America is dangerously behind China when it comes to building commercial and military ships, and urgent action is needed to turn the situation around, lawmakers and experts told a panel. A bill proposed in Congress is designed to address the challenge, but some panelists argued that the bill might not do enough, and more proactive measures are needed.

The Hill gathered lawmakers and experts for the Dec. 9 panel discussion on the proposed SHIPS for America Act, and to speak on the greatest challenges facing the American shipbuilding industry.

Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), a Navy veteran and a co-sponsor of the act, warned the panel that the U.S. is losing its ability to manufacture commercial vessels en masse. Across all American shipyards, there are only five oceangoing vessels scheduled for construction; in contrast, China is slated to build more than 1,700. Additionally, America has only 80 ships currently operating in its international trading fleet, while China has at least 5,500.

This massive disparity in maritime presence and potential poses a major national security risk, since the United States is dependent on Chinese-made vessels, or vessels manufactured by countries neighboring China, to transport American-made goods.

The SHIPS for America Act has three main goals: inviting foreign and domestic investment into new and existing shipyards, retraining workers in how to build modern ships, and boosting recruitment of mariners to staff them. The legislation seeks to drive construction of 250 new merchant vessels in the next 10 years, which is just the first step in a multi-generational plan to—in the words of the White House—“restore America’s maritime dominance.”

In addition the act calls for a complete reform of American shipbuilding. The industry is currently worth $30 billion, but according to an estimate from Boston Consulting Group, it would have to more than double to $65 billion to meet commercial and military needs. The Navy’s budget would have to increase by an additional one-third. The plan would also necessitate doubling the number of shipbuilders via establishing new career training pathways while also training new mariners to staff the new ships. Additionally, it would resume federal subsidies for shipbuilding, a practice discontinued in the 1980s.

Not prepared for conflict

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) elaborated on security concerns, stating that, as it stands, the U.S. would not be able to sustain a fight in the Pacific, and that the previous policy of using airplanes to supply the military would not be sufficient for conflict against China or Russia.

Acknowledging that even 250 more ships in the merchant marine may not be enough for an emergency, Rep. Garamendi called for establishing dual-use shipyards capable of constructing components for civilian and military ships at the same location, and refitting existing commercial ships to be able to transport military equipment in times of war.

Among the panel of experts, Matthew Paxton, President of the Shipbuilders Council of America, and Michelle Kruger, President of the ship manufacturer Austal, concurred with the lawmakers’ arguments about the necessity and viability of vastly expanding America’s fleet.

However, Eric Labs, a Senior Analyst for Naval Forces and Weapons at the Congressional Budget Office, suggested the underlying issues in the shipbuilding industry may require even more drastic reforms than those which SHIPS for America Act provides.

Labs expressed skepticism over the civilian shipbuilding industry’s technical capability to produce components for military vessels and cited perennial shortages in skilled labor; some shipyards lose 20% of their workers to attrition each year. He proposes large wage increases, tax and housing benefits, and additional vocational programs to maintain the existing workforce while attracting new talent.

Sen. Young and Rep. Garamendi said they are optimistic about the act’s passage, having received vocal support from the White House, labor unions, and a bipartisan coalition of 171 members of Congress. Both expressed hope that the bill could be on the floor early next year.