Washington D.C. – Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland (WA-10) questioned Coast Guard leadership on the reallocation of critical maritime assets away from the Pacific Northwest and raised concerns about the potential privatization of search and rescue operations. Strickland’s remarks are transcribed below, and can be viewed here:
Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland: Thank you, Chairman Ezell and Ranking Member Carbajal. Nice to see you, Admiral Lunday. Congratulations and I look forward to working with you. And shout out to Mrs. Lunday for being here—nice to see you both.
So, I represent Washington State and the South Puget Sound, where the maritime sector is integral to our national security and our economy. And I’m concerned that this Administration’s neglect and misuse of Coast Guard assets will compromise both.
Slashing the Coast Guard shoreside infrastructure budget by 90%, as mentioned earlier, while spending $50 million on a new jet for Secretary Noem is unserious and signals to the men and women of the Coast Guard that this Administration does not value the mission or their well-being.
I want to talk first about movement of cutter assets. I want to talk about focusing on the diversion of assets critical to marine safety and capabilities from their assigned districts. So earlier this year, the subcommittee learned that two fast response cutters in the Pacific Northwest were being taken from District 13 for the rest of the year to support security operations at the southern border. These were the only fast response cutters serving the entire Pacific Northwest coastline. And we were informed that, to address the long-term coverage gap in Washington State, a cutter is being transferred from Alaska. This will leave communities in Alaska with one fewer cutter.
Now, I think my colleagues on the Committee, perhaps including Congressman Begich from Alaska, would appreciate a thorough explanation of decisions that impact search and rescue operations and responsiveness to marine safety concerns that require a fast response cutter. Robbing Alaska to pay Washington state only exacerbates the gaps in regions that need coverage, especially now that fishing season and summer boating season are going to be in full effect. Admiral Lunday?
Admiral Kevin Lunday: So Congresswoman, the decision to move temporarily assets around in order to meet higher priority needs is something that I and operational commanders within the Coast Guard do every day in the face of increasing mission demand across our mission areas. And so, the decision to temporarily deploy fast response cutters from the Pacific Northwest down to support controlling, enforcing, and securing our southern border is not unusual. And then making decisions in conjunction with the Pacific Area Commander and the District Commanders on how to address and position other assets temporarily to accomplish other missions is part of the work that we do every day across the Coast Guard.
I will say that in the Pacific Northwest, under the leadership of the District Commander, Admiral Fosse, he is taking significant actions and steps over the last four months under Operation Arctic Fox to secure the northern border—working not only with other federal, state, and local partners, but with our allies in Canada. Working together to make sure that we can control threats in that area. So we remain active in our operations—not only for marine safety, but for controlling, securing, and defending our northern border as well.
But I would say, Congresswoman, that also points out that because we’re in the state of readiness that we are in today, we are not able to deliver the same level of services in all of our mission areas that we have traditionally tried to do. We are not as resilient, and we do not have the same level of bench strength that we had in the past because of increasing decades of underinvestment. And so we do not have the same level of availability of assets.
Strickland: Thank you. I want to talk a bit about privatization of search and rescue missions. DHS officials have said that the Coast Guard should not be doing search and rescue, and subcommittee staff recently learned that private companies are looking to contract for this mission. Now, I have nothing against private contractors supplementing—in addition to—but substitution raises really big red flags for me.
So can you talk a bit about the search and rescue mission and whether you plan to allow privatization of it when it should be a public service?
Lunday: Congresswoman, I’m certainly aware that there are commercial companies that provide salvage services for mariners who need it. Coast Guard search and rescue remains one of our primary missions. In fact, it’s more than that. It’s a special trust we have with the American people. It’s part of our DNA. And so, we are not lowering our response standards for maritime search and rescue. But I would tell you, beyond search and rescue, other missions we do also save lives—controlling, securing, and defending our border and maritime approaches against illegal drugs and illegal migration—that also saves lives. Defending our border and our maritime critical infrastructure from cyber threats to that infrastructure—that could threaten the movement and facilitation of commerce.
Strickland: I want to get back to the question, though. Are you going to allow privatization of the search and rescue function instead of having the Coast Guard do it?
Lunday: Congresswoman, I have no plans to step away from our search and rescue operations or turn that over to private companies.
Strickland: Thank you. I yield back.
###