Why it Matters

The United States builds fewer than 100,000 tons of commercial shipping annually. China builds more than 40 million. That gap, and its implications for national security, naval readiness, and economic competitiveness, is what brings the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to 2118 Rayburn House Office Building at 7:30pm on April 22 for a hearing preview that shipbuilding advocates have been pushing toward for months.

The stakes are not abstract. The Navy depends on a domestic industrial base to build and sustain the fleet. That base has been contracting for decades. Post-World War II, the U.S. had more than 80 major shipyards. Today, roughly 20 remain capable of significant naval construction.

The hearing, titled "Revitalizing Shipbuilding And The Maritime Industrial Base," arrives as Congress weighs legislation that would commit tens of billions of dollars to reversing that trajectory, and as the defense industrial base faces mounting pressure from obligations to AUKUS (the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), fleet expansion demands, and a workforce that can't keep pace with demand.

The Legislative Backdrop

The centerpiece of the congressional hearing is the legislative push behind H.R. 3151, the SHIPS for America Act of 2025, sponsored by subcommittee Chair Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MS). The bill, which has drawn 117 cosponsors across both parties, would establish a Maritime Security Board coordinated by a new White House Maritime Security Advisor; create a Strategic Commercial Fleet program; and authorize funding ranging from $150 million to $2.1 billion to support vessel acquisition and operation for national defense. A companion Senate bill, S. 1541, goes further, proposing a $20 billion Maritime Security Trust Fund over the 2026–2035 period.

A separate bill, H.R. 2125, the Save Our Shipyards Act, takes a narrower approach. It establishes a 22-member National Commission on the Maritime Industrial Base to study the industry's health and recommend policy fixes. Rep. Jennifer Kiggans (R-VA), a subcommittee member, is among the cosponsors.

The breadth of legislative activity, which spans workforce development, vessel acquisition, industrial capacity, and federal financing, reflects just how comprehensively Congress is approaching the shipbuilding policy challenge.

What Members Have Been Saying

In the 30 days before the hearing, committee members have been unusually vocal on shipbuilding and maritime industrial base issues. They have produced ten public communications on the topic, a signal of how central this issue has become to the subcommittee's work.

Ranking Member Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) has been the most active, with five separate communications since late March. On March 23, he highlighted Electric Boat's announcement of plans to hire 8,000 new workers in both 2026 and 2027 to ramp up production of Virginia- and Columbia-class submarines. By April 11, he was posting from a hiring fair at a Connecticut mall where job-seekers lined up around the building. And on April 15, he welcomed an Australian Member of Parliament to Washington to discuss the growth of the U.S. submarine industrial base and AUKUS delivery timelines. This underscores how the shipbuilding discussion around the hearing preview extends well beyond domestic politics.

Subcommittee Chair Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MS) expressed support in late March for the Independent Commission on the Future of the Navy, authorized through the FY2023 NDAA, saying he expected the group to "provide meaningful work that will support our goals on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee."

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) has been exploring the Maritime Prosperity Zone designation for Charleston's maritime and shipbuilding sector. She also met with the Aircraft Carrier Industrial Base Coalition in early April, describing aircraft carriers as "the backbone of our strength at sea" and calling for smarter, more predictable naval construction.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the full House Armed Services Committee, pointed to Hadrian's investment in Alabama's Shoals region as "a turning point in our defense industrial base."

The Lobbying Push

The industry pressure behind this hearing is substantial. Over the past year, at least 25 organizations filed lobbying disclosures touching on shipbuilding, maritime legislation, or naval construction, a cross-section of defense contractors, maritime operators, workforce groups, and industrial suppliers.

BlueForge Alliance, which advocates for submarine industrial base improvement, filed disclosures across all four quarters of 2025 at $80,000 per quarter. The Naval & Maritime Consortium lobbied on FY26 appropriations for the submarine industrial base across three consecutive quarters. Chantier Davie Canada Inc., a Canadian shipbuilder, filed as recently as April 3, 2026, on civilian and defense shipbuilding matters, including ICE Pact implementation.

The SHIPS for America Act drew lobbying from an unusually wide range of sectors. Stolt Tankers USA Inc. spent $130,000 across three quarters on shipbuilding policy tied to H.R. 3151 and S. 1541. The Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association filed three consecutive quarterly disclosures on the SHIPS Act. Heartland Fabrication LLC lobbied on the bill as recently as April 1, 2026, just three weeks before the hearing.

American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier Group Inc. spent $190,000 over three quarters on maritime security and shipbuilding policy. Its PAC contributed $7,500 to subcommittee Chair Kelly and $1,000 each to subcommittee members Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) and Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI) over the past two years.

The hearing will be chaired by Rep. Kelly with Rep. Courtney serving as Ranking Member.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.