as well?
Mr. Wardwell. Yes, so the ocean mapping and the blue
economy obviously are tied together, right? You can't do
anything in the--in the ocean without wanting to know or
needing to know something about the water depth, whether you're
doing construction for a coastal facility or you're trying to
identify an area to preserve. One of the--I think the collapse
of the Francis Scott Key Bridge is a good example. In order to
open up commerce into those ports, you had to map the seafloor
to find safe routes for the vessels to come in and out of the
port.
Every foot of draft for a vessel equates to additional
revenue and profit for companies and more efficient commerce.
So those are directly tied to ocean mapping. All of the work
from the fisheries and everything else is fundamental to
achieving those goals.
From a national security standpoint, I read the news in
Alaska, I see the articles about the boats and the Bering from
foreign countries. We can't--without understanding our coasts
and our seafloor, can't safely navigate, we can't move
commerce----
Senator Sullivan. We need to understand our coasts and
seafloor more than the Chinese understand our coasts and
seafloor. Isn't that like an imperative? Like, figure out what
we have before they do? And those guys were up all summer last
summer trying to figure it out, as you know.
Mr. Wardwell. Agreed. As somebody in the mapping industry,
it's always kind of blown me away that we have--that the moon
is mapped better than our oceans on Earth. I think there's some
value there.
Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you. Senator Blunt Rochester.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
start off with talking about aquaculture. The United States has
one of the world's largest ocean economies, yet we still import
the majority of our seafood that we consume. Shellfish
aquaculture offers economic, environmental, and food security
benefits for coastal communities.
So I'd like to start with you, Mr. Woodrow. How can
shellfish aquaculture strengthen America's blue economy,
particularly in supporting domestic seafood production, coastal
jobs, and healthy marine ecosystems?
Mr. Woodrow. Thank you, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, for
that question. I will try to answer your question as best I
can. I am a wild fisheries expert when it comes to marketing.
We are growing, and no pun intended, our aquaculture sector in
Alaska, especially in terms of oyster aquaculture as well as
seaweed aquaculture.
I will say that the investment in those industries is
really beginning. It has been--they've been around for decades,
but they did receive a significant Build Back Better grant that
was about $50 million several years ago to heavily invest more
into that industry. As Mr. Sheridan said, we are looking at how
we can bridge the gap between our growing mariculture industry
and aquaculture industry and our existing coastal economies
with our wild capture fisheries.
One thing that's really unique in Alaska is the timing of
our fisheries. We have a lot of seafood processing plants that
sit empty throughout the year. They're really busy throughout
those pulse fisheries, and there are vacancies throughout the
year where those can be filled with other fisheries, and that
keeps the lights on, keeps the economy going in those small
communities, and frankly, it's an opportunity for growth. So
that's one area that we definitely need to continue to explore.
And that's something that Alaska is doing and trying to be a
leader in.
I will say, when it comes to aquaculture as well, is when
it comes to wild capture fisheries, for the most part, we look
globally, our wild capture fisheries are maxed out, right?
We're doing a good job of most of the part of sustainably
managing and, you know, and catching those fisheries. If we
need to continue to feed the world, we need to find aquaculture
as well to feed the world. We need to do it responsibly and we
need to look at areas where we can do that responsibly.
And so that's one thing that Alaska is doing and why those
fisheries that we're looking at are those aquaculture
agriculture fisheries that we're looking at, such as shellfish
fisheries, is where we're starting.
Senator Blunt Rochester. You mentioned just the growing
demand both domestically as well as globally but we still see
that the industry faces some significant barriers. Could you
talk about some of the biggest challenges that are limiting the
responsible growth of shellfish, and also what actions that we
as Congress or Federal agencies like NOAA or USDA can take to
better support the industry?
Mr. Woodrow. Thank you for that question. For Alaska,
probably our greatest challenge is always our greatest strength
as well, and it's our remoteness. The economy of scale in
Alaska is always challenging. We're far away from the rest of
the world, so being able to move our product to the rest of the
world is costly. Getting product to Alaska to be--to start
investing is always costly.
And so we were always looking at ways to try to expand that
efficiency, but we need to start small and continue to grow
from there. And I can't speak to the rest of the--the rest of
that industry across the U.S. because I really am an Alaska
expert. But I know that's probably been the most difficult
aspect to growing that aquaculture industry in Alaska is really
it's the economy of scale and it's the remoteness. It just--
it's really, really expensive to do business in Alaska in these
remote areas.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you. I'm going to turn to
the Jones Act. I'm concerned by recent actions that the
administration has taken to undermine the maritime industry and
our global competitiveness in response to energy price
inflation caused by the Iran war, we've taken some
unprecedented steps of creating a prolonged Jones Act waiver.
And I think it was you, Mr. Heil, that said limited, you
know, targeted, that makes sense. After issuing a 60-day waiver
in March, the President decided to extend the waiver an
additional 90 days as the war continues on. When it is
currently set to expire mid-August, the 150-day waiver will be
the longest in modern history. And we're seeing just the
impacts of this waiver.
It's reported that it's halting a $1 billion investment.
And just last week, we saw a vessel with ties to the Chinese
government carrying cargo between U.S. ports. Mr. Heil, how
have Jones Act waivers chilled investment in our domestic
maritime industry, and how will this affect the workforce?
Mr. Heil. Well, thank you for the question, Senator. I
guess on the workforce part, I'll start with that. We're
hearing from our own mariners, U.S. citizens, our mariners who
are asking, what does this waiver mean for our jobs long term?
If waivers are to continue and reoccur, what does that mean for
me and my employment? So that's a concern for us and for our
workers.
And you mentioned the Chinese vessel that moved asphalt
from Louisiana to Connecticut last week. The Chinese, you know,
crude vessel, Chinese-built vessel operating in our territorial
waters under a national security waiver, moving asphalt. That's
concerning on a variety of levels.
For the investment community, when waivers are extended
like this--and this is, as you mentioned, there is no
historical parallel for a waiver of this duration or covering
this many products, over 600--it causes investment to pull
back. Shipyards will kind of in the short term probably not see
severe impacts, it's more of the longer term of future
investments.
Companies like ours are looking to recapitalize our fleets.
If the Jones Act looks unstable, we're not going to do that.
For shipyards, U.S. shipyards, they may see orders being
canceled. They may see their order book dry up for Jones Act
vessels. So I think it's concerning on multiple levels, the
duration and the uncertainty that it brings to the marketplace
and to private capital who won't invest in unstable markets.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Heil. I have more
questions, and I don't know if you're going to do a round two.
I can submit them----
Senator Sullivan. Yes, we will do a round two.
Senator Blunt Rochester.--for the record. Thank you and I
yield back.
Senator Sullivan. Chairman Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just
say that no one has done more for this area of subject matter
than Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska and I very much appreciate
the fact that he is a valuable member of the Committee that I
chair, the Armed Services Committee, and he realizes, in his
capacity as subcommittee chairman on this committee, the inner
workings of national security with everything that we've talked
about today.
I'm glad the Ranking Member has mentioned the Jones Act,
and so I want to continue to try to delve on that. I've always
been a big supporter of the Jones Act, and actually the Jones
Act was sort of considered holy writ in both parties for a long
time. Now we do see a number of people from both ends of the
ideological spectrum attacking the Jones Act now.
And I think, Mr. Heil, you would agree that we need to step
up our defense of the Jones Act. What is the national security
aspect of ensuring that we have a large enough domestic fleet?
Mr. Heil. Senator, Department of Defense, Department of War
have said for decades that the Jones Act is critical for their
efforts, not only to provide the mariners and surge capacity
requirements that are needed in times of war, also the vessels
that are needed that support our U.S. military. We are in the
Tanker Security Program. We have three tankers that support
Department of Defense assets around the world providing fuel
and supplies. That's just one part of the U.S. commercial
effort that supports our defense efforts.
Also, the shipyard capabilities are extremely important. We
need to maintain our shipyards and having the workers that know
how to build commercial ships, those are the same workers that
are building our military vessels. So we need to maintain that
whole infrastructure to counter our--counter China and others
who are building their naval assets around the world and who
are in fact incorporating their commercial assets into their
battle plans.
So we need to have the U.S. flag fleet that is able to
project power worldwide and then provide supplies for our
country in times of war.
Senator Wicker. Well said. I think we would agree, though,
and all four of you would probably agree, we really still don't
have enough of a domestic fleet. What do we need to do in
addition to the Jones Act to build more commercial-type ships
in the United States of America? We're just not getting there.
And this point is made by people who are attacking the Jones
Act.
Mr. Heil. The biggest thing that would--biggest help that
would be needed is cargo to put on those vessels. I mean, we
make investments in new ships based on cargo demand. We have--
--
Senator Wicker. During times when we're not at war.
Mr. Heil. During times when we're not at war. You know,
they're commercial vessels. We need to have customers and cargo
to go on those vessels. There are various ideas that have been
posed in the SHIPS Act and the Maritime Action Plan to address
that. One idea is a tax incentive. Basically, it would be
incentive--get a tax incentive if you put cargo on U.S. built
ships. I think that would do a lot to help increase demand for
U.S. built vessels and produce more ships in our shipyards.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Heil, you in your testimony commend the
Maritime Executive Order and the bipartisan SHIPS for America
Act. But at the same time, you're very troubled, as are the
three of us, with the current waiver. We talk about the
narrowly tailored waivers that Congress has provided for. It's
my position that there's some question as to whether the
current waiver complies with the statute.
Would anybody on the panel like to respond to that? I think
probably, Mr. Heil, your company questions whether the
administration has gone farther than the statute anticipated.
Mr. Heil. Yes, Senator, there are two parts of the statute,
501(a) and 501(b). 501(a) is the national security waiver part
of it, where the Secretary of Defense identifies, ``It's
necessary in the interest of national defense to address an
immediate adverse effect on military operations.'' When we look
at the movement last week of asphalt on a Chinese-built ship,
Chinese crewed ship, from Louisiana to Connecticut, we fail to
see the national security interest, and there are a lot of
products on that list, over 600, that we see no national
security relevance----
Senator Wicker. If war breaks out, that Chinese ship's not
going to be available to us, is it?
Mr. Heil. It is not.
Senator Wicker. Would any of the three of you other
gentlemen like to agree or disagree with the basic premise that
Mr. Heil and I have been talking about and the distinguished
Ranking Member, about the necessity of the Jones Act? Anyone
feel differently? Well, the cat's got your tongue. Mr. Woodrow,
you're smiling and the Chair is being lenient with the gavel.
Mr. Woodrow. Thank you, Senator Wicker. What I will address
in terms of our fisheries and trying to compete in the global
environment and I'll use Russia as an example here, Russia is
expanding its fleet of fishing vessels with government
subsidies at a rate that we can't compete with, especially for
our large or larger vessels. The cost to build a large trawler
in China--well, it doesn't matter where they build it, whether
it's in China or Turkey or overseas--but the cost to build a
Russian vessel is about a third the cost it is to build here in
the U.S.
I don't have a silver bullet of how we fix that here at
home, but all I know is that we're falling behind our
competitors and it does make it very challenging for us to
continue to compete with them in a global space.
Senator Wicker. Anyone else? Mr. Chairman, thank you for
your indulgence.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we're going
to go to round two, Senator Blunt Rochester, if that makes
sense for you, because we have these witnesses who came from
many parts of the country, but particularly far away from
Alaska.
So let me turn to Mr. Woodrow. I want focus a little bit on
the threat to the American blue economy, particularly from--you
just mentioned it--from foreign governments. I'm going to focus
on Russia and China. So I'm sure you're very familiar with, we
had Russia ban the importation of all American seafood starting
in 2014. That's an unlevel playing field. That's really an
outrage. And to be honest, we didn't really react. I was
certainly trying to get the governments of Obama, Trump won,
and Biden to retaliate and I was successful.
I worked with the Biden administration. My team and I put
thousands of hours into making sure there was a ban on the
importation of all Russian seafood into America. Then they
tried to launder it through China, and we got that loophole
closed. By the way, if anyone else says they were working it,
don't believe them, because it was my team and I. And that's a
fact.
And then the Trump administration came on board and we
said, hey, there are a lot of executive orders the Biden
administration did, particularly against Alaska, that we want
you to rescind because they hurt our economy, but not this one.
Keep it. And the Trump administration listened to us and
they've kept it.
So how important is that, that we finally, after 10 years,
said we're not going to put up with this unlevel playing field?
And oh, by the way, why should American importers--I had
legislation to ban Russian importation of seafood, brought it
to the Senate floor a few times. Unfortunately, some of my
colleagues blocked it, but we got through that. But how
important is it for Americans to have American freedom fish,
not Russian or Chinese communist fish, and to sustainability,
to national security, and just fairness.
I mean, this country banned the importation of any fish
from America for 10 years, and now we finally reacted. And
isn't that benefiting our coastal communities and fisheries,
not just in Alaska, but throughout the country, for Americans
to buy American seafood from American fishermen, not rely on
this communist fish from China and Russia? How important has
that been?
Mr. Woodrow. Chairman Sullivan, thank you for bringing this
up. Thank you for your work on this issue and----
Senator Sullivan. Yes, we worked it really, really hard. By
the way, there are some other people out there saying they had
something to do with it. They didn't. Zero. Zilch. Nada. It was
my team and I, and we put thousands of hours. The only reason I
say that, I get offended sometimes when my team works hard and
someone else comes in saying, oh, I did it. Nothing to do with
it. My team and I did it, exclusively.
Mr. Woodrow. Alaska fishermen owe you a great debt of
gratitude. For those who might not be aware, 2 years ago,
seafood processors told Alaska pink salmon fishermen to stop
fishing because they could not buy their fish for a single
penny per pound and sell that fish on the market. They would--
--
Senator Sullivan. And weren't the Russians flooding the
American market with seafood? Flooding. And trying to undercut
and kill Alaska and American fishermen?
Mr. Woodrow. Senator, at that time, they weren't just
flooding the U.S. market, they were flooding the global
market----
Senator Sullivan. And they were doing it to try to destroy
you guys, our fishermen, our coastal communities, weren't they?
Mr. Woodrow. Senator, they have publicly said that their
goal is to bring down Alaska's fisheries.
Senator Sullivan. They said they were at war with Alaska
fishermen.
Mr. Woodrow. You are correct.
Senator Sullivan. And when someone says to me, you're at
war with my constituents, I say we fight back. And that's what
we did, right?
Mr. Woodrow. Correct. And I will say that upholding this
ban has made a difference. We have seen prices rebound here in
the U.S. marketplace----
Senator Sullivan. Because Americans are buying Americans'
freedom fish, not communist fish from Russia.
Mr. Woodrow. Correct.
Senator Sullivan. Good. Well, listen, we're going to keep
that. We've worked with the President and his team, both
administrations. This has been bipartisan. But again, I know
we've worked with all of you guys on this. It was a really,
really important policy goal that my team and I are proud to
have led on and delivered. Not just for Alaskan fishermen,
American fishermen.
So let's turn to China. So my bill, the FISH Act, which
passed the Senate unanimously just about two months ago. I've
been working on getting that over the goal line for about four
years, and I finally got it over the goal line. That targets
IUU fishing, unsustainable fishing, and it's aggressive. It
sanctions Chinese fleets. It sends the Coast Guard and the U.S.
Navy to go after them. It is the most aggressive bill. We're
hoping the House is going to pass it here. Again, it was
unanimous in the Senate, which I was proud of.
But you mentioned it, the Chinese--I chair the
Congressional Executive Committee on China. That's a
longstanding committee that was passed after China joined the
WTO in the Congress. Senator Rubio used to chair it. When he
became Secretary of State, now I chair it. We had a hearing
recently on IUU fishing. The Chinese use slave labor on their
ships. How hard is it for American fishermen, Alaska fishermen,
to compete against slave labor?
Mr. Woodrow. Thank you, Senator. It undercuts us at every
aspect----
Senator Sullivan. Impossible, right?
Mr. Woodrow. Yes, it's impossible. And it undercuts us at
every aspect----
Senator Sullivan. Slave labor. People are forced to work,
not paid, human trafficked. This is the China gray fleet.
Mr. Woodrow. What I'll also add, where it undercuts
American fishermen is seafood has a challenge to enter into
American homes, and it creates a barrier that they're--of
confusion for consumers, and they just turn away from seafood
entirely.
Senator Sullivan. Let me give you another example on China
that I was proud to have led on. In last year's NDAA, I had a
bill of mine that got in there saying we should not have any
imports of Chinese fish into military, DFACs, military chow
halls, or military commissaries. Our military shouldn't be
eating communist fish from China. By the way, you think
they're--you think the Chinese military is eating Alaskan fish?
No.
So my bill passed. So there's no communist Chinese fish in
any commissary, in any chow hall in America. And believe it or
not, there was a lot, right? There was a lot. So we stopped
that. But I have another bill. I told you my comprehensive
bycatch bill, which would be the most comprehensive bycatch
legislation ever that says, why should we import any seafood
from China if they don't have the standards that we do?
So my next focus is trying to get that over the goal line,
including a ban on Chinese fish into America. Do you think that
makes sense?
Mr. Woodrow. Senator----
Senator Sullivan. They don't have the sustainability that
you do, that we do, that American fishermen do.
Mr. Woodrow.--for seafood coming into the U.S., regardless
of where it may be coming from, we should be upholding to the
same standards that we apply to our seafood here in the U.S.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, exactly. The same standards that we
have. And we have the highest standards in the world, don't we?
Mr. Woodrow. We certainly do.
Senator Sullivan. On not just sustainability, environmental
stewardship, but also workforce, right? We don't use slave
labor on our ships, do we?
Mr. Woodrow. We certainly don't.
Senator Sullivan. Well, that's what we're going to do. And
I think we'll have bipartisan support for that. So Senator
Cantwell, the Ranking Member of this committee, the broader
committee, welcome, and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to you
and to Senator Blunt Rochester for holding this very important
meeting on the blue economy and the competitiveness of America
in the maritime sector. So very much appreciated. I don't
think--I don't think you were including me on people who helped
claim credit for helping you on Russian fish. I think you
thought I helped you, right?
Senator Sullivan. No, I wasn't including you at all.
Senator Cantwell. OK.
Senator Sullivan. You're a partner.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Appreciate that. And I want to
continue to be.
I think this issue you've just illuminated--I just went on
a trip to China with four of our colleagues, including two from
our committee, and definitely brought up seafood. And the
Senator's point about Russia moving their illegal fish through
China has got to stop. And China has to become a better
sustainable fisheries nation, and we should work with them on
that or point out how that should be accomplished.
But they also represent 45 percent of the world's seafood
consumption. So I was very surprised to see a bountiful dinner
that I had there of really just Northwest product. Dungeness
crab, spot prawns, geoduck, shellfish. I was thinking they have
the best--they're eating the best that Washington State has to
offer. And so to me, they should open up----
Senator Sullivan. Just real quick, do you think that was a
propaganda dinner that they were like----
Senator Cantwell. No, because it was arranged by--it was
arranged by somebody--growers in our state.
Senator Sullivan. OK, just checking.
Senator Cantwell. Growers. We had to push our way in. Push
our way in. But the point is, instead of marketing and selling
illegal Russian fish and trying to make money off of that, they
should develop distribution and trade relations with the U.S.
on seafood and better give us access to their market, because
they like seafood. And the fact that they consume so much,
that's the big opportunity, and we're happy to depart to them
what better fisheries management truly looks like.
But we have lots of fish we can sell to them if they would
just let it in the door. So I want to work with this committee
and the two of you on ideas to further that. But, I do think
that brings up a point about tariffs. I don't like the tariffs
because I don't like the tariffs being charged on fisheries,
and I don't know, maybe somebody might want to comment about
that.
But this broader hearing being about strengthening the
coastal communities and the maritime economy, I wanted to--I'll
put a longer statement in for the record that covers all of
that, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows.]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator from Washington
Thank you, Senator Sullivan, for holding this important hearing.
From fisheries and seafood processing, to shipbuilding, ports,
maritime transportation, tourism, and emerging ocean technologies, the
marine economy contributes more than $500 billion dollars annually to
our Nation's economy and supports millions of jobs. Nowhere is that
more evident than in Alaska and Washington.
Alaska harvests roughly 60 percent of America's seafood. Seattle
serves as the Nation's seafood capital, connecting fishermen,
processors, shipyards, ports, and exporters to markets around the
world. Together, Alaska and Washington anchor a seafood supply chain
that supports harvesters, processors, truckers, shipyards, exporters,
and maritime workers across the country.
Just a few weeks ago, I was in China meeting with business leaders
and government officials. During one dinner in Shanghai, I was served
geoduck harvested from Puget Sound. Less than 48 hours earlier, it had
been in the waters of Washington State. Before tariffs disrupted that
market, geoduck was selling for more than $100 dollars per pound.
That is the blue economy. It is Washington shellfish growers,
fishermen, ports, processors, truck drivers, exporters, and maritime
workers connected to customers around the world. Washington exports
more than $1 billion dollars in seafood annually. Our maritime sector
supports more than 170,000 jobs and generates nearly $46 billion
dollars in economic activity each year. The question before us today is
whether we are creating the conditions necessary for that economy to
grow?
A thriving blue economy requires three things: science,
infrastructure, and a strong maritime workforce. It starts with
science. Fishermen cannot fish sustainably without accurate and timely
information on the health of fish stocks. Regional fishery managers
cannot make sustainable decisions without stock assessments. Coastal
communities cannot plan for the future without reliable ocean
observations, weather forecasting, and scientific data.
Yet at the very moment the Administration says it wants to grow the
Blue Economy, it is reducing the scientific capacity that underpins it.
The President's Fiscal Year 2027 budget proposal would cut NOAA by
roughly $1.6 billion dollars--nearly 27 percent--while eliminating
entire programs such as Sea Grant, the Integrated Ocean Observing
System, Coastal Zone Management Grants, and NOAA's research arm, the
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
The consequences are real. Stock assessments and surveys are
already being delayed or cancelled. That means fishing seasons become
harder to plan, stock assessments become less reliable, and managers
have less information to keep fisheries open and sustainable.
Businesses struggle to make investments when the Federal government
cannot provide the scientific information needed to support management
decisions.
A thriving Blue Economy also requires modern infrastructure. That
means resilient ports, working waterfronts, seafood processing
facilities, navigation systems, and shipyards capable of building and
maintaining the vessels our economy depends on. Programs like the Port
Infrastructure Development Program have helped modernize ports across
the country and strengthened supply chains. Continued investment in
maritime infrastructure is essential if America intends to compete
globally. But ports and shipyards alone do not create maritime
capacity. We also need policies that support long-term investment in
American vessels and American mariners.
That is why I am concerned about the Administration's unprecedented
150-day Jones Act waiver. The Administration said this waiver was
needed to move energy products more quickly, ease supply disruptions,
and help lower fuel costs. Yet after nearly five months, there is
little evidence of meaningful savings at the pump.
What we are seeing instead is growing uncertainty throughout the
maritime industry. Shipyard investments are being delayed. Vessel
orders are being reconsidered. Domestic operators are losing work to
foreign competitors. At least one planned $1 billion dollar maritime
capital raise has reportedly been halted, and more than $2.6 billion
dollars in active shipyard contracts are now at risk.
That should concern anyone who is serious about rebuilding American
shipbuilding capacity. Shipyards and vessel operators make investment
decisions over decades, not months.
When the rules governing the domestic maritime market become
uncertain, companies delay vessel orders, postpone expansion plans, and
think twice before making long-term investments in American shipyards.
I agree with the Administration's goal of restoring American maritime
dominance. But maritime dominance is not achieved through uncertainty.
It is achieved through investment.
We cannot ask companies to build ships in America while
simultaneously undermining confidence in the laws that sustain the
market for those very ships. We cannot rebuild American shipyards with
one hand while weakening the laws that support them with the other.
I support the Administration's goal of growing American
shipbuilding, strengthening our maritime workforce, and expanding
domestic seafood production. But those goals require consistency. If
America wants to remain a global maritime leader, we must invest in the
science that supports our fisheries, the infrastructure that moves our
commerce, and the industrial base that builds and crews our vessels.
That is how we grow a $511 billion-dollar blue economy. That is how
we compete with China. And that is how we secure America's maritime
future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cantwell. But I wanted to ask about the Jones Act
since we have a temporary waiver on the Jones Act which creates
a little more uncertainty. I was very pleased that the MARAD
director and our Transportation Secretary all want to have a
very aggressive a shipbuilding agenda for the Nation and that
they want us to be more active in the kind of capacity we have
for investments in vessels, shipyards, workforce training,
ports, and maritime infrastructure.
So I wanted to know specifically from you, Mr. Heil, if the
waiver is extended again, what would that mean for investments
in shipyards and workforce development. Does it create
uncertainty? What should--how should we communicate about this?
Mr. Heil. Senator, thank you for the question. The current
waiver has created a tremendous amount of uncertainty. Now at
150 days, which is unprecedented amount of time, to be extended
again would be another signal to the investment community and
the companies like ours and to mariners that the Jones Act is
unstable and investment will flee.
Our U.S. mariners will wonder, will they have jobs? You
know, this budget request for Fiscal Year 2027 includes a large
investment in the Merchant Marine Academy, which is sorely
needed. But without the Jones Act, we don't need a Merchant
Marine Academy frankly. It's hard to see why that investment
would be moving forward. The Jones Act supports the jobs from
the Merchant Marine Academy. Those go into our commercial
mariners, into the U.S. military. They're critical, and the
Jones Act is the foundation for all of that.
So when you talk about an extended waiver, it would be
extremely damaging to every part of the U.S. maritime industry.
Senator Cantwell. Well, we certainly don't want that. We
certainly want a very strong Jones Act, and we certainly want a
very strong shipbuilding. Are there other specific investments
that you think we should be looking at that would help the
workforce development and accelerate shipbuilding in the U.S.?
Mr. Heil. On the workforce side, there are a lot of, we
think, very good ideas that we support in the SHIPS Act. You
know, on the mariner recruitment side, we need to do a better
job there. For a lot of high school kids, they go to their high
school counselor and hear about all the service academies, but
don't hear about the Merchant Marine Academy. That needs to
change. They need to know about our State academies, and it
needs to be a countrywide effort, not just on the coasts. Folks
in the middle of the country need to understand that these are
good jobs, good high-paying jobs, and they need to have access
to that.
On the shipbuilding side, there's a lot we can do. I
mentioned earlier in the hearing perhaps a tax incentive for
folks, for companies that put cargo on U.S. built ships. That
would be one way to drive demand for U.S. built vessels because
that cargo has to go on U.S. built ships.
There's also various ideas about--these would be more in
the trade negotiation realm, but requiring certain percentage
of imports or exports from countries like China that they be
put on U.S. flagged vessels. That would be a tremendous help in
allowing U.S. companies and U.S. flagged vessels to compete in
markets where we're excluded from right now.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I like that last idea because this
committee passed in response to the COVID pandemic and the fact
that international trade vessels were leaving U.S. products on
the dock. They literally, they were just coming here and
dropping stuff off and running back, not even taking product
back with them. And that led us to passing a reform to the
Federal Maritime Commission and new tools to ensure that we
were getting access and trade.
But this is an additional requirement, and I think the
change, you know, Mr. Chairman, in the landscape--both the
COVID pandemic showed us, but now the interest in the Pacific
writ large has shown us that the United States needs to
strengthen its capacity. And to do that, we have to strengthen
our shipbuilding capacity. I think I see both of my colleagues
nodded when you talked about the workforce, because they know--
they know that there are young people in our states that would
love to know there are six-figure welding jobs right out of
high school.
Somebody's nodding in the audience there, and they're like,
yes, let us know, where are those? And so we can be training
and skilling at the high school level young people who want
those six-figure jobs. We could be doing that right now. Some
in my state, in Kitsap County, which is a very big maritime--we
have military bases there and a huge Navy population--they do
train and skill for this.
But we need--as you just said, it needs to be everywhere in
the United States if we want to get the capacity for these
young people. But again, I thank the two of you for holding
this hearing, and I'll take any comments for the record about
the tariffs. But, you know, I don't know what the number is.
Some big part--is it 80 percent of our economy comes out of the
coastal states? Well, it's a big number. It's a big number of
our economy comes out of coastal states.
So, glad you're having this hearing and glad we continue to
focus on this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Senator Blunt Rochester.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for a
round two, and I know votes were just called, so I'm going to
try to be succinct. I want to follow up on the whole
conversation about workforce, because I think, you know, when
we look at general--we have generally workforce challenges, but
to reshore cranes, to build new ships, to do all the repairs
and the improvements to port infrastructure, we need people to
do those jobs. And the Department of Labor estimates that the
shipbuilding industry alone may require 200,000 or more
additional workers to satisfy demand.
I'm going to ask the question to Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Heil,
and others can join in as well. But we know this affects our
competitiveness. So can both of you talk a little bit about the
strategy for how we deal with these workforce shortages? I know
the administration has a strategy to address it, if you want to
talk about that. I know you focused on K through 12, and we've
also talked about the Merchant Marine Academies.
So I'll start with you, Mr. Sheridan, if you could talk
about how do we deal with our workforce shortages in this
industry, and then I'll turn to you, Mr. Heil.
Mr. Sheridan. Thank you, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester,
for the question. Certainly, I was all about K through 12 there
in my comments and we do believe that's an opportunity. We've
been involved in Alaska with the mariculture funding that we've
discussed, really working to engage middle school students with
Science Olympiad, high school students with Teaching Through
Technology, but then also really intentionally partnering with
CTE programs and traditional community colleges.
And so, you know, for fisheries and mariculture in Alaska,
there are two programs that kind of stand out: Prince William
Sound College in Valdez, University of Alaska Southeast Sitka
campus's Applied Fisheries program. But for shipbuilding, we do
have shipbuilding in the state as well, and UAS Ketchikan's
campus is involved there. And I would hope that--I haven't been
involved with----
Senator Sullivan. I was just there, it's a really
impressive program.
Mr. Sheridan. It is a great program. So I've not been
involved with it, but I would hope that they are--they are
really starting as young as they possibly can because that is
our near future workforce. The work that we've been doing with
students in Cordova, for example, those kids are already in the
workforce. Our 14-year-old son is participating in a setnet
salmon commercial fishery. Today was the first day of the
fishery. And so they start them young in Alaska. And so I think
that we should start training them young as well.
Senator Blunt Rochester. That's the pipeline. And I'll come
back to you. Just wanted to clarify, we talked a lot about
public-private partnerships and want to make sure that the
resources are there to continue that good work. I'm going to
turn to Mr. Heil if you could talk as well about the workforce.
Mr. Heil. So critical issue, obviously in lots of different
areas. I think part of it is replicating models that work for
workforce training and skill training, developing high school
curriculums around certain skill sets. That's something that
we're doing in Jacksonville right now. I think we'll announce
soon that our partnership there to do that on the mariner side,
and it's the same for the shipbuilding sector.
I know some of the--some of the companies have great
partnerships with Job Corps centers and community colleges to
develop workers, to bring them in, get their skills up to a
certain level, and hire them. And again, it goes back to
awareness. We have to do a better job as a country of making
sure young people understand that these opportunities exist and
where they are and how do they access them.
Senator Blunt Rochester. I will ask for the record
questions on port equipment as well as emerging technologies
like robotics and artificial intelligence.
But I did want to ask each of you, if you could be very
succinct, to tell me what is the one thing that's keeping you
up at night and what is the one thing that you want us to make
sure we tackle? Try one. I know it's very hard because there
are a lot of things that we discussed here. Who would like to
go first? OK, Mr. Woodrow.
Mr. Woodrow. I'll be very succinct. We need to modernize
our industry. We need to catch up to the rest of the world.
Senator Blunt Rochester. That's it. And what do you want us
to do?
Mr. Woodrow. Well, you mentioned AI, you mentioned
automation. I'll just share a very quick story. A couple of
years ago, I was touring a processing plant in Spain, and that
processing plant had four robots working the line. The two
robots in the front were so darn efficient at their jobs, the
other two robots didn't have a job.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Wow.
Mr. Woodrow. We don't have a single plant like that in
Alaska.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Wow. Thank you. Who's next? All
right, Mr. Sheridan.
Mr. Sheridan. I'll keep it quick and I'll stick with the
same thing. When we're talking about these technologies,
automation, integrating AI into seafood processing
technologies, I do think that we should start young. And so
I'll just share an example. We brought middle school students
to Fairbanks for a Science Olympiad event. They were introduced
to funders and received thousands of dollars to 3D print their
own drones, and they're now developing their own skills and
experience there. So these young people have a lot of
potential, and I think it's important to engage with them.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Excellent. And Mr. Wardwell.
Mr. Wardwell. Yes, I've spent a lot of my career trying to
bring geospatial services to communities throughout Alaska that
are underserved so that Crowley can deliver goods and seafood
can get out of them and get into them. And so bringing--making
sure there's legislation for private industry to be involved
with bringing those services and funding those opportunities.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Great, thank you. And Mr. Heil.
Mr. Heil. My biggest concern right now is the Jones Act
waiver and what it's doing to U.S. shipping and U.S. maritime
industry. And in terms of what we would like, you know, see
Congress do is to encourage the administration to end the
current waiver. And if there has to be a waiver, use the 501(b)
process, which is the process that is when waivers are needed,
that's the process that's known to U.S. maritime and does not
cause the damaging effects of the current waiver.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you. And I yield
back.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Blunt Rochester. And
there's a vote called, so I'm going to ask one more round. But
I want to thank you for engaging in this hearing with so many
of my constituents. It's great. And I really appreciate your
involvement and engagement. So I'm going to--I'm going to do
one more--one more quick round.
Mr. Heil, I haven't asked you a question, and it's about an
opportunity, something I've thought about a lot. I don't know
how you would do it, but I think it has a great opportunity.
I'm a big supporter of the energy sector, and you know, we have
this real big boom, which is great for America, great for the
world, and the production of natural gas and even the export of
natural gas.
In Alaska, we're trying to get a--we're close. We've never
been this close to get this very large-scale LNG project and
Alaska pipeline, gas pipeline, off the--off the ground and into
development. We've been trying to work on that. We've been
trying to get that done for about 50 years, and we might be
getting there. We are definitely getting there.
So my question is this. You mentioned mandating American
cargo on vessels. I've always thought about one way to get our
shipbuilding off the ground. Not sure the oil and gas sector
likes this idea, but to mandate a certain amount. We are
exporting LNG all over the world and it's going to continue.
And if this Alaska project gets done, that'll be the biggest
LNG project in America, maybe in the world. We're the logical
place. It's a six-day cargo shipment from the Kenai Peninsula
to Tokyo. We were the first place in the world to start
exporting LNG to Asia. We started doing that in the late 1960s
from Cook Inlet.
So my question is, would it make sense to mandate a certain
amount of American cargoes or percentage of LNG to be from
American-made ships as this industry is really, really taking
off and has explosive growth? And I'm talking the American LNG
natural gas industry. What's your thought on that? Have you
thought about that one?
Mr. Heil. It certainly could. And I think that is a concept
that's in the SHIPS Act currently. So, yes, I think that
requiring that a certain amount of exports of LNG be
transported on U.S. built vessels----
Senator Sullivan. Can we build those vessels, though?
Mr. Heil. Yes.
Senator Sullivan. A lot of people say, oh, we can't do it.
We don't have the capability. Only the Koreans can do it. Only
the Chinese. And I'm like, well, actually, we do have the
capability to build sophisticated ships. Go look at the latest
American submarine or the American aircraft carrier. Those are
the most sophisticated ships on the planet Earth, and we
Americans build them. So can we build LNG ships?
Mr. Heil. Senator, I'm not a shipbuilder, but, you know,
from what I've observed, yes, we can. It will just take time.
You know, an LNG vessel is probably the most complicated
commercial vessel that is--that is constructed----
Senator Sullivan. Not as complicated as a Boomer-class
submarine, though.
Mr. Heil. No, I mean, that's a different scale on the
defense side. But on the commercial side, it's very
complicated. We can do it. It'll just--it will take some time
and training, but it's something we can do in this country.
Senator Sullivan. And it's an opportunity, right?
Mr. Heil. It is an opportunity.
Senator Sullivan. Our LNG capacity has really increased,
and it's great for the economy, great for--and again, we're
trying to get this Alaska one off the ground.
Mr. Woodrow, I want to come back to you. I was honored to
be at the inaugural meeting of the Secretary of the Department
of Agriculture, joined by the Secretary of Commerce, joined by
the Secretary of Interior, joined by the White House National
Economic Council Chairman and me, when we announced the Office
of Seafood Policy at USDA. Again, that's something I've been
working on for--on that one for 10 years, and we finally got it
done.
I have legislation on it. We're going to follow up on that.
But as you know, we got legislation of mine passed last year to
fund that office, and now the administration is fully behind
it. The launch of this was--you don't normally get half the--
well, it wasn't half, about a third of the cabinet of any
administration to launch something. So it was a big deal.
How important is that from your perspective, some of the
initiatives that the Secretary announced that I've been working
on to essentially enable our fishing communities, our
fishermen, our coastal communities to have access to analogous
programs that American farmers have that de-risk their
operations? We love our American farmers, but they have
billions and billions of dollars of programs that enable them
to limit their risk, crop insurance and export capabilities
when markets close.
How important is that Office of Seafood Policy at USDA and
what would be the most important programs we should do for our
fishermen that American farmers already have?
Mr. Woodrow. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. As you said,
we've been chasing this for decades now. And I've, you know,
kind of joked that we're like a dog chasing a car. Now we
finally caught it, we aren't sure exactly what to do with this
car, but we're figuring it out really fast. And we're very
thankful for the work you've done. And this administration for
establishing this Office of Seafood.
Senator Sullivan. Did you see when we launched it? It was
quite a big deal.
Mr. Woodrow. It was excellent. And being able to bridge the
gap that we've had between NOAA, where we manage our fisheries,
to USDA, where our fish becomes food. That's where seafood
actually happens when it enters into USDA----
Senator Sullivan. And they have--I mean, it's no
exaggeration, their programs for farmers are in the hundreds of
billions of dollars. And again, we love our farmers. They get a
lot of Federal Government support. The farmers of the sea,
fishermen of America, don't. And we want them in on those
programs, and the Secretary of USDA said that was part of her
goal for that office.
Mr. Woodrow. Correct. And those programs didn't all happen
overnight. They happened over periods of time when we addressed
challenges to our farmers. And we could also argue that, you
know, our fishermen face even more challenges, right?
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Woodrow. The volatility of our markets were at, you
know, the whims of Mother Nature when it comes to returns of
our seafood.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Woodrow. And so having those protections, having those
assurances to allow them to have, you know, some sort of
certainty that they can fish today and fish tomorrow is really
important. So being able to take advantage and actually enter
into--we aren't--what we are asking is not to, you know,
replace our farmers and those programs----
Senator Sullivan. No, no, no.
Mr. Woodrow.--just be a part of it and have those same
assurances.
Senator Sullivan. Well, maybe for the record on this
hearing, you can submit to this committee some of the areas
that you would like to have prioritized, because it is a great
opportunity. And again, I've been working on trying to get that
done for almost a decade, and it was a real satisfying day when
we--when we did it.
So, Mr. Sheridan, why don't we come back to you? You know,
I'm a huge UAF fan, so important to Alaska, so important to our
economy. So the Blue Economy Center that you had brings
together universities, industries, entrepreneurs, communities
across Alaska.
Can you share examples of public-private partnerships with
universities and others that you believe are successful in
creating blue economy opportunities, either in Alaska, or maybe
there's something you've seen in the lower 48, or like overseas
in Europe, that looks good that maybe we can emulate with that
public-private partnership model?
Mr. Sheridan. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan. I'm happy to
have this opportunity to talk a little bit about work that
we've done with the City of Valdez. And so----
Senator Sullivan. When you say you, you're talking about
UAF?
Mr. Sheridan. UAF. It's a broad consortium. I'll go back to
just describing a little bit of the origins for what became the
Alaska Mariculture Cluster, the $49 million EDA Build Back
Better Challenge Award grant. That was really instigated by and
supported by a broad group of Alaskans. The City of Valdez
offered up a $6 million match that really made that possible.
And so I just wanted to acknowledge that. With mariculture
again----
Senator Sullivan. The city put up--so the city had skin in
the game? $6 million?
Mr. Sheridan. $6 million.
Senator Sullivan. Wow. Significant.
Mr. Sheridan. Yes. And that just--that opened up
opportunity for everyone across the state. Again, with
mariculture in Alaska, we're talking about kelp farming and
shellfish fish farming. But UAF is the State's land grant
institution. The Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Extension, IANRE, is our agency that meets that mission. And
the interesting thing about mariculture, kelp farming in
particular, as we're talking about USDA, is the potential for
impact on agricultural markets.
And so for kelp in particular, there's the potential for
large volume of production to support the development of
livestock feeds and the development of soil applications. So I
just think that's an interesting example of where, you know, a
municipal-university relationship supported industry
development in the state in ways that we could potentially move
the needle for the United States agricultural sector.
Again, we have more coastline than the rest of the lower 48
combined. That's a whole lot of space to grow a whole lot of
kelp, and those are some pretty big markets.
Senator Sullivan. Good, great. Good answer. Let me end, I
will just do one more question for Mr. Wardwell. You know, I
think it surprises a lot of people, your testimony, that Alaska
still has large areas that are still uncharted in terms of the
waters, your point about the moon being mapped, it's really an
interesting one. It's kind of crazy, to be honest.
What risks does that create for commerce, navigation,
economic development, national security, when we have such
large parts of our coastal area in Alaska and the rest of the
country? But I think it's really acute in Alaska. Where we have
areas that are still uncharted?
Mr. Wardwell. Yes, thank you for the question. It creates a
major risk. There could be navigation hazards in those
uncharted areas.
Senator Sullivan. You mean like a ship running into a rock?
Mr. Wardwell. For example, you know, yes, ship run into a
rock, that could create you know, loss of life and property.
We're having--you know, trying to have recovery of those
vessels, you know, Coast Guard out in the area, it's a massive
region. Just delivering commerce, you know, having efficient
routes for shipping and navigation and understanding our
resources, right? So if we don't know what's down there, how
can we manage that and use those uncharted areas.
Senator Sullivan. Good. Well, thank you. Well, listen, we
have a vote right now I'm going to head off to, but I really
want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today and the
Q&A. The hearing record here will remain open until the close
of business Tuesday, June 9--that's a week from today--for
other Senators or those of us like myself who want to submit
additional questions for the record. We would respectfully
request the witnesses to be able to answer those questions by
close of business Tuesday, June 23.
And otherwise, I want to thank the witnesses,
particularly--well, everybody, but my fellow Alaskans who flew
thousands of miles to come here to D.C. to testify. I think
it's very enlightening. We had a good group of Senators here.
It's a great topic and a great opportunity for not just Alaska,
but for America. And it's very bipartisan, as you can see. And
the more we highlight this and have the good ideas that all of
you bring to it, the more we can take advantage of it,
legislate on it in a positive way.
So I want to thank all of you again. This is an exciting
topic with a lot of potential, and you guys have all put a
bunch of brainpower and thought and action into it, and we
really appreciate it. So with that, I'm going to conclude this
hearing. The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Tommy Sheridan
National Sea Grant Program
Federal investments in ocean research at universities is an
essential precursor to developing new technologies that support better
ocean sensing, data collection, and fisheries information. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Sea Grant program is a
Federal-University partnership program that advances science for
coastal communities. For over 50 years, the National Sea Grant College
program has supported coastal communities through research, extension,
and education. The National Sea Grant Law provides nationally
recognized legal research, education and outreach that strengthens
understanding of the legal frameworks governing our oceans, coastal,
and freshwater resources.
How does the Sea Grant program support the Blue Economy and
how can we ensure that we are fully utilizing Federal
investments in the Sea Grant program?
Answer. Senator Wicker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute
to this process, and for the opportunity to answer your questions.
These answers, along with my written testimony, and previous oral
comments, are provided to you through my personal capacity as a private
citizen, as a parent to two Alaskan schoolchildren, and as a resident
of coastal Alaskan communities for the past 24 years.
On a national scale, thirty-four universities participate in the
National Sea Grant Program, which as you note is a federal-state
partnership that provides critical services to a wide range of
residents in every coastal and Great Lakes state, and U.S. territories.
The Sea Grant program supports the Blue Economy in a variety of ways,
including creating and sustaining local jobs and a skilled workforce
through training and new business support; providing planning services
and technical advice to businesses; strengthening the domestic U.S.
seafood supply chain through seafood workforce development and safety
training; and supporting coastal communities and businesses in
responding to storms, flooding and erosion.
With imported seafood making up 90 percent of American seafood
consumption, I believe that our Nation should be focusing on programs
to expand and improve our domestic wild capture fisheries and
aquaculture industry. The Sea Grant is a program that does just that--
helping fishermen and mariculture (shellfish and seaweed) farmers
navigate a complex patchwork of state and Federal coastal zone
management regulations through technical assistance. Sea Grant works
with local harvesters and producers to grow and sustain their business
models while connecting them to local resources to share best
practices.
The economic impact of the National Sea Grant Program highlights
the benefit of this Federal investment. According to 2024 performance
metrics of the program, Sea Grant contributed to creating and
sustaining 21,520 jobs and 2,076 businesses. On top of business and job
creation, Sea Grant logged 336,000 volunteer hours in 2024. Further,
Sea Grant contributed $1.59 billion in economic benefit, representing a
12:1 impact for every Federal dollar invested in the program ($94
million).
Alaska Sea Grant, which is housed at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF), provides marine education, research, and technology
transfer to the public with support from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Alaska Sea Grant support for the
seafood harvesting sector includes providing beginning and established
seafood harvesters with resources, consulting, and hands-on training.
Workshops supported by the Alaska Sea Grant FishBiz team cover skills
that support robust careers in Alaska's fishing industry. Programs
include the AK On-Board Crew Class, Alaska Young Fishermen's Summit,
Business of Fishing workshops, direct seafood marketing courses, and
AMSEA (Alaska Marine Safety Education Association) safety courses.
Alaska Sea Grant's seafood processing sector support includes
consultation services, product development and testing, and training.
Workshops help seafood processing businesses attain food and process
safety certification, and build workforce capacity to ensure a
competitive Alaskan seafood industry. Our programs include Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) safety training, seafood
processor supervisor training, and the Alaska Seafood Processing
Leadership Institute.
Alaska Sea Grant also supports kelp and shellfish mariculture
businesses with resources and workshops for business planning, site
permitting, and applying growing and harvesting methods and technology.
Programs include kelp business planning and marketing workshops, kelp
farming operations train-the-trainers, Alaska seaweed handling and
processing workshops, kelp hatchery operations and oyster hatchery
operations workshops, and the annual Mariculture Conference of Alaska.
In 2023, it is estimated that Alaska Sea Grant's work resulted in
over $52 million in economic benefit to the state, thanks to a Federal
investment of $1.9 million (27:1!). Alaska Sea Grant workforce
development, training, and technical support activities supported 559
jobs, 183 businesses, and 9,472 professionals trained in 2023.
Here in Prince William Sound, where I live, we are grateful for our
Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program specialists in Cordova and
Valdez. As is true for all of Alaska Sea Grant employees throughout the
state, these employees are valued members of our communities, providing
essential education and training opportunities for residents of all
ages and occupations. They are commercial fishermen, small business
owners, volunteers, and public servants working alongside and with
community members to ensure that Alaska's Blue Economy thrives.
Can you comment on the value added to fisheries and coastal
economies through collaboration with universities and their
researchers?
Answer. Although I provide these answers in my personal capacity, I
also currently serve as the Director for the Alaska Blue Economy Center
(ABEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). ABEC is housed
administratively in the university's College of Fisheries and Ocean
Sciences, or CFOS, where our world-class faculty educates future
leaders in fisheries and marine science, while addressing pressing
issues in aquatic ecosystems from the Arctic to Antarctica. ABEC's role
is to connect capacities throughout the University of Alaska, including
CFOS, with problems, needs, and opportunities relating to the state's
blue economy. I have over two decades of experience living and working
throughout and alongside Alaska's Blue Economy, with experience as a
hatchery manager in the state's private nonprofit salmon fishery
enhancement program, as a fishery manager for the State of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, in addition to roles in the seafood
processing sector, most recently serving in a variety of capacities in
academia. These deeply rooted perspectives are not unique among
university researchers--many of my colleagues grew up fishing in
Alaska, whether as commercial, subsistence, or recreational fishers--
with many having been born and raised in coastal Alaskan communities.
Alaska's seafood industry continues to be one of Alaska's most
important economic drivers, contributing about 7 percent to Alaska's
gross domestic product (GDP), generating over $5 billion in economic
activity, and supporting more than 41,800 jobs. Alaskan seafood
harvests account for roughly 63 percent of total U.S. seafood landings,
producing more wild-caught seafood than all other states combined.
Universities, particularly the University of Alaska (UA) system,
including Alaska Sea Grant, anchors and supports the state's seafood
industry by providing essential workforce training, innovative food
safety certifications, and research and development in emerging
opportunities such as mariculture.
Through initiatives such as the Fisheries, Seafood and Maritime
Initiative (FSMI), and the Alaska Mariculture Workforce Development
Plan, universities align degree and certificate programs with industry
and community needs. At ABEC, one of our priorities has been to support
K-12 workforce awareness and development to prepare our youngest
students for transition into the workplace, ideally in partnership with
the state's community-based campuses where dual credit programs allow
high school students to earn college credit while developing relevant
and marketable skills, earning certificates and occupational
endorsements along the way, with the potential of earning an
Associate's degree simultaneous to their traditional high school
diploma. These students are then adequately prepared for direct entry
into the workforce, or can pursue additional education in traditional
university programs, such as those available at UAF CFOS, albeit with a
different skillset than is common among entry-level undergraduate
students. Prince William Sound College in Valdez, Alaska, is a notable
Alaskan example whereby local high school students can learn from
renowned instructors in areas such as Construction Skills, Marine
Services Technology, Millwright, Natural Resources Technician, Marine
Natural Resources Technician, and Outdoor Leadership. Another notable,
relevant, and highly innovative Alaskan program is the Applied
Fisheries Program at the University of Alaska Southeast's Sitka Campus,
where students are immersed in the exciting and emerging fields of
aquaculture and mariculture through their highly regarded Alaska
Aquaculture Semester.
Universities provide critical infrastructure in coastal communities
that are unique to their mission and provide economic cornerstones for
supporting local and regional industries and businesses. One such
example in Alaska is the Seward Marine Center (SMC), which is located
approximately 130 miles south of Anchorage at the head of Resurrection
Bay. Co-located with the Alaska SeaLife Center and the Alutiiq Pride
Marine Institute, the Seward campus is a central feature in the
community of Seward and the broader Kenai Peninsula. Established in
1970 to support research in fisheries, marine biology and oceanography,
SMC is one of Alaska's primary docking facilities for marine research
vessels and has been a driving force both in scientific research and in
the Seward community.
UAF's Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center (KSMSC) is another
notable coastal Alaskan asset, providing researchers, students, and
community and industry members with access to research kitchens,
biochemistry labs and food labs to test production techniques and
develop new seafood products. KSMSC staff work closely with the
industry partners to convey research results and provide educational
opportunities that help seafood workers improve efficiency and the
quality of their products. Created by the Alaska Legislature in 1981,
the mission of KSMSC is to increase the value of Alaska's fishing
industry and marine resources through research, technological
development, education, and service.
Community campuses operate throughout the University of Alaska (UA)
system, offering accessible, localized degree programs, vocational
training, and academic support tailored to their specific regions.
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), which is headquartered in
Anchorage, administers four main community campuses across Southcentral
Alaska: Kenai Peninsula College in Soldotna, Kodiak College in Kodiak,
Matanuska-Susitna College in Palmer, and Prince William Sound College
in Valdez. UAF, which is administered from Fairbanks, operates multiple
community and rural campuses across the state, including its Bristol
Bay Campus in Dillingham, Chukchi Campus in Kotzebue, Kuskokwim Campus
in Bethel, and Northwest Campus in Nome. University of Alaska
Southeast, with its main residential hub in Juneau, serves Southeast
Alaska in concert with satellite campuses in Ketchikan and Sitka.
Ilisagvik College is a public tribal land-grant community college
in Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow), Alaska. Formally established in 1995,
the College provides post-secondary academic, career and technical
education in a learning environment that honors Inupiat culture,
language, values, and traditions, while developing a well-educated and
trained workforce who meet the human resource needs of North Slope
employers and the state of Alaska. Operated by the North Slope Borough,
a home rule government of the Inupiat, it is the only tribal college or
university in Alaska, and it is the northernmost accredited community
college in the United States.
Collectively, in Alaska and beyond, these coastal university
facilities and their researchers, students, staff and volunteers, are
essential engines for coastal and maritime economies. They drive the
Blue Economy by linking rigorous academic research with practical
workforce development for traditional and established coastal
industries, such as fisheries and tourism, while also cultivating and
developing other emerging opportunities such as marine robotics (and
ocean technology) and sustainable aquaculture.
Thank you sincerely for these opportunities to contribute to your
work, and for the opportunity to serve the State of Alaska, and our
nation, through these contributions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to
Tommy Sheridan
Topic: Emerging Technologies
Question 1. Mr. Sheridan, how can the Federal government better
support academic institutions that are on the forefront of applying
emerging technologies to a marine environment?
Answer. Senator Blunt Rochester, thank you for the opportunity to
contribute to this process, and for the opportunity to answer your
questions. These answers, along with my written testimony, and previous
oral comments, are provided to you through my personal capacity as a
private citizen, as a parent to two Alaskan schoolchildren, and as a
resident of coastal Alaskan communities for the past 24 years.
Personally, I have found the Ocean Research Advisory Panel's (ORAP)
recommendations for supporting public-private partnerships to advance
emerging ocean technologies to be among the most compelling advice as
to how the Federal government can best support academic institutions
that are on the forefront of applying emerging technologies to a marine
environment. ORAP advises the Ocean Policy Committee (OPC) and provides
independent recommendations to the Federal government on matters of
ocean policy. ORAP membership consists of individuals who represent the
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine; individuals
who represent the views of ocean industries, state, tribal, territorial
or local governments, and academia, and such other views as the co-
chairs of OPC consider appropriate; and individuals eminent in the
fields of marine science, marine technology, and marine policy, or
related fields. The ORAP membership reflects a balance of academic,
scientific, and geographic interests.
On May 21, 2026, ORAP reviewed a report providing recommendations
to the OPC regarding opportunities for leveraging public-private
partnerships to advance emerging ocean technologies that support
national ocean research priorities. Supporting advancement of emerging
ocean technologies in the U.S. via public private partnerships applies
private sector talent to address national interests that include food
security, domain awareness, public health, and environmental
stewardship, while fostering entrepreneurship and positioning U.S.
companies to be leaders in the global Blue Economy. The report
identifies challenges and barriers to public-private partnerships and
makes recommendations for addressing them. The report's appendix
includes a discussion of examples of technologies that are mature for
investment. The updated version of the report incorporates the
perspectives gained from panelists at a previous ORAP meeting who
discussed some of the challenges and barriers to public-private
partnerships, as well as examples of successes. At their May 21
meeting, ORAP adopted the report via unanimous consent, and there were
no objections. Additional details regarding this report may be accessed
at https://www.noaa.gov/ocean-research-advisory-panel/orap-public-
meetings (the report itself can be accessed at https://www.noaa.gov/
sites/default/files/2026-05/DRAFT-BOT-Report-for-ORAP-Review-Approve-
May2026.pdf), and I provide its Executive Summary here:
``The development of public-private partnerships to support
emerging observing technologies that monitor ocean
biogeochemistry, biology, and ecology is critical for driving
the growth of a sustainable ocean economy, supporting national
defense and navigation safety, and developing U.S. energy
resources and infrastructure. This report identifies challenges
and opportunities in developing successful public-private
partnerships. Specific examples of emerging technologies that
are prime for investment in terms of their application
relevance, industry maturity level, and market need and urgency
are discussed in the Appendix.
As acknowledged in Executive Order 13840, the ocean is
foundational to the economy, security, global competitiveness,
and well-being of the United States. The ocean drives economic
growth in coastal communities and supports industries that
employ millions, providing essential food, transportation,
recreation, and energy security. To sustain these benefits, the
order emphasizes modernizing ocean science through partnerships
with multiple sectors to inform better decision-making and
foster entrepreneurial opportunity. This must include the
development of new technologies that enhance our knowledge of
coastal and open ocean systems, from surface waters to deep-sea
sediments. Public-private partnerships serve as a critical
driver for advancing technological development. However, this
requires a careful analysis of the challenges that private
sector partners face when considering investments and
identifying opportunities for state and Federal agencies to
enhance collaborations. Building upon the findings from the
2019 White House Summit on Partnerships in Ocean Science and
Technology (OSTP, 2019), reports from the National Academies of
Science, Engineering and Medicine Ocean Studies Board (NASEM
2018; 2020; 2021; 2022a; 2022b; 2025), and the 2018 Executive
Order Regarding the Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic,
Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States (EO
13840, 2018), among others, this Ocean Research Advisory Panel
(ORAP) report is focused on key challenges in (i) creating
opportunities for market growth, and (ii) improving partnership
mechanisms. These challenges are discussed below, along with
specific recommendations and potential mechanisms to expand
opportunities for public-private partnerships that advance
emerging ocean technologies. This ORAP recommends that the
Administration use or seek the authority to implement the
recommendations identified in this report.''
Thank you sincerely for these opportunities to contribute to your
work, and for the opportunity to serve the State of Alaska, and our
nation, through these contributions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to
Nathan Wardwell
Topic: Emerging Technologies
Question 1. In what ways are artificial intelligence and robotics
technology shaping the field of marine observation?
Answer. Artificial intelligence and robotics are reshaping marine
observation primarily as force multipliers. They expand what a given
investment in people and equipment can accomplish.
The traditional approach to seafloor mapping deploys a crewed
vessel equipped with acoustic sensors that bounce sound off the
seafloor to measure water depth and bottom geometry. This method is
constrained by the number of available vessels and people to operate it
while at sea for extended periods of time. Artificial intelligence and
robotics reduce that constraint because a crewed vessel can now operate
alongside autonomous surface vessels (ASVs) and uncrewed underwater
vehicles (UUVs), each equipped with their own sensor suites multiplying
the area mapped in a single deployment. ASVs rely on artificial
intelligence to operate safely without a crew on board. Artificial
intelligence provides real-time collision avoidance, route
optimization, and adaptive response to changing sea conditions. Both
ASVs and UUVs require sophisticated robotics for the integration of
propulsion, sensor, and communication hardware.
Artificial intelligence's role in data processing is also
increasing. Modern multibeam sonar systems, Light Detection and Ranging
(LiDAR) sensors, and imaging platforms generate data volumes that make
manual review impractical at scale. The implementation of artificial
intelligence for automated feature detection in digital elevation
models, change detection across time-series datasets and anomaly
identification significantly reduces processing labor. Reducing the
time required to extract operationally meaningful information from
large geospatial datasets increases the number of decisions that can be
made and improves the speed at which they can be made.
Question 2. What technology skill gaps are you seeing among the
workforce that need to be addressed?
Answer. The technology skill gaps I see in the hydrographic
services workforce are in artificial intelligence, data science,
geodesy and robotics.
Artificial intelligence is becoming embedded in business operations
across sectors, however for the everyday user in a business gaps remain
in understanding how artificial intelligence works, how to deploy it at
scale and to what extent it can be trusted without human supervision.
In a field where the data products generated inform navigation safety,
flood forecasting, and resource management decisions trust in the data
is imperative.
The mapping industry, both land and water, has undergone a
fundamental transformation, moving from single stationary sensors to
multiple different sensors simultaneously on mobile platforms and
satellite-based signals. Private companies are now building LiDAR
systems small enough to mount on commercially available drones for
shallow coastal mapping. They are also building autonomous surface
vessels capable of extended offshore campaigns with full acoustic
sensor suites. As the demand for geospatial data from systems like
these accelerates, we need engineers and scientists with the skills to
design, build, operate and maintain this technical hardware and
software at scale.
Geodesy, the science of precisely measuring and understanding the
Earth's shape, orientation and gravity field, is foundational to all of
this. The full value of hydrographic data cannot be realized without
accurate positioning and accurate positioning requires geodetic
expertise. Without geodesists, the datum consistency that ties a
bathymetric survey to a tide gauge to a flood model to a legal boundary
cannot be maintained.
Finally, data science. The volume of geospatial data being
generated by modern survey platforms is well beyond what a team can
process manually. Leveraging data science tools with artificial
intelligence to automate processing pipelines, detect features,
validate data quality, and extract actionable intelligence is becoming
a baseline operational requirement. Training the existing hydrographic
workforce in these skills, and building them into entry-level education
programs, is one of the most high-leverage investments industry and
government can make together.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to
Clay Heil
Maritime Industrial Base--Port Infrastructure
Question 1. During a time of investment uncertainty and
skyrocketing energy costs, the administration also cut millions in
grants to support the maritime industry in developing offshore wind
energy. Mr. Heil, does this decision also undermine investment in port
infrastructure?
Answer. Reducing or cancelling Federal support for maritime related
energy projects creates uncertainty for companies, ports, vessel
operators, shipyards, and equipment suppliers that must make long-term
capital investments to support those projects. Port infrastructure
projects require years of planning, permitting, financing, procurement,
and construction. When Federal policy changes abruptly, it becomes more
difficult for private companies and public port authorities to justify
investments that depend on a stable pipeline of cargo, vessels, and
energy projects.
Question 2. The administration has proposed replacing most of the
current Port Infrastructure Development Program funding with a tax on
foreign vessels. Do U.S. companies have enough confidence in this
funding scheme to make long-term investments in port infrastructure?
Will this end up just being a tax on consumer goods?
Answer. Ports and U.S. companies strongly prefer predictable
funding streams that allow them to plan for long-term infrastructure
investments. A funding mechanism dependent on fees assessed against
foreign vessels would likely provide less certainty because collections
could vary based on the vessels subject to the fee, the applicable fee
levels, and changes in carrier behavior.
Depending on how the fee is structured, carriers may adjust their
vessel deployments or port calls to avoid or reduce the assessment,
which could reduce anticipated revenue. It is also possible that some
or all of the additional costs would be passed through the supply chain
in the form of higher freight rates for affected voyages.
The Port Infrastructure Development Program has been extremely
helpful in expanding and modernizing port capacity, particularly for
projects that require multi-year planning and private capital
commitments. Stable and predictable funding streams provide the
certainty needed to support those investments.
Question 3. Would a bipartisan process like that in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provide more certainty
for companies planning to invest in port infrastructure?
Answer. Multi-year funding authorizations, such as the surface
transportation reauthorization, provide greater certainty for long-
term, capital intensive projects. Port infrastructure projects often
require environmental reviews, engineering, dredging, terminal
upgrades, landside connections, utility work, equipment purchases, and
coordination among multiple public and private entities.
A multi-year funding authorization for port infrastructure would
provide the maritime sector with a clear signal that the Federal
government views port infrastructure as a national priority. That kind
of year-over-year stability helps companies make investment decisions,
hire workers, order equipment, and coordinate with ports and public
agencies.
Maritime Industrial Base--Port Equipment
Question 4. Over 70 percent of the world's ship-to-shore cranes are
made by a Chinese company--ZPMC. Do you believe that there is currently
a sufficient domestic industry for critical domestic port equipment to
compete with these Chinese-made cranes?
Answer. The United States does not currently have a sufficient
domestic industrial base to compete at scale with Chinese-made ship-to-
shore cranes. Dependence on a single foreign manufacturer creates both
economic and national security concerns. Ship-to-shore cranes are
essential pieces of infrastructure at container ports and are not
easily replaced because of their cost, complexity, and the limited
number of available manufacturers.
Both the prior and current Administrations have recognized the
importance of reducing the risks associated with dependence on foreign
manufactured port equipment and strengthening domestic maritime
industrial capacity. Rebuilding this capability, however, will require
a sustained strategy, long-term investment, and a realistic transition
plan for ports.
Question 5. What would be the likely timeline to expand or create a
domestic supply chain for critical port equipment like these cranes?
Answer. Crowley is not involved in the manufacture of ship-to-shore
cranes and, therefore, is not in a position to provide a reliable
estimate of the time required to establish the necessary domestic
manufacturing capacity and supply chain. Any realistic timeline would
need to account for engineering capabilities, component sourcing,
manufacturing facilities, workforce development, financing, regulatory
requirements, and sufficient long-term demand to support private
investment.
Question 6. In your view, does this administration have an adequate
strategy for reshoring ship-to-shore crane production in the near term?
Answer. Crowley is not involved in the manufacture of ship-to-shore
cranes and, therefore, is not in a position to fully assess the
adequacy of the Administration's plans to reconstitute production in
the United States. As a general matter, any successful strategy should
provide clear and sustained demand signals, support workforce and
supply chain development, and include a transition plan that allows
ports to continue obtaining and maintaining the equipment necessary for
efficient operations.
[all]