.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization:
Background, Issues, and Options for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
November 3December 5, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34391
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Summary
Coast Guard polar icebreakers perform a variety of missions supporting U.S. interests in polar
regions. The Coast Guard’s two heavy polar icebreakers—Polar Star and Polar Sea—have
exceeded their intended 30-year service lives, and neither is currently in operational condition.
The Polar Star was placed in caretaker status on July 1, 2006. Congress in FY2009 and FY2010
provided funding to repair Polar Star and return it to service for 7 to 10 years; the Coast Guard
expects the reactivation project to be completed in December 2012. On June 25, 2010, the Coast
Guard announced that Polar Sea had suffered an unexpected engine casualty; the ship has been
unavailable for operation since then. The Coast Guard placed Polar Sea in commissioned,
inactive status on October 14, 2011.
The Coast Guard’s third polar icebreaker—Healy—entered service in 2000. Compared to Polar
Star and Polar Sea, Healy has less icebreaking capability (it is considered a medium polar
icebreaker), but more capability for supporting scientific research. The ship is used primarily for
supporting scientific research in the Arctic.
The Coast Guard’s FY2012 budget proposes decommissioning Polar Sea in FY2011 and
transitioning its crew to the reactivated Polar Star. The resulting U.S. polar icebreaking fleet
would consist of one heavy polar icebreaker (Polar Star) and one medium polar icebreaker
(Healy). The Coast Guard is transferring certain major equipment from Polar Sea to Polar Star to
facilitate Polar Star’s return to service.
In July 2011, the Coast Guard provided to Congress a study on the Coast Guard’s missions and
capabilities for operations in high-latitude (i.e., polar) areas. The study, commonly known as the
High Latitude Study and dated July 2010 on its cover, concluded the following: “The Coast
Guard requires three heavy and three medium icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions. The
Coast Guard requires six heavy and four medium icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions and
maintain the continuous presence requirements of the [2010] Naval Operations Concept.
Applying non-material alternatives for crewing and homeporting reduces the overall requirement
to four heavy and two medium icebreakers.”
Following any decision to design and build one or more new polar icebreakers, the first
replacement polar icebreaker might enter service in 8 to 10 years. The Coast Guard estimated in
February 2008 that newNew replacement ships might cost
cost roughly $800 million to $925 million each in 2008
dollars, and that the alternative of extending the service lives of Polar Sea and Polar Star for 25
years might cost about $400 million per ship. In August 2010, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, reportedly estimated the cost of extending their lives at about $500
million per ship900 million each to procure, depending on their features.
Potential issues for Congress regarding Coast Guard polar icebreaker modernization include the
potential impact on U.S. polar missions of the United States currently having no operational
heavy polar icebreakers; the absence of an announced firm acquisition plan for replacing Polar
Star upon completion of its 7- to 10-year post-reactivation service life; the disposition of Polar
Sea; the numbers and
capabilities of polar icebreakers the Coast Guard will need in the future;
whether to provide these icebreakers through construction of new ships or service life extensions
of existing polar icebreakers; and whether new ships should be funded entirely in the Coast Guard
budget, or partly or entirely in some other part of the federal budget, such as the Department of
Defense (DOD) budget, the whether to approve the
Coast Guard’s FY2012 proposal to decommission Polar Sea, or take some other action, such as
directing the Coast Guard to repair the ship and return it to service; the disposition of Polar Sea
(if decommissioned); whether to provide future icebreaking capability through construction of
new ships or service life extensions of existing polar icebreakers; whether future polar
icebreakers should be acquired through a traditional acquisition or a leasing arrangement; and
whether new ships should be funded entirely in the Coast Guard budget, or partly or entirely in
some other part of the federal budget, such as the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, the
National Science Foundation (NSF) budget, or both.
Congressional Research Service
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background...................................................................................................................................... 1
Missions of U.S. Polar Icebreakers ........................................................................................... 1
Current U.S. Polar Icebreakers .................................................................................................. 2
Three Coast Guard Ships..................................................................................................... 2
One National Science Foundation Ship............................................................................... 5
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6
Recent Studies Relating to Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers....................................................... 8
Coast Guard High Latitude Study Provided to Congress in July 2011 ............................... 8
January 2011 DHS Office of Inspector General Report.................................................... 11
2010 U.S. Arctic Research Commission Report ............................................................... 13
2007 National Research Council Report ........................................................................... 1314
Cost Estimates for Certain Modernization Options................................................................. 16
New Replacement Ships.................................................................................................... 16
25-Year Service Life Extensions ....................................................................................... 17
Reactivate Polar Star for 7 to 10Sea for Several Years............................................................................. 17
Reactivate Polar Star for a Single Deployment FY2012 Funding Request........................................................................................................ 18
FY2012 Funding Request..December 1, 2011, Hearing ...................................................................................................... 18 19
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 19
Impact of Currently Having No Operational Heavy Polar Icebreakers................................... 1920
No Announced Firm Acquisition Plan for Replacing Polar Star ............................................. 20
Disposition of Polar Sea 20
Number and Capabilities of Future Polar Icebreakers............................................................. 21
Factors to Consider............................................................................................................ 21
Notional Arguments for Various Numbers ........... 21
Number and Capabilities of Future Polar Icebreakers............................................................. 21
Factors to Consider23
Coast Guard Proposal to Decommission Polar Sea ................................................................ 23
Disposition of Polar Sea (If Decommissioned)................................................ 21
Notional Arguments for Various Numbers ....................... 23
New Construction vs. Service Life Extension......................................................................... 23
New Construction vs. Service Life Extension24
Procurement vs. Leasing ......................................................................................................... 2325
Funding Ships in Coast Guard Budget or Elsewhere .............................................................. 2428
Options for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 2529
Legislative Activity in 112th Congress ........................................................................................... 2630
FY2012 Funding Request........................................................................................................ 2630
FY2012 DHS Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2017) ....................................................................... 2630
House................................................................................................................................. 2630
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 2731
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011 (H.R. 2838) ...................................... 2833
House................................................................................................................................. 2833
Statement of Administration Policy .................................................................................. 2934
Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 (S. 1665) ............................. 35
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 35
Polar Protection Act (H.R. 3113)............................................................................................. 37
POLAR-C Act (S. 1620).......................................................................................................... 39
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Figures
Figure 1. Polar Star and Polar Sea.................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Polar Sea .......................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Healy ................................................................................................................................ 5
Congressional Research Service
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Polar Icebreakers........................................................................................................ 7
Table 2. Uses of Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers in FY2005-FY2007 ............................................. 7
Appendixes
Appendix A. Coast Guard Activities Since 2008 To Assess Requirements and Options for
Polar Icebreakers ........................................................................................................................ 3041
Appendix B. Legislative Activity in 111th and 110th Congresses ................................................... 3344
Appendix C. Bill and Report Language Relating to Study of High-Latitude Operations ............. 5263
Appendix D. May 2008 Memorandum from DOD Combatant Commanders............................... 5465
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 5566
Congressional Research Service
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Introduction
This report provides background information and issues for Congress on the sustainment and
modernization of the
Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet, which performs a variety of missions
supporting U.S.
interests in polar regions. The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or
modify Coast
Guard plans for sustaining and modernizing its polar icebreakers. icebreaking fleet.
Congressional decisions on this issue could
affect Coast Guard funding requirements, the Coast
Guard’s ability to perform its polar missions,
and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.
Background
Missions of U.S. Polar Icebreakers
The missions of U.S. polar icebreakers can be summarized as follows:
•
conducting and supporting scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctic;
•
defending U.S. sovereignty in the Arctic by helping to maintain a U.S. presence
in U.S. territorial waters the region;
•
defending other U.S. interests in polar regions, including economic interests in
waters that are within the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) north of Alaska;
•
monitoring sea traffic in the Arctic, including ships bound for the United States;
and
•
conducting other typical Coast Guard missions (such as search and rescue, law
enforcement, and protection of marine resources) in Arctic waters, including U.S.
territorial waters north of Alaska.
Operations to support National Science Foundation (NSF) research activities in the Arctic and
Antarctic have accounted in the past for a significant portion of U.S. polar icebreaker operations.1
Supporting NSF research in the Antarctic has included performing—or, in more recent years,
standing ready to assist in—an annual mission, called Operation Deep Freeze, to break through
the Antarctic ice so as to resupply McMurdo Station, the large U.S. Antarctic research station
located on the shore of McMurdo Sound, near the Ross Ice Shelf.
Although polar ice is diminishing due to climate change, observers generally expect that this
development will not eliminate the need for U.S. polar icebreakers, and in some respects might
increase mission demands for them. Even with the diminishment of polar ice, there are still
significant ice-covered areas in the polar regions. Diminishment of polar ice could lead in coming
years to increased commercial ship, cruise ship, and naval surface ship operations, as well as
increased exploration for oil and other resources, in the Arctic—activities that could require
1
This passage, beginning with “The missions of…”, originated in an earlier iteration of this CRS report and was later
transferred by GAO with minor changes to Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:]Efforts to Identify Arctic
Requirements Are Ongoing, but More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial, GAO-10870, September 2010, p. 53.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
increased levels of support from polar icebreakers.2 Changing ice conditions in Antarctic waters
have made the McMurdo resupply mission more challenging since 2000.3 An April 18, 2011,
press report states that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp,
sees plenty of reasons the United States will need polar icebreakers for the “foreseeable
future,” despite speculation that thinning ice in the Arctic could make the icebreakers
replaceable with other ice-hardened ships, the admiral said last week….
“I don’t see that causing us to back down on some minimal level of polar icebreakers,” Papp
told Inside the Navy. “The fact of the matter is, there’s still winter ice that’s forming. It’s
coming down pretty far. We don't need to get up there just during summer months when
there’s open water.”4
Current U.S. Polar Icebreakers
The U.S. polar icebreaker fleet currently includes four ships—three Coast Guard ships and one
ship operated by the NSF. The ships are described briefly below.
Three Coast Guard Ships
The Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers are multimission ships that can break through ice,
support scientific research operations, and perform other missions typically performed by Coast
Guard ships.
Heavy Polar Icebreakers Polar Star and Polar Sea
Polar Star (WAGB-10) and Polar Sea (WAGB-11),5 sister ships built to the same general design
(Figure 1 and Figure 2), were procured in the early 1970s as replacements for earlier U.S.
icebreakers. They were designed for 30-year service lives, and were built by Lockheed
Shipbuilding of Seattle, WA, a division of Lockheed that also built ships for the U.S. Navy, but
which exited the shipbuilding business in the late 1980s. Neither ship is currently in operational
condition.
The ships are 399 feet long and displace about 13,200 tons.6 They are the world’s most powerful
non-nuclear-powered icebreakers, with a capability to break through ice up to 6 feet thick at a
speed of 3 knots. Because of their icebreaking capability, they are considered heavy polar
icebreakers. In addition to a crew of 134, each ship can embark a scientific research staff of 32
people.
2
For more on changes in the Arctic due to diminishment of Arctic ice, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic:
Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ronald O'Rourke.
3
National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 6-7, 14, 63.
4
Cid Standifer, “Adm. Papp: Coast Guard Still Needs Icebreakers For Winter, Antarctic,” Inside the Navy, April 18,
2011.
5
The designation WAGB means Coast Guard icebreaker. More specifically, W means Coast Guard ship, A means
auxiliary, G means miscellaneous purpose, and B means icebreaker.
6
By comparison, the Coast Guard’s new National Security Cutters—its new high-endurance cutters—are about 418
feel long and displace roughly 4,000 tons.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Figure 1. Polar Star and Polar Sea
Side by side in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica
Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcpolarsea/history.asp on April 21, 2011.
Polar Star was commissioned into service on January 19, 1976, and consequently is now beyond
its intended 30-year service life. The ship currently is not in operational condition due to worn out
electric motors and other problems. The Coast Guard placed the ship in caretaker status on July 1,
2006.7 Congress in FY2009 and FY2010 provided funding to repair Polar Star and return it to
service for 7 to 10 years; the Coast Guard expects the $62.8 million reactivation project to be
completed in
December 2012.8 An August 30, 2010, press report quoted the Commandant of the
Coast Guard,
Admiral Robert Papp, as saying, “We’re getting her back into service, but it’s a little
uncertain to
me how many more years we can get out of her in her current condition, even after
we do the
engine repairs.”9
7
Source for July 1, 2006, date: U.S. Coast Guard e-mailemail to CRS on February 22, 2008. The Coast Guard’s official term
for caretaker status is “In Commission, Special.”
8
“Icebreaker POLAR SEA Sidelined By Engine Troubles,” Coast Guard Compass (Official Blog of the U.S. Coast
Guard), June 25, 2010. An FY2011 budget justification document—Department of Homeland Security, Congressional
Budget Justification FY 2011, p. USCG-9 (pdf page 2176 of 3985)—states that the repairs to Polar Star are to be
completed in FY2012Source for $62.8 million cost figure: Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observations on Arctic
Requirements, Icebreakers, and Coordination with Stakeholders, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Statement of
Stephen L. Caldwell, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, p. 10.
9
Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Polar Sea was commissioned into service on February 23, 1978, and consequently is also beyond
its originally intended 30-year service life. In 2006, the Coast Guard completed a rehabilitation
project that extended the ship’s expected service life to 2014. On June 25, 2010, however, the
Coast Guard announced that Polar Sea had suffered an unexpected engine casualty, and the ship
has been unavailable for operation since then.10 The Coast Guard placed Polar Sea in
commissioned, inactive status on October 14, 2011, and is transferring certain major equipment
from Polar Sea to Polar Star to facilitate Polar Star’s return to service.11
Figure 2. Polar Sea
Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcpolarsea/img/PSEApics/FullShip2.jpg on
April 21, 2011.
10
On June 25, 2010, the Coast Guard announced that
POLAR SEA suffered an unexpected engine casualty and will be unable to deploy on its scheduled
fall 2010 Arctic patrol and may be unavailable for Operation Deep Freeze [the annual mission to
break through the Antarctic ice so as to resupply McMurdo Station], Dec. 20 to Jan 2, 2011.
POLAR SEA will likely be in a maintenance status and unavailable for operation until at least
January 2011….
Currently, the 420-foot CGC HEALY, commissioned in 1999, is the service’s sole operational
polar region icebreaker. While the HEALY is capable of supporting a wide range of Coast Guard
missions in the polar regions, it is a medium icebreaker capable of breaking ice up to 4.5-feet thick
at three knots.
The impact on POLAR SEA’s scheduled 2011 Arctic winter science deployment, scheduled for
Jan. 3 to Feb. 23, 2011, is not yet known and depends on the scope of required engine repair.
(“Icebreaker POLAR SEA Sidelined By Engine Troubles,” Coast Guard Compass (Official Blog of
the U.S. Coast Guard), June 25, 2010.)
A June 25, 2010, report stated that “inspections of the Polar Sea’s main diesel engines revealed excessive wear in 33
cylinder assemblies. The Coast Guard is investigating the root cause and hopes to have an answer by August.” (“USCG
Cancels Polar Icebreaker’s Fall Deployment,” DefenseNews.com, June 25, 2010.) Another June 25 report stated that
“five of [the ship’s] six mighty engines are stilled, some with worn pistons essentially welded to their sleeves.”
(Andrew C. Revkin, “America’s Heavy Icebreakers Are Both Broken Down,” Dot Earth (New York Times blog), June
25, 2010.)
11
Source: October 17, 2011, email to CRS from Coast Guard Congressional Affairs office.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Medium Polar Icebreaker Healy
Healy (WAGB-20) (Figure 3) was procured in the early 1990s as a complement to Polar Star and
Polar Sea, and was commissioned into service on August 21, 2000. The ship was built by
Avondale Industries, a shipyard located near New Orleans, LA, that has built numerous Coast
Guard and Navy ships, and which now forms part of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).12
Figure 3. Healy
Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Healy_CGC_1_300.jpg on
April 21, 2011.
Healy is a bit larger than Polar Star and Polar Sea—it is 420 feet long and displaces about 16,000
tons. Compared to Polar Star and Polar Sea, Healy has less icebreaking capability (it is
considered a medium polar icebreaker), but more capability for supporting scientific research.
The ship can break through ice up to 4½ feet thick at a speed of 3 knots, and embark a scientific
research staff of 35 (with room for another 15 surge personnel and two visitors). The ship is used
primarily for supporting scientific research in the Arctic.
One National Science Foundation Ship
The nation’s fourth polar icebreaker is Nathaniel B. Palmer, which was built for the NSF in 1992
by North American Shipbuilding, of Larose, LA. The ship, called Palmer for short, is owned by
Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) of Galliano, LA, a firm that owns and operates research ships
12
HII was previously owned by Northrop Grumman, during which time it was known as Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
and offshore deepwater service ships.13 NSF uses a contractor, Raytheon Polar Services Company
(RPSC), to lease the ship from ECO.14 Palmer is considerably smaller than the Coast Guard’s
three polar icebreakers—it is 308 feet long and has a displacement of about 6,500 tons. It is
operated by a crew of about 22, and can embark a scientific staff of 27 to 37.15
Unlike the Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers, which are multimission ships, Palmer was
purpose-built as a single-mission ship for conducting and supporting scientific research in the
Antarctic. It has less icebreaking capability than the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers, being
capable of breaking ice up to 3 feet thick at speeds of 3 knots. This capability is sufficient for
breaking through the more benign ice conditions found in the vicinity of the Antarctic Peninsula,
to resupply Palmer Station, a U.S. research station on the peninsula. Some observers might view
Palmer not so much as an icebreaker as an oceanographic research ship with enough icebreaking
capability for the Antarctic Peninsula. Palmer’s icebreaking capability is not considered sufficient
to perform the McMurdo resupply mission.
Summary
In summary, the U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently includes
•
two heavy polar icebreakers (Polar Star and Polar Sea), neither currently
operational, that are designed to perform missions in either polar area, including
the challenging McMurdo resupply mission;
•
one medium polar icebreaker (Healy) that that is used primarily for scientific
research in the Arctic; and
•
one ship (Palmer) that is used for scientific research in the Antarctic.
Table 1 summarizes the four ships. Table 2 shows the uses of the three Coast Guard polar
icebreakers in FY2005-FY2007 by operational hours.
13
For more on ECO, see the firm’s website at http://www.chouest.com/.
For more on RPSC, see the division’s website at http://rpsc.raytheon.com/.
15
Sources vary on the exact number of scientific staff that can be embarked on Palmer. For some basic information on
the ship, see http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/support/nathpalm.jsp,
http://www.usap.gov/vesselScienceAndOperations/documents/prvnews_june03.pdfprvnews_june03.pdf,
http://nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/treaty/pdf/plans0607/15plan07.pdf,
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1996/nsf9693/fls.htm, and
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/nsf.htm.
14
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Table 1. U.S. Polar Icebreakers
Polar Star
Polar Sea
Healy
Palmer
USCG
USCG
USCG
NSF
U.S.-Government owned?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Noa
Currently operational?
No
No
Yes
Yes
Entered service
1976
1978
2000
1992
Length (feet)
399
399
420
308
Displacement (tons)
13,200
13,200
16,000
6,500
Icebreaking capability at 3
knots (ice thickness in feet)
6 feet
6 feet
4.5 feet
3 feet
Ice ramming capability (ice
thickness in feet)
21 feet
21 feet
8 feet
n/a
-60o Fahrenheit
-60o Fahrenheit
-50o Fahrenheit
n/a
Crew (when operational)
155b
155b
85c
22
Additional scientific staff
32
32
35d
27-37
Operator
Operating temperature155b
155b
85c
22
32
35d
27-37
Operator
Operating temperature
Crew (when operational)
Additional scientific staff
32
Sources: Prepared by CRS using data from U.S. Coast Guard, National Research Council, National Science
Foundation, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General, and (for Palmer) additional
online reference sources. n/a is not available.
a.
Owned by Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) of Galliano, LA, and leased to NSF through Raytheon Polar
Services Company (RPSC).
b.
Includes 24 officers, 20 chief petty officers, 102 enlisted, and 9 in the aviation detachment.
c.
Includes 19 officers, 12 chief petty officers, and 54 enlisted.
d.
In addition to 85 crew members 85 and 35 scientists, the ship can accommodate another 15 surge
personnel and two2 visitors.
Table 2. Uses of Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers in FY2005-FY2007
(in mission hours)
Polar Star
Mission
area
SAR
FY
05
FY
06
Polar Sea
FY
07
FY
05
FY
06
Healy
FY
07
31
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
3,563
3,210
2,930
2
ATON
Ice Ops
1,809
1,642
2,658
MEP
16
LMR
193
PWCS
DR
121
Support
Total
34
2,066
1,642
0
94
1
802
21
256
424
596
1
802
2,818
3,819
3,634
3,620Mission
area
SAR
ATON
Ice Ops
MEP
LMR
PWCS
DR
Support
Total
Polar Star
FY
06
FY
05
FY
07
Polar Sea
FY
06
FY
05
FY
07
31
1,809
FY
05
Healy
FY
06
FY
07
2
1,642
2,658
16
3,563
3,210
2,930
256
3,819
424
3,634
94
596
3,620
193
34
2,066
1,642
0
1
1
802
802
121
21
2,818
Source: U.S. Coast Guard data provided to CRS on June 12 and 20, 2008.
Notes: SAR = search and rescue; ATON = aids to navigation; Ice Ops = ice operations, polar icebreaking and
domestic ice; MEP = marine environmental protection; LMR = living marine resources; PWCS = ports,
waterways, and coastal security; DR = defense readiness; Support = includes operations such as training, public
affairs, cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
The Coast Guard states further that
for CGC [Coast Guard Cutter] HEALY, all of the Polar Operations hours are either transit
to/from the operating area or scientific research. For CGC POLAR SEA/POLAR STAR, all
of the Polar Operations hours are transit to/from the operating area, scientific research or
mobility logistics (icebreaking for re-supply). We estimate 25% transit / 75% scientific
research for HEALY and 50% transit / 10% scientific research / 40% mobility logistics for
POLAR SEA/POLAR STAR.
Recent Studies Relating to Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers
Coast Guard High Latitude Study Provided to Congress in July 2011
In July 2011, the Coast Guard provided to Congress a study on the Coast Guard’s missions and
capabilities for operations in high-latitude (i.e., polar) areas. The study, commonly known as the
High Latitude Study, is dated July 2010 on its cover.16 The High Latitude Study concluded the
following:
[The study] concludes that future capability and capacity gaps will significantly impact four
[Coast Guard] mission areas in the Arctic: Defense Readiness, Ice Operations, Marine
Environmental Protection, and Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security. These mission areas
address the protection of important national interests in a geographic area where other
nations are actively pursuing their own national goals....
The common and dominant contributor to these significant mission impacts is the gap in
polar icebreaking capability. The increasing obsolescence of the Coast Guard’s icebreaker
fleet will further exacerbate mission performance gaps in the coming years....
The gap in polar icebreaking capacity has resulted in a lack of at-sea time for crews and
senior personnel and a corresponding gap in training and leadership. In addition to providing
multi-mission capability and intrinsic mobility, a helicopter-capable surface unit would
eliminate the need for acquiring an expensive shore-based infrastructure that may only be
needed on a seasonal or occasional basis. The most capable surface unit would be a polar
icebreaker. Polar icebreakers can transit safely in a variety of ice conditions and have the
endurance to operate far from logistics bases. The Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers have
conducted a wide range of planned and unscheduled Coast Guard missions in the past. Polar
icebreakers possess the ability to carry large numbers of passengers, cargo, boats, and
helicopters. Polar icebreakers also have substantial command, control, and communications
capabilities. The flexibility and mobility of polar icebreakers would assist the Coast Guard in
closing future mission performance gaps effectively....
Existing capability and capacity gaps are expected to significantly impact future Coast Guard
performance in two Antarctic mission areas: Defense Readiness and Ice Operations. Future
gaps may involve an inability to carry out probable and easily projected mission
requirements, such as the McMurdo resupply, or readiness to respond to less-predictable
events. By their nature, contingencies requiring the use of military capabilities often occur
quickly. As is the case in the Arctic, the deterioration of the Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet is
the primary driver for this significant mission impact. This will further widen mission
16
For examples of bill and report language in recent years relating to the study of Coast Guard missions and
capabilities for operations in high latitude areas, see Appendix C.
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
performance gaps in the coming years. The recently issued Naval Operations Concept 2010
requires a surface presence in both the Arctic and Antarctic. This further exacerbates the
capability gap left by the deterioration of the icebreaker fleet....
The significant deterioration of the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet and the emerging mission
demands to meet future functional requirements in the high latitude regions dictate that the
Coast Guard acquire material solutions to close the capability gaps....
To meet the Coast Guard mission functional requirement, the Coast Guard icebreaking fleet
must be capable of supporting the following missions:
•
Arctic North Patrol. Continuous multimission icebreaker presence in the Arctic.
•
Arctic West Science. Spring and summer science support in the Arctic.
•
Antarctic, McMurdo Station resupply. Planned deployment for break-in, supply ship
escort, and science support. This mission, conducted in the Antarctic summer, also
requires standby icebreaker support for backup in the event the primary vessel cannot
complete the mission.
•
Thule Air Base Resupply and Polar Region Freedom of Navigation Transits.
Provide vessel escort operations in support of the Military Sealift Command’s Operation
Pacer Goose; then complete any Freedom of Navigation exercises in the region.
In addition, the joint Naval Operations Concept establishes the following mission
requirements:
•
Assured access and assertion of U.S. policy in the Polar Regions. The current
demand for this mission requires continuous icebreaker presence in both Polar Regions.
Considering these missions, the analysis yields the following findings:
•
The Coast Guard requires three heavy and three medium icebreakers to fulfill its
statutory missions. These icebreakers are necessary to (1) satisfy Arctic winter and
transition season demands and (2) provide sufficient capacity to also execute summer
missions. Single-crewed icebreakers have sufficient capacity for all current and
expected statutory missions. Multiple crewing provides no advantage because the
number of icebreakers required is driven by winter and shoulder season requirements.
Future use of multiple or augmented crews could provide additional capacity needed to
absorb mission growth.
•
The Coast Guard requires six heavy and four medium icebreakers to fulfill its
statutory missions and maintain the continuous presence requirements of the
Naval Operations Concept. Consistent with current practice, these icebreakers are
single-crewed and homeported in Seattle Washington.
•
Applying crewing and home porting alternatives reduces the overall requirement
to four heavy and two medium icebreakers. This assessment of non-material
solutions shows that the reduced number of icebreakers can be achieved by having all
vessels operate with multiple crews and two of the heavy icebreakers homeporting in the
Southern Hemisphere.
Leasing was also considered as a nonmaterial solution. While there is no dispute that the
Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet is in need of recapitalization, the decision to acquire this
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
capability through purchase of new vessels, reconstruction of existing ships, or commercial
lease of suitable vessels must be resolved to provide the best value to the taxpayer. The
multi-mission nature of the Coast Guard may provide opportunities to conduct some subset
of its missions with non government-owned vessels. However, serious consideration must be
given to the fact that the inherently governmental missions of the Coast Guard must be
performed using government-owned and operated vessels. An interpretation of the national
policy is needed to determine the resource level that best supports the nation’s interests....
The existing icebreaker capacity, two inoperative heavy icebreakers and an operational
medium icebreaker, does not represent a viable capability to the federal government. The
time needed to augment this capability is on the order of 10 years. At that point, around
2020, the heavy icebreaking capability bridging strategy expires.17
At a July 27, 2011, hearing on U.S. economic interests in the Arctic before the Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee, the following exchange occurred:
SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE: On the high latitude study, do you agree with—and
those—I would like to also hear from you, Admiral Titley, as well, on these requirements in
terms of Coast Guard vessels as I understand it, they want to have—I guess, it was a three
medium ice breakers. Am in correct in saying that? Three medium ice breakers.
ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP, COMMANDANT OF THE COAST GUARD: I agree with the
mission analysis and as you look at the requirements for the things that we might do up there,
if it is in the nation’s interest, it identifies a minimum requirement for three heavy ice
breakers and three medium ice breakers and then if you want a persistent presence up there,
it would require—and also doing things such as breaking out (inaudible) and other
responsibilities, then it would take up to a maximum six heavy and four medium.
SNOWE: Right. Do you agree with that?
PAPP: If we were to be charged with carrying out those full responsibilities, yes, ma’am.
Those are the numbers that you would need to do it.
SNOWE: Admiral Titley, how would you respond to the high latitude study and has the
Navy conducted its own assessment of its capability?
REAR ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY, OCEANORGRAPHER AND NAVIGATOR OF THE
NAVY: Ma’am, we are in the process right now of conducting what we call a capabilities
based assessment that will be out in the summer of this year.
We are getting ready to finish that—the Coast Guard has been a key component of the
Navy’s task force on climate change, literally since day one when the Chief of Naval
Operations set this up, that morning, we had the Coast Guard invited as a member of our
executive steering committee.
So we have been working very closely with the Coast Guard, with the Department of
Homeland Security, and I think Admiral Papp—said it best as far as the specific comments
on the high latitude study but we have been working very closely with the Coast Guard.18
17
18
United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, pp. 10-13, 15.
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
January 2011 DHS Office of Inspector General Report
A January 2011 report on the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers from Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General stated:
The Coast Guard does not have the necessary budgetary control over its [polar] icebreakers,
nor does it have a sufficient number of icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the Polar
Regions. Currently, the Coast Guard has only one operational [polar] icebreaker [i.e., Healy],
making it necessary for the United States to contract with foreign nations to perform
scientific, logistical, and supply activities. Without the necessary budgetary control and a
sufficient number of icebreaking assets, the Coast Guard will not have the capability to
perform all of its missions, will lose critical icebreaking expertise, and may be beholden to
foreign nations to perform its statutory missions. The Coast Guard should improve its
strategic approach to ensure that it has the long-term icebreaker capabilities needed to
support Coast Guard missions and other national interests in the Arctic and Antarctic
regions.19
Regarding current polar icebreaking capabilities for performing Arctic missions, the report states:
The Coast Guard’s icebreaking resources are unlikely to meet future demands. [The table
below] outlines the missions that Coast Guard is unable to meet in the Arctic with its current
icebreaking resources.
Arctic Missions Not Being Met
Requesting Agency
United States Coast Guard
Missions Not Being Met
—Fisheries enforcement in Bering Sea to prevent
foreign fishing in U.S. waters and overfishing
—Capability to conduct search and rescue in Beaufort
Sea for cruise line and natural resource exploration
ships
—Future missions not anticipated to be met: 2010
Arctic Winter Science Deployment
NASA
Winter access to the Arctic to conduct oceanography
and study Arctic currents and how they relate to
regional ice cover, climate, and biology
NOAA and NSF
Winter research
Department of Defense
Assured access to ice-impacted waters through a
persistent icebreaker presence in the Arctic and
Antarctic20
19
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 1 (Executive Summary). Report accessed September
21, 2011, at http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-31_Jan11.pdf.
20
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
The report also states:
Should the Coast Guard not obtain funding for new icebreakers or major service life
extensions for its existing icebreakers with sufficient lead-time, the United States will have
no heavy icebreaking capability beyond 2020 and no polar icebreaking capability of any kind
by 2029. Without the continued use of icebreakers, the United States will lose its ability to
maintain a presence in the Polar Regions, the Coast Guard’s expertise to perform ice
operations will continue to diminish, and missions will continue to go unmet.21
Regarding current polar icebreaking capabilities for performing Antarctic missions, the report
states:
The Coast Guard needs additional icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the Antarctic.
The Coast Guard has performed the McMurdo Station resupply in Antarctica for decades,
but with increasing difficulty in recent years. The Coast Guard’s two heavy-duty icebreakers
[i.e., Polar Star and Polar Sea] are at the end of their service lives, and have become less
reliable and increasingly costly to keep in service….
In recent years, the Coast Guard has found that ice conditions in the Antarctic have become
more challenging for the resupply of McMurdo Station. The extreme ice conditions have
necessitated the use of foreign vessels to perform the McMurdo break-in….
As ice conditions continue to change around the Antarctic, two icebreakers are needed for
the McMurdo break-in and resupply mission. Typically, one icebreaker performs the breakin and the other remains on standby. Should the first ship become stuck in the ice or should
the ice be too thick for one icebreaker to complete the mission, the Coast Guard deploys the
ship on standby. Since the Polar Sea and Polar Star are not currently in service, the Coast
Guard has no icebreakers capable of performing this mission. [The table below] outlines the
missions that will not be met without operational heavy-duty icebreakers.
Arctic Missions Not Being Met
Requesting Agency
Missions Not Being Met
NSF
Missions not anticipated to be met: 2010-2011
Operation Deep Freeze – McMurdo Station Resupply
Department of State
Additional inspections of foreign facilities in Antarctica
to enforce the Antarctic Treaty and ensure facilities’
environment compliance22
The report’s conclusion and recommendations were as follows:
Conclusion
With an aging fleet of three icebreakers, one operational and two beyond their intended 30year service life, the Coast Guard is at a critical crossroads in its Polar Icebreaker
Maintenance, Upgrade, and Acquisition Program. It must clarify its mission requirements,
21
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 10.
22
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, pp. 10-11.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
and if the current mission requirements remain, the Coast Guard must determine the best
method for meeting these requirements in the short and long term.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security, and
Stewardship:
Recommendation #1: Request budgetary authority for the operation, maintenance, and
upgrade of its icebreakers.
Recommendation #2: In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, request
clarification from Congress to determine whether Arctic missions should be performed by
Coast Guard assets or contracted vessels.
Recommendation #3: In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, request
clarification from Congress to determine whether Antarctic missions should be performed by
Coast Guard assets or contracted vessels.
Recommendation #4: Conduct the necessary analysis to determine whether the Coast Guard
should replace or perform service-life extensions on its two existing heavy-duty icebreaking
ships.
Recommendation #5: Request appropriations necessary to meet mission requirements in the
Arctic and Antarctic.23
The report states that
The Coast Guard concurred with all five of the recommendations and is initiating corrective
actions. We consider the recommendations open and unresolved. The Coast Guard provided
information on some of its ongoing projects that will address the program needs identified in
the report.24
2007 National2010 U.S. Arctic Research CouncilCommission Report
A 2007 National Research Council (NRC) report, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An
Assessment of U.S. Needs, assessed roles and future needs for Coast Guard polar icebreakers.25
The study was required by report language accompanying the FY2005 DHS appropriations act
(H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334).26 The study was completed in 2006 and published in 2007. Some
May 2010 report from the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC) on goals and objectives
for Arctic research for 2009-2010 stated:
To have an effective Arctic research program, the United States must invest in human
capital, research platforms, and infrastructure, including new polar class icebreakers, and
sustained sea, air, land, space, and social observing systems…. The Commission urges the
President and Congress to commit to replacing the nation’s two polar class icebreakers.25
23
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 12.
24
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 13.
25
NationalU.S. Arctic Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, 122 pp.
26
H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334 of October 18, 2004. The related Senate bill was S. 2537. The Senate report on S. 2537
(S.Rept. 108-280 of June 17, 2004) stated:
The Committee expects the Commandant to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy
of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the role of Coast Guard icebreakers in supporting
United States operations in the Antarctic and the Arctic. The study should include different
scenarios for continuing those operations including service life extension or replacement of existing
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Commission, Report on Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research 2009–2010, May 2010, p. 4.
Accessed online December 5, 2011, at http://www.arctic.gov/publications/usarc_2009-10_goals.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
2007 National Research Council Report
A 2007 National Research Council (NRC) report, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An
Assessment of U.S. Needs, assessed roles and future needs for Coast Guard polar icebreakers.26
The study was required by report language accompanying the FY2005 DHS appropriations act
(H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334).27 The study was completed in 2006 and published in 2007. Some
sources refer to the study as the 2006 NRC report. The report made the following conclusions and
recommendations:
Based on the current and future needs for icebreaking capabilities, the [study] committee
concludes that the nation continues to require a polar icebreaking fleet that includes a
minimum of three multimission ships [like the Coast Guard’s three current polar icebreakers]
and one single-mission [research] ship [like Palmer]. The committee finds that although the
demand for icebreaking capability is predicted to increase, a fleet of three multimission and
one single-mission icebreakers can meet the nation’s future polar icebreaking needs through
the application of the latest technology, creative crewing models, wise management of ice
conditions, and more efficient use of the icebreaker fleet and other assets. The nation should
immediately begin to program, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to replace
the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA.
Building only one new polar icebreaker is insufficient for several reasons. First, a single ship
cannot be in more than one location at a time. No matter how technologically advanced or
efficiently operated, a single polar icebreaker can operate in the polar regions for only a
portion of any year. An icebreaker requires regular maintenance and technical support from
shipyards and industrial facilities, must reprovision regularly, and has to effect periodic crew
changeouts. A single icebreaker, therefore, could not meet any reasonable standard of active
and influential presence and reliable, at-will access throughout the polar regions.
A second consideration is the potential risk of failure in the harsh conditions of polar
operations. Despite their intrinsic robustness, damage and system failure are always a risk
and the U.S. fleet must have enough depth to provide backup assistance. Having only a
single icebreaker would necessarily require the ship to accept a more conservative operating
profile, avoiding more challenging ice conditions because reliable assistance would not be
available. A second capable icebreaker, either operating elsewhere or in homeport, would
provide ensured backup assistance and allow for more robust operations by the other ship.
From a strategic, longer-term perspective, two new Polar class icebreakers will far better
position the nation for the increasing challenges emerging in both polar regions. A second
new ship would allow the U.S. Coast Guard to reestablish an active patrol presence in U.S.
waters north of Alaska to meet statutory responsibilities that will inevitably derive from
increased human activity, economic development, and environmental change. It would allow
response to emergencies such as search-and-rescue cases, pollution incidents, and assistance
to ships threatened with grounding or damage by ice. Moreover, a second new ship will
leverage the possibilities for simultaneous operations in widely disparate geographic areas
(...continued)26
National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, 122 pp.
27
H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334 of October 18, 2004. The related Senate bill was S. 2537. The Senate report on S. 2537
(S.Rept. 108-280 of June 17, 2004) stated:
The Committee expects the Commandant to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy
of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the role of Coast Guard icebreakers in supporting
United States operations in the Antarctic and the Arctic. The study should include different
scenarios for continuing those operations including service life extension or replacement of existing
Coast Guard icebreakers and alternative methods that do not use Coast Guard icebreakers. The
study should also address changes in the roles and missions of Coast Guard icebreakers in support
of future marine operations in the Arctic that may develop due to environmental change, including
the amount and kind of icebreaking support that may be required in the future to support marine
operations in the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage; the suitability of the Polar Class
icebreakers for these new roles; and appropriate changes in existing laws governing Coast Guard
icebreaking operations and the potential for new operating regimes. The study should be submitted
to the Committee no later than September 30, 2005.
The conference report on H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-774 of October 9, 2004) stated:
As discussed in the Senate report and the Coast Guard authorization bill for fiscal year 2005, the
conferees require the National Academy of Sciences to study the role of Coast Guard icebreakers.
The earlier House report on H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-541 of June 15, 2004) contained language directing a similar
report from the Coast Guard rather than the National Academies. (See the passage in the House report under the header
“Icebreaking.”)
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
and the U.S. fleet must have enough depth to provide backup assistance. Having only a
single icebreaker would necessarily require the ship to accept a more conservative operating
profile, avoiding more challenging ice conditions because reliable assistance would not be
available. A second capable icebreaker, either operating elsewhere or in homeport, would
provide ensured backup assistance and allow for more robust operations by the other ship.
From a strategic, longer-term perspective, two new Polar class icebreakers will far better
position the nation for the increasing challenges emerging in both polar regions. A second
new ship would allow the U.S. Coast Guard to reestablish an active patrol presence in U.S.
waters north of Alaska to meet statutory responsibilities that will inevitably derive from
increased human activity, economic development, and environmental change. It would allow
response to emergencies such as search-and-rescue cases, pollution incidents, and assistance
to ships threatened with grounding or damage by ice. Moreover, a second new ship will
leverage the possibilities for simultaneous operations in widely disparate geographic areas
(e.g., concurrent operations in the Arctic and Antarctic), provide more flexibility for
conducting Antarctic logistics (as either the primary or the secondary ship for the McMurdo
break-in), allow safer multiple-ship operations in the most demanding ice conditions, and
increase opportunities for international expeditions. Finally, an up-front decision to build two
new polar icebreakers will allow economies in the design and construction process and
provide a predictable cost reduction for the second ship….
The [study] committee finds that both operations and maintenance of the polar icebreaker
fleet have been underfunded for many years, and the capabilities of the nation’s icebreaking
fleet have diminished substantially. Deferred long-term maintenance and failure to execute a
plan for replacement or refurbishment of the nation’s icebreaking ships have placed national
interests in the polar regions at risk. The nation needs the capability to operate in both polar
regions reliably and at will. Specifically, the committee recommends the following:
•
The United States should continue to project an active and influential presence in the
Arctic to support its interests. This requires U.S. government polar icebreaking
capability to ensure year-round access throughout the region.
•
The United States should continue to project an active and influential presence in the
Antarctic to support its interests. The nation should reliably control sufficient
icebreaking capability to break a channel into and ensure the maritime resupply of
McMurdo Station.
•
The United States should maintain leadership in polar research. This requires
icebreaking capability to provide access to the deep Arctic and the ice-covered waters of
the Antarctic.
•
National interests in the polar regions require that the United States immediately
program, budget, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to be operated by the
U.S. Coast Guard.
•
To provide continuity of U.S. icebreaking capabilities, the POLAR SEA should remain
mission capable and the POLAR STAR should remain available for reactivation until
the new polar icebreakers enter service.
•
The U.S. Coast Guard should be provided sufficient operations and maintenance budget
to support an increased, regular, and influential presence in the Arctic. Other agencies
should reimburse incremental costs associated with directed mission tasking.
Congressional Research Service
15
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
•
Polar icebreakers are essential instruments of U.S. national policy in the changing polar
regions. To ensure adequate national icebreaking capability into the future, a
Presidential Decision Directive should be issued to clearly align agency responsibilities
and budgetary authorities.2728
The Coast Guard stated in 2008 that it “generally supports” the NRC report, and that the Coast
Guard “is working closely with interagency partners to determine a way forward with national
polar policy that identifies broad U.S. interests and priorities in the Arctic and Antarctic that will
ensure adequate maritime presence to further these interests. Identification and prioritization of
U.S. national interests in these regions should drive development of associated USCG [U.S. Coast
27
National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 2-3.
Congressional Research Service
15
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Guard] capability and resource requirements.” The Coast Guard also stated: “Until those broad
U.S. interests and priorities are identified, the current USG [U.S. Government] polar icebreaking
fleet should be maintained in an operational status.”28
Cost Estimates for Certain Modernization Options
The Coast Guard in February 2008 provided CRS with cost estimates for four potential options
for modernizing the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet.29 The options are summarized below.
Congress in FY2009 and FY2010 provided funding to implement the third option—repairing and
reactivating Polar Star for 7 to 10 years. Funding this option mooted the fourth option of
reactivating Polar Star for a single deployment. The High Latitude Study provided to Congress in
July 2011 provides additional cost estimates for the first option.
29
Cost Estimates for Certain Modernization Options
New Replacement Ships
The Coast Guard estimated in February 2008 that new replacement ships for the Polar Star and
Polar Sea might cost between $800 million and $925 million per ship in 2008 dollars to
procure.
30 The Coast Guard said that this estimate
is based on a ship with integrated electric drive, three propellers, and a combined diesel and
gas (electric) propulsion plant. The icebreaking capability would be equivalent to the
POLAR Class Icebreakers [i.e., Polar Star and Polar Sea] and research facilities and
accommodations equivalent to HEALY. This cost includes all shipyard and government
project costs. Total time to procure a new icebreaker [including mission analysis, studies,
design, contract award, and construction] is eight to ten years.3031
The Coast Guard further stated that this notional new ship would be designed for a 30-year
service life.
The High Latitude Study provided to Congress in July 2011 states that the above figure of $800
million to $925 million in 2008 dollars equates to $900 million to $1,041 million in 2012 dollars.
The study provides the following estimates, in 2012 dollars, of the acquisition costs for new polar
icebreakers:
•
$856 million for 1 ship;
•
$1,663 million for 2 ships—an average of about $832 million each;
•
$2,439 million for 3 ships—an average of $813 million each;
28
28
National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 2-3.
29
Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12, 2008, and dated with the same date, providing answers to
questions from CRS concerning polar icebreaker modernization.
29
Source for information and quotations in this section: 30
Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12,
2008, op cit.
30and dated with the same date, providing answers to
questions from CRS concerning polar icebreaker modernization.
31
The Coast Guard states further that the estimate is based on the procurement cost of the Mackinaw (WAGB-30), a
Great Lakes icebreaker that was procured a few years ago and commissioned into service with the Coast Guard in June
2006. The Mackinaw is 240 feet long, displaces 3,500 tons, and can break ice up to 2 feet, 8 inches thick at speeds of 3
knots, which is suitable for Great Lakes icebreaking. The Coast Guard says it scaled up the procurement cost for the
Mackinaw in proportion to its size compared to that of a polar icebreaker, and then adjusted the resulting figure to
account for the above-described capabilities of the notional replacement ship and recent construction costs at U.S. Gulf
Coast shipyards.
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
•
$856 million for 1 ship;
•
$1,663 million for 2 ships—an average of about $832 million each;
•
$2,439 million for 3 ships—an average of $813 million each;
•
$3,207 million for 4 ships—an average of about $802 million each;
•
$3,961 million for 5 ships—an average of about $792 million each; and
•
$4,704 million for 6 ships—an average of $784 million each.
The study refers to the above estimates as “rough order-of-magnitude costs” that “were developed
as part of the Coast Guard’s independent Polar Platform Business Case Analysis.”3132
25-Year Service Life Extensions
One alternative to procuring new replacement ships would be to extend the service lives of Polar
Star and Polar Sea. The Coast Guard stated in February 2008 that performing the extensive
maintenance, repair, and
modernization work needed to extend the service lives of the two ships
by 25 years might cost
roughly $400 million per ship. This figure, the Coast Guard said, is based
on assessments made
by independent contractors for the Coast Guard in 2004. The service life
extension work, the
Coast Guard said, would improve the two icebreakers’ installed systems in
certain areas.
Although the work would be intended to permit the ships to operate for another 25
years, it would
not return the cutters to new condition.33
An August 30, 2010, press report stated that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert
Papp, estimated the cost of extending the lives of Polar Star and Polar Sea at about $500 million
per ship; the article quoted Papp as stating that Polar Star and Polar Sea “were built to take a
beating. They were built with very thick special steel, so you might be able to do a renovation on
them and keep going…. I think there are certain types of steel that, if properly maintained, they
can go on for an awful long time. What the limit is, I’m not sure.”3234
Reactivate Polar Star for 7 to 10 Years
The Coast Guard estimated in February 2008 that it would cost $56.6 million to perform the
maintenance and repair work needed to reactivate Polar Star and extend its service life by 7 to 10
years, which is the approximate amount of time that would transpire under the Coast Guard’s plan
before a new replacement ship enters service. On July 16, 2008, the Coast Guard similarly
testified that the cost of extending the ship’s service life by 7 to 10 years would be “into the $60
million range.”33 The work would include system upgrades that have been installed in recent
years on the Polar Sea but not the Polar Star. An additional cost would be incurred to create and
train a full 134-person crew for the ship.
Congress in FY2009 and FY2010 provided funding to repair Polar Star and return it to service
for 7 to 10 years; the Coast Guard expects the reactivation project to be completed in December
2012.34
31
United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, p. 13.
Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010. Ellipsis as in original.
33
Transcript of spoken remarks of Admiral Thad Allen at July 16, 2008, hearing on Coast Guard icebreaking needs
before the Coast Guard and Maritime transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
34
Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Budget Justification FY 2011, p. USCG-9 (pdf page 2176 of
3985).
32
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Reactivate Polar Star for a Single Deployment
The Coast Guard estimated in February 2008 that it would cost $8.2 million to perform the
maintenance and repair work needed to reactivate the Polar Star and make it ready for a single
Deep Freeze deployment, meaning a deployment to Antarctica, such as the McMurdo resupply
mission. On July 16, 2008, the Coast Guard provided a slightly different figure, testifying that the
work would cost $8.6 million.35 The work, the Coast Guard says, would require between 12
months and 18 months to perform. Roughly half of the cost, the Coast Guard says, would be to
rebuild the ship’s worn-out electric motors. As with the previous option, an additional cost would
be incurred to create and train a full 134-person crew for the ship.
This option was mooted by Congress’s decision to fund the previous option of repairing and
reactivating Polar Star for 7 to 10 years.Sea for Several Years
Regarding the potential cost to repair Polar Sea and return it to service, at a December 1, 2011,
hearing that focused on the polar icebreaker fleet (see “December 1, 2011, Hearing” below), Dave
Whitcomb, the chief operating officer of Vigor Industrial—the owner of the shipyard that has
conducted maintenance and repair work on Polar Sea and Polar Star for many years—testified
that Polar Sea
can be restored to full mission readiness with a comparable longevity [to that of Polar Star]
at relatively modest cost and in a reasonably short period of time. Vigor Industrial estimates
that bringing the Polar Sea up to an operationally capable condition would require
approximately 11 million dollars. We base this on the fact that we have done comparable
work on the Polar Star already and are well aware of what is required.… This work would
32
United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, p. 13.
Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12, 2008, and dated with the same date, providing answers to
questions from CRS concerning polar icebreaker modernization.
34
Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010. Ellipsis as in original.
33
Congressional Research Service
17
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
require approximately two years to complete and might well be finished faster depending on
availability of key components.35
Whitcomb further testified that the above estimated cost of $11 million includes overhauling the
ship’s diesel engines ($5 million), replacing the ship’s obsolete cranes ($3 million), and upgrading
the ship’s propellers ($3 million).
Whether the work described above includes everything that would be needed to return Polar Sea
to service is not clear, particularly given that the Coast Guard is transferring certain major
equipment from Polar Sea to Polar Star to facilitate Polar Star’s return to service.36
FY2012 Funding Request
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2012 budget requests $39 million for its polar icebreaking
program. The budget proposes decommissioning Polar Sea in FY2011 and transitioning its crew
to the reactivated Polar Star. The resulting U.S. polar icebreaking fleet would consist of one
heavy polar icebreaker (Polar Star) and one medium polar icebreaker (Healy).
Consistent with this plan, the Coast Guard placed Polar Sea in commissioned, inactive status on
October 14, 2011, and is transferring certain major equipment from Polar Sea to Polar Star to
facilitate Polar Star’s return to service.3637 The Coast Guard has not announced its preferred plan
for the disposition of Polar Sea, assuming approval of the Coast Guard’s FY2012 budget
proposal to decommission the ship.3738
The Coast Guard states that its proposed FY2012 budget
provides budget authority to enable Coast Guard to make all critical decisions with respect to
operation and maintenance of its polar icebreakers, consistent with MOUs [memoranda of
understanding] between Coast Guard and its customer agencies. The request provides fullyear personnel, operations, and maintenance funding for CGC HEALY and advance funding
to support the reactivation of CGC POLAR STAR, ensuring its return to operations in FY
2013. AC&I industrial work on the CGC POLAR STAR reactivation project, funded in FY
2009 and FY 2010, is planned for completion in December 2012. The Coast Guard plans to
decommission CGC POLAR SEA in FY 2011 and transition her crew to CGC POLAR
STAR, enabling orderly transition to CGC POLAR STAR and facilitating her return to
operations in FY 2013.
Justification
Based on current Federal requirements, maintaining and operating one medium duty and one
heavy duty icebreaker will allow the Coast Guard to meet operational requirements. CGC
35
Transcript of spoken remarks of Admiral Thad Allen at July 16, 2008, hearing on Coast Guard icebreaking needs
before the Coast Guard and Maritime transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
36HEALY must be sustained to meet the federal survey and research needs in the Arctic,
including joint projects with other nations that support cooperative efforts to establish
35
Testimony [prepared statement] of Dave Whitcomb, Chief Operating Officer, Vigor Industrial, [before the] House
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, December 1, 2011, p. 3.
36
Testimony [prepared statement] of Dave Whitcomb, Chief Operating Officer, Vigor Industrial, [before the] House
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, December 1, 2011, p. 5.
37
Source: October 17, 2011, email to CRS from Coast Guard Congressional Affairs office.
3738
Source: October 19, 2011, telephone conversation between CRS and the Coast Guard Congressional Affairs office.
Congressional Research Service
18
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
HEALY must be sustained to meet the federal survey and research needs in the Arctic,
including joint projects with other nations that support cooperative efforts to establish
jurisdictional rights in this region. Although the existing heavy-duty polar icebreakers are
more costly to operate, are physically and technologically aged and are not optimally
configured, it is prudent to maintain CGC POLAR STAR which is currently undergoing
extensive maintenance to extend its service life as an interim capability while long-term
Arctic capability requirements are finalized. CGC POLAR STAR will be a capable backup
for the annual resupply of McMurdo Base and for CGC HEALY in the Arctic should it
become beset in the ice.
To help define the capability that is needed to meet long-term federal needs in the changing
Arctic environment, Coast Guard will participate in the DHS-led interagency working group,
funded in FY 2012 to develop final requirements for acquisition of the 21st Century
icebreaking capability. In the meantime, CGC POLAR STAR will provide a platform
capable of staging resources and supporting international response to unanticipated
emergencies or disasters (natural or manmade).
Impact on Performance
CGC HEALY and CGC POLAR STAR will continue to support federal activities in the high
latitude regions. Additionally, the replacement of CGC POLAR SEA with CGC POLAR
STAR in FY 2013 will provide a more dependable resource for contingency operations in
both the Arctic and Antarctic. The funding for CGC POLAR STAR in FY 2012 will help
Coast Guard sustain a trained crew and make ready for operations as quickly as possible.38
Issues for Congress
The issue of Coast Guard polar icebreaker modernization presents several potential issues for
Congress, including but not necessarily limited to those discussed below.
Impact of Currently Having No Operational Heavy Polar
39
December 1, 2011, Hearing
On December 1, 2011, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing entitled “Protecting U.S.
Sovereignty: Coast Guard Operations in the Arctic.” The primary (though not only) topic
discussed at the hearing was the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet. Witnesses included the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, the lieutenant governor of Alaska, a director from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), a deputy director from the NSF, the chief operating
officer of a shipyard that has conducted maintenance and repair work on Polar Sea and Polar Star
for many years, and a retired Coast Guard admiral who spent much of his career on Coast Guard
polar icebreakers. The prepared statements of the witnesses and the subcommittee’s background
memorandum for the hearing are available from the committee’s website.40
Issues for Congress
The issue of Coast Guard polar icebreaker modernization presents several potential issues for
Congress, including but not necessarily limited to those discussed below.
39
Department og Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Justification, pp.
CG-OE-49 and CG-OE-50.
40
As of December 5, 2011, the materials were posted online at http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/
hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1458.
Congressional Research Service
19
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Impact of Currently Having No Operational Heavy
Polar Icebreakers
One potential issue for Congress concerns the impact of currently having no operational heavy
polar icebreakers. Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
What are the mission impacts of currently having no operational heavy polar
icebreakers?
•
Did the removal of Polar Star from operational status in 2006 result in heavier
use of Polar Sea, and if so, did this heavier use make Polar Sea’s engine casualty
more likely?
•
Did the rehabilitation project on Polar Sea that was completed in 2006 and which
extended the ship’s estimated service life to 2014 include work on the ship’s
engines? Why did the ship experience an engine casualty reportedly involving
38
Department og Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2012 Congressional Justification, pp.
CG-OE-49 and CG-OE-50.
Congressional Research Service
19
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
excessive wear on engine cylinder assemblies four years after the completion of
the rehabilitation project?
•
How much would it cost to repair Polar Sea’s engines and return the ship to
operational status?
A July 12, 2010, press report states that with neither Polar Sea and Polar Star in operational
status, the Coast Guard may seek assistance from polar icebreakers operated by other countries:
“There are a number of our allies that have that [polar icebreaking] capability,” [Dana]
Goward [director of Coast Guard Office of Assessment, Integration and Risk Management],
said. “They’re not necessarily positioned optimally for support of U.S. missions in our
waters, but if push comes to shove we’re sure that we can make arrangements with our allies
to support the nation’s interests while we get the Polar Sea back in operation. We have very
strong relationships with other coast guards and other navies, and at the moment I don’t see
that we would have much choice.”
The press report states that Healy may be shifted between missions, but that the ship “will not
likely spend more days than usual at sea.”3941
No Announced Firm Acquisition Plan for Replacing Polar Star
Another potential issue for Congress concerns the absence of an announced firm acquisition plan
for replacing Polar Star upon completion of its 7- to 10-year post-reactivation service life. As
mentioned earlier, Polar Star is to have a post-reactivation service life, beginning in December
2012, of 7 to 10 years, and the Coast Guard has estimated that designing and building a new polar
icebreaker could require 8 to 10 years. On this basis, it would appear that a firm acquisition plan
to design and build a replacement for Polar Star on a timely basis (i.e., without a gap occurring
between the retirement of Polar Star and the commissioning of the replacement) might need to
begin now or in the near future, with initial design funding perhaps in FY2012 or FY2013. The
41
Cid Standifer, “Coast Guard Looks To Fill Icebreakers Capability Gap With Polar Sea Out,” Inside the Navy, July
12, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
20
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Coast Guard has not yet announced such a plan, and no such funding is included in the Coast
Guard’s FY2012 proposed budget.
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
Given the work that has been done since 2008 to assess requirements and
acquisition options for polar icebreakers (see Appendix A)—including, among
other things, the High Latitude Study completed in June 2010—as well as the
estimated 7- to 10-year post-reactivation service life of Polar Star and the
estimated 8- to 10-year period needed to design and build a new polar icebreaker,
why has the Coast Guard not announced a firm acquisition plan to design and
build such a ship?
•
When does the Coast Guard intend to announce such a plan?
•
How much initial design funding would be needed in FY2012 to begin
implementing such a plan in FY2012?
39
Cid Standifer, “Coast Guard Looks To Fill Icebreakers Capability Gap With Polar Sea Out,” Inside the Navy, July
12, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
20
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
•
What would be the operational implications of not replacing Polar Star on a
timely basis following the completion of its 7- to 10-year post-reactivation
service life?
Disposition of Polar Sea
Another potential issue for Congress concerns the disposition of Polar Sea, assuming approval of
the Coast Guard’s FY2012 budget proposal to decommission the ship. As mentioned earlier, the
Coast Guard has not announced its preferred plan for the ship’s disposition (see “FY2012
Funding Request” in “Background”). Disposition options include the following, among others:
•
keeping the ship in preservation status in the Maritime Administration’s
(MARAD’s) National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) for potential reactivation at
a later point to meet increased polar icebreaking needs or to replace Polar Star,
should that ship be removed from service before the end of its anticipated 7- to
10-year post-reactivation service life due to an accident or the failure of critical
equipment that cannot be cost-effectively repaired;
•
selling or transferring the ship to another government or to a private owner; and
•
dismantling the ship and recycling its scrap metal.
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
When does the Coast Guard plan to announce its preferred plan for the
disposition of Polar Sea?
•
What are the Coast Guard estimates of the potential costs and benefits of various
disposition options, including those listed above•
What would be the operational implications of not replacing Polar Star on a
timely basis following the completion of its 7- to 10-year post-reactivation
service life?
Number and Capabilities of Future Polar Icebreakers
Factors to Consider
Another potential issue for Congress is how many polar icebreakers, with what capabilities, the
Coast Guard will need in the future. In assessing this issue, factors that Congress may consider
include, but are not limited to, the following:
•
current and projected mission demands for Coast Guard polar icebreakers as
analyzed in the High Latitude Study and other recent studies, including an
assessment of how those demands might be affected by NSF decisions on how to
acquire icebreaking services to support its research activities;
•
the potential for various mission demands (not just those conducted in support of
NSF research activities) to be met by non-Coast Guard icebreakers, including
leases or charters of icebreakers owned by foreign governments or private firms;
and
Congressional Research Service
21
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
•
the Coast Guard’s overall missions-vs.-resources situation, which includes the
Coast Guard’s requirements to perform many non-polar missions and the Coast
Guard’s desire to fund programs for performing these non-polar missions.4042
Regarding the first factor above, the NSF states that although Coast Guard polar icebreakers are
very capable, the NSF is mandated by presidential directive to perform its research activities in
the most cost-effective way possible, and that it can be more expensive for NSF to support its
research activities with Coast Guard polar icebreakers than with charters of icebreakers crewed
42
For more on some of these other programs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition
Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
21
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
by contractor personnel. Although Coast Guard polar icebreakers in the past have performed the
annual McMurdo break-in mission, the NSF in recent years has chartered Russian and Swedish
contractor-operated icebreakers to perform the mission (with a Coast Guard polar icebreaker
standing ready to assist if needed). The NSF has also noted that Healy, though very capable in
supporting Arctic research, operates at sea for about 200 days a year, as opposed to about 300
days a year for foreign contractor-operated polar icebreakers.
Regarding the second factor above, issues to consider would include, among other things, the
potential availability of ships for lease, leasing costs, regulatory issues relating to long-term
leases of capital assets for the U.S. government, and the ability of leased ships to perform the
missions in question, including the mission of defending U.S. sovereignty in Arctic waters north
of Alaska, the challenging McMurdo resupply mission, or missions that emerge suddenly in
response to unexpected events.4143
Regarding the first two factors above, some observers note the size of the polar icebreaking fleets
operated by other countries. Countries with interests in the polar regions have differing
requirements for polar icebreakers, depending on the nature and extent of their polar activities.
According to one source, as of January 2009, Russia had a fleet of 25 polar icebreakers (including
6 active heavy icebreakers, 2 heavy icebreakers in caretaker status, 15 other icebreakers, and 2
additional icebreakers leased from the Netherlands); Finland and Sweden each had 7 polar
icebreakers; and Canada had 6.4244
Regarding the third factor above, a January 17, 2011, press report stated that while the current
Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, remained committed to funding the
procurement of eight National Security Cutters (NSCs),4345 “the admiral was less optimistic about
the prospects of replacing the Coast Guard’s heavy polar icebreakers, both of which are currently
40
For more on some of these other programs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition
Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
41
in port for restoration or repairs. He estimated that replacing them would cost $800 million each,
and he does not see a national will to provide that kind of funding right now.” The article stated:
“There is no room in the Coast Guard budget to do that,” [Papp] said. “Nor is there a national
will or consensus at this point about what we should be doing in the Arctic, who should be
doing it, how we do it and how we resource it, so we’re continuing to make the case that in
order to project our sovereignty in the Arctic, and with the evolving activities that are going
on up there, there’s a need for a whole range of Coast Guard operational capability up
there.”46
43
The potential for using leased ships, and the possible limitations of this option, are discussed at several points in the
2007 NRC report. The report argues, among other things, that the availability of icebreakers for lease in coming years
is open to question, that leased ships are not optimal for performing sovereignty-related operations, and that some
foreign icebreakers might be capable of performing the McMurdo resupply mission. See, for example, pages 80-81 of
the NRC report. See also Jennifer Scholtes, “In Search of Frozen Assets,” CQ Weekly, October 10, 2011: 2074.
4244
Slide entitled “Icebreaker Force Laydown,” in “The Accessible Arctic, A Quick Overview,” a presentation given at a
seminar entitled “The Changing Strategic Landscape for Sea-Based Missile Defense,” Center for Technology and
National Security, National Defense University, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC, December 2-3, 2009. The
slide defined a heavy icebreaker as one with a propulsion plant rated at more than 45,000 break horsepower (BHP).
Under this definition, the United States has three heavy icebreakers, including one active heavy icebreaker (Polar Sea),
one heavy icebreaker in caretaker status (Polar Star), and one additional icebreaker (Healy). Russia’s heavy
icebreakers are nuclear powered.
4345
For more on the NSCs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background,
Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
22
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
in port for restoration or repairs. He estimated that replacing them would cost $800 million each,
and he does not see a national will to provide that kind of funding right now.” The article stated:
“There is no room in the Coast Guard budget to do that,” [Papp] said. “Nor is there a national
will or consensus at this point about what we should be doing in the Arctic, who should be
doing it, how we do it and how we resource it, so we’re continuing to make the case that in
order to project our sovereignty in the Arctic, and with the evolving activities that are going
on up there, there’s a need for a whole range of Coast Guard operational capability up
there.”44
46
Cid Standifer, “Coast Guard Comandant: Service Still Committed To Eight NSCs,” Inside the Navy, January 17,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Notional Arguments for Various Numbers
Advocates of a Coast Guard polar icebreaker fleet that includes two ships—Healy plus one heavy
polar icebreaker—might argue that the Coast Guard operated with such a force from July 1, 2006,
when Polar Star went into caretaker status, until June 2010, when Polar Sea suffered an engine
casualty and was removed from service, and that a force with Healy plus one heavy polar
icebreaker would cost less than a larger polar icebreaker fleet and thereby permit the Coast Guard
to better fund programs for performing its various non-polar missions.
Advocates of a Coast Guard fleet that includes three ships—Healy plus two heavy polar
icebreakers—might argue that the 2007 NRC report recommended a polar icebreaking fleet of
three multimission polar icebreakers (i.e., Healy plus two additional polar icebreakers), that the
Coast Guard operated with such a force from 2000, when Healy entered service, until July 1,
2006, when Polar Star went into caretaker status, that the 2006-2010 force of Healy and one
heavy polar icebreaker made it more difficult for the Coast Guard to perform the McMurdo
resupply mission using its own assets, that a force that includes two heavy polar icebreakers
rather than one would provide more flexibility for responding to polar contingencies or dealing
with mechanical problems on a heavy polar icebreaker, and that such a force would still be
sufficiently affordable to permit the Coast Guard to adequately fund programs for performing
non-polar missions.
Advocates of a Coast Guard fleet that includes Healy plus three heavy polar icebreakers might
argue that the High Latitude Study found that the Coast Guard requires three heavy (and three
medium) icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions, that a force with three heavy polar
icebreakers would provide additional capability for responding to potentially increased
commercial and military activities in the Arctic, that it would more strongly signal U.S.
commitment to defending its sovereignty and other interests in the region, and that while such a
force would be more expensive than a smaller polar icebreaker fleet, the added investment would
be justified in light of the growing focus on U.S. polar interests.
Coast Guard Proposal to Decommission Polar Sea
Another potential issue for Congress concerns whether to approve the Coast Guard’s FY2012
proposal to decommission Polar Sea, or take some other action, such as directing the Coast
Guard to repair the ship and return it to service. Views on this issue could be influenced by views
regarding how many polar icebreakers, with what capabilities, the Coast Guard will need in
coming years (see previous section), the mission impacts of having only one operational heavy
polar icebreaker (once Polar Star is returned to service), the cost to repair Polar Sea and return it
to service (see “Reactivate Polar Sea for Several Years” in “Background”), and the cost to
operate and maintain it over time.
Disposition of Polar Sea (If Decommissioned)
Another potential issue for Congress, if Polar Sea is decommissioned (see previous section),
concerns the disposition of the ship after its decommissioning. As mentioned earlier, the Coast
(...continued)
2011.
Congressional Research Service
23
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Guard has not announced its preferred plan for the ship’s post-decommission disposition (see
“FY2012 Funding Request” in “Background”). Post-decommission disposition options for Polar
Sea include the following, among others:
•
keep the ship in preservation status in the Maritime Administration’s (MARAD’s)
National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) for potential reactivation at a later point
to meet increased polar icebreaking needs or to replace Polar Star, should that
ship be removed from service before the end of its anticipated 7- to 10-year postreactivation service life due to an accident or the failure of critical equipment that
cannot be cost-effectively repaired;
•
sell or transfer the ship to another government or to a private owner; and
•
dismantle the ship and recycle its scrap metal.
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
When does the Coast Guard plan to announce its preferred plan for the postdecommission disposition of Polar Sea?
•
What are the Coast Guard estimates of the potential costs and benefits of various
disposition options, including those listed above?
New Construction vs. Service Life Extension
Another potential issue for Congress is whether requirements for polar icebreakers over the next
25 to 30 years should be met by building new ships, by extending the service lives of existing
polar icebreakers, or by pursuing some combination of these options. In assessing this question,
factors to consider include the relative costs of these options, the capabilities that each option
44
Cid Standifer, “Coast Guard Comandant: Service Still Committed To Eight NSCs,” Inside the Navy, January 17,
2011.
Congressional Research Service
23
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
would provide, the long-term supportability of older ships whose service lives have been
extended, and industrial-base impacts.
Regarding relative costs, as discussed in the “Background” section, the Coast Guard estimates
that new icebreakers with a 30-year design life might cost $800 million to $925 million per ship
in 2008 dollars, while a 25-year service life extension of Polar Star and Polar Sea might cost
about $400 million per ship in 2008 dollars. (As mentioned earlier, an August 30, 2010, press
report stated that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, estimated the cost
of extending the lives of Polar Star and Polar Sea at about $500 million per ship.)4547 These
estimates, however, should be compared with caution: the estimate for building new ships
depends in part on the capabilities that were assumed for those ships, and estimates for servicelife extension work can be very uncertain due to the potential for discovering new things about a
ship’s condition once the ship is opened up for service-life-extension work.
Regarding capabilities provided by each option, the new-construction option would provide
entirely new ships with extensive use of new technology, while the service-life-extension option
would provide ships that, although modernized and reconditioned, would not be entirely new and
would likely make less extensive use of new technologies. Among other things, new-construction
47
Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010. Ellipsis as in original.
Congressional Research Service
24
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
ships might be able to make more extensive use of new technologies for reducing crew size,
which is a significant factor in a ship’s life cycle operating and support costs.
Regarding long-term supportability of older ships, the Coast Guard has expressed concern about
the ability to support ships whose service lives have been extended after FY2014, because some
contracts that currently provide that support are scheduled to end that year.4648
Regarding potential impact on the industrial base, 25-year service life extensions would likely
provide shipyards and supplier firms with less work, and also exercise a smaller set of shipyard
construction skills, than would building new ships.
Funding Ships in Coast Guard Budget or Elsewhere
Another potential issue for Congress, if it is determined that one or more new icebreakers should
be built, is whether the acquisition cost of those ships should be funded entirely through Coast
Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) account, or partly or entirely
through other parts of the federal budget, such as the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, the
NSF budget, or both.47 Within the DOD budget, possibilities include the Navy’s shipbuilding
account, called the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account, and the National Defense
Sealift Fund (NDSF), which is an account where DOD sealift ships and Navy auxiliary ships are
funded.
45
Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010. Ellipsis as in original.
46
CRS discussion with Coast Guard officials, January 30, 2008.
47
For more on the NSF, whose budget is normally funded through the annual Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill, see CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview, by Christine
M. Matthews.
Congressional Research Service
24
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
There is precedent for funding Coast Guard icebreakers in the DOD budget: The procurement of
Healy was funded in FY1990 in the DOD budget—specifically, the SCN account.48Procurement vs. Leasing
Another potential issue for Congress is whether future polar icebreakers should be acquired
through a traditional acquisition (i.e., the government procuring the ship and owning it throughout
its service life) or through a leasing arrangement (under which the icebreakers would be privately
built and privately owned, leased to the Coast Guard, and crewed by an all-Coast Guard crew or a
mix of Coast Guard personnel and civilian mariners). Factors to consider in assessing this issue
include the comparative costs of the two options and the potential differences between them in
terms of factors such as average number of days of operation each year and capability for
performing various missions. Comparing the potential costs of leasing versus purchasing a capital
asset often involves, among other things, calculating the net present value of each option.
At a December 1, 2011, hearing that focused on the polar icebreaker fleet (see “December 1,
2011, Hearing” in “Background”), Admiral Robert Papp, the Commandant of the Coast Guard,
stated:
As far as we can determine, there are no icebreakers available—no heavy icebreakers
available for leasing right now. They would have to be constructed [and then leased].
If we were to lease an icebreaker, I’m sure that a company building an icebreaker outside of
the government does not have to contend with the same federal acquisition rules that we have
to if we were to construct an icebreaker. It could probably be done quicker.
Personally, I’m ambivalent in terms of how we get an icebreaker for the Coast Guard. We’ve
done the legal research. If we lease an icebreaker, we can put a Coast Guard crew on it and
still have it as a U.S. vessel supporting U.S. sovereignty.
But the—but they aren’t available right now. And the other challenge that we face is the
federal acquisition rules and [Office of Management and Budget Circular] A-11
requirements that [direct how to] score the money [in the budget] for leasing. We’d have to
put up a significant amount of upfront money even with a lease that we don’t have room for
within our budget currently.49
At another point in the hearing, Admiral Papp stated:
48
49
CRS discussion with Coast Guard officials, January 30, 2008.
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
25
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
We have looked at various business case scenarios, each and every time looking at, once
again, from our normal perspective, the Coast Guard perspective, which has been owning
ships forever. And generally, we keep ships 30-40 years or beyond. There is a point where
leasing becomes more expensive, it’s at or about the 20-25-year timeline.
I just don’t have the experience with leasing to be able to give you a good opinion on it. And
once again, I'm ambivalent. We just need the icebreaking capability, I think it’s for people
who can do the analysis, the proper analysis of—but also have to take into account the
capabilities required and we need to get about the business of determining the exact
capabilities that we need which would take into account National Science Foundation
requirements, Coast Guard requirements, requirements to break-in at McMurdo, to come up
with a capable ship.50
At another point in the hearing, he stated:
As I said, sir, I am truly ambivalent to this except from what I experienced. I do have now
two points, yes the Navy leases some ships, but we've got a Navy that has well over 300
ships.
So if they lose a leased vessel or something is pulled back or something happens, they have
plenty of other ships they can fall back upon. Right now, all I am falling back on is the Coast
Guard cutter Healy. And it feels good to know that we own that and that is our ship for 30 or
40 years and we can rely upon it.
In terms of leasing, I don't know. My personal experience is I lease one of my two cars and I
pay a lot of money leasing my car. But at the end of the lease period, I have no car and I've
spent a lot of money. So I don’t know if that’s directly applicable to ships as well, but right
now I got half my garage is empty because I just turned one in.51
At another point in the hearing, he stated:
We’ve looked through the legal considerations on this, as long as we have a Coast Guard
crew. In fact, you can even make a mixed crew of civilians and Coast Guard people. But as
long as it’s commanding by—commanded by [a] commissioned officer, you can assert
sovereignty, you can take it into war zones and, in fact, the Navy does that as well.52
Another witness at the hearing—Mead Treadwell, the lieutenant governor of Alaska—stated:
[Regarding] The issue of the ships, the company that is building these ships for Shell [Oil]
has visited with me and other state officials, and that’s why you heard us say in our
testimony that we think the leasing option should be considered. We don’t have a way to
judge the relative cost. But if on the face of it, it seems like it may be a way to get us the
capability that the admiral needs.53
50
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Source: Transcript of hearing.
52
Source: Transcript of hearing.
53
Source: Transcript of hearing. The transcript reviewed by CRS attributes this quote to the GAO witness, Stephen
Caldwell, but this appears to be a mistake, as the statement is made by a member of the first witness panel, which
included the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Lieutenant Governor. The GAO witness was a member of the
second witness panel. The reference in the quote to “me and other state officials” indicates that the witness speaking
was the Lieutenant Governor and not the Commandant.
51
Congressional Research Service
26
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Another witness at the hearing—Jeffrey Garrett, a retired Coast Guard admiral who spent much
of his career on polar icebreakers—stated:
The perspective I could offer was when I was a member of the Cameron [sic:
Commandant’s?] staff back in the last ‘80s here in Washington, we were directed to pursue
exactly the same sort of lease versus buy analysis, and in fact, the Coast Guard had a two
track procurement strategy to compare leasing a new Polar icebreaker or buying it.
And after over a year of analysis, studies, discussion with other agencies looking around,
what became clear was, number one, there was no off-the-shelf asset readily available. And
secondly, that in the long run, if you—when you cost it all out and the value of the stream of
payments, leasing would actually cost more.
And when we did the recapitalization analysis recently, we also reviewed leasing again, and
the I think the findings in that report indicate more expensive over the life of the vessel by
about 12 percent.54
When asked why this was the finding, Garrett stated:
A couple of technical things. First of all, whoever builds the ship—and again, this will have
to be ship built for the Coast Guard since there’s not something off-the-shelf out there that
you could lease. Whoever builds it has to raise capital, and nobody can raise capital more
inexpensively than the federal government.
Secondly, whoever leases the ship is obviously going to make—want to make a profit on that
lease. So just like as Admiral Papp referred to leasing your car, you know, there’s going to
be a profit involved. And so, if you take the net present value of all of those, of those
payments, you got come out with the more expensive package for the same, if you're
comparing the same vessel.
The other, the other issue I think is more intangible and that’s just the fact that we're really
not talking about an auxiliary like the Naval, like the Navy leases a supply ship or something
like that. We're talking about a frontline Coast Guard capital asset, if you will, capital ship
that’s going to be doing frontline government missions projecting U.S. sovereignty.
And you know, the Navy doesn't lease those kinds of ships for its frontline fleet and the
Coast Guard doesn't lease those kinds of ships for its mission capabilities, and that’s what
we're really talking about in terms of the ship we need here.
So while a lease may look attractive, I think there are several things that indicate it may not
be the right way to go. And the—I think that’s what we came down to. And again, this is all
documented in the past and that late ‘80s analysis was re-summarizing the president’s 1990
report to Congress which basically says leasing is more expensive and it’s not the way to go
for a new ship. That was the ship that actually became the Healy then.55
The prepared statement of Stephen Caldwell, the GAO witness at the hearing, states:
The three reports discussed earlier in this [GAO] statement all identify funding as a central
issue in addressing the existing and anticipated challenges related to icebreakers. In addition
to the Coast Guard budget analysis included in the Recapitalization report, all three reports
54
55
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
27
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
reviewed alternative financing options, including the potential for leasing icebreakers, or
funding icebreakers through the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the Department of
Defense (DOD). Although DOD has used leases and charters in the past when procurement
funding levels were insufficient to address mission requirements and capabilities, both the
Recapitalization report and the High Latitude Study determined that the lack of existing
domestic commercial vessels capable of meeting the Coast Guard’s mission requirements
reduces the availability of leasing options for the Coast Guard. Additionally, an initial costbenefit analysis of one type of available leasing option included in the Recapitalization report
and the High Latitude Study suggests that it may ultimately be more costly to the Coast
Guard over the 30-year icebreaker lifespan.56
Funding Ships in Coast Guard Budget or Elsewhere
Another potential issue for Congress, if it is determined that one or more new icebreakers should
be procured by the government through a traditional acquisition, is whether the acquisition cost of
those ships should be funded entirely through Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements (AC&I) account, or partly or entirely through other parts of the federal budget,
such as the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, the NSF budget, or both.57 Within the DOD
budget, possibilities include the Navy’s shipbuilding account, called the Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy (SCN) account, and the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF), which is an
account where DOD sealift ships and Navy auxiliary ships are funded.
There is precedent for funding Coast Guard icebreakers in the DOD budget: The procurement of
Healy was funded in FY1990 in the DOD budget—specifically, the SCN account.58 Advocates of
funding new icebreakers partly or entirely through the SCN account or the NDSF might argue
that this could permit the funding of new icebreakers while putting less pressure on other parts of
the Coast Guard’s budget. They might also argue that it would permit the new icebreaker program
to benefit from the Navy’s experience in managing shipbuilding programs. Opponents might
argue that funding new icebreakers in the SCN account or the NDSF might put pressure on these
other two accounts at a time when the Navy and DOD are facing challenges funding their own
shipbuilding and other priorities. They might also argue that having the Navy manage the Coast
Guard’s icebreaker program would add complexity to the acquisition effort, and that it is unclear
whether the Navy’s recent performance in managing shipbuilding programs is better than the
Coast Guard’s, since both services have recently experienced problems in managing shipbuilding
programs—the Coast Guard with the procurement of new Deepwater cutters, and the Navy in the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and the LPD-17 class amphibious ship program.49
Options for Congress
Potential options for Congress include but are not limited to the following:
•
hold hearings to solicit updated information form the Coast Guard on the longterm sustainment of the polar icebreaker fleet; or direct the Coast Guard to
provide such information;
•
provide guidance to the Coast Guard concerning the long-term sustainment of the
polar icebreaker fleet;
•
direct the Coast Guard to submit to Congress by a certain date a plan for the
long-term sustainment of the polar icebreaker fleet that includes the Coast
Guard’s preferences regarding required numbers and capabilities for polar
icebreakers, and its preferred acquisition option for achieving and maintaining a
polar icebreaker fleet with those numbers and capabilities; and
•
provide funding to begin implementing one or more options for the long-term
sustainment of the polar icebreaker fleet.
48
59
56
Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observations on Arctic Requirements, Icebreakers, and
Coordination with Stakeholders, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell,
Director, Homeland Security and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, p. 24.
57
For more on the NSF, whose budget is normally funded through the annual Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill, see CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview, by Christine
M. Matthews.
58
The FY1990 DOD appropriations act (H.R. 3072/P.L. 101-165 of November 21, 1989) provided $329 million for the
procurement of Healy in the SCN account. (See pages 77 and 78 of H.Rept. 101-345 of November 13, 1989). The
NDSF was created three years later, in FY1993, as a fund for procuring DOD sealift ships, among other purposes, and
since FY2001 has been used to fund Navy auxiliary ships as well.
4959
For more on Deepwater acquisition programs and the LCS and LPD-17 programs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast
Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald
O’Rourke; CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke; and CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background,
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
25
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
28
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
The prepared statement of the GAO witness at the December 1, 2011, hearing states:
Another alternative option addressed by the Recapitalization report would be to fund new
icebreakers through the NSF. However, the analysis of this option concluded that funding a
new icebreaker through the existing NSF budget would have significant adverse impacts on
NSF operations and that the capability needed for Coast Guard requirements would exceed
that needed by the NSF.
The Recapitalization report noted that a funding approach similar to the approach used for
the Healy, which was funded through the fiscal year 1990 DOD appropriations, should be
considered. However, the report did not analyze the feasibility of this option. We have
previously reported that because of the Coast Guard’s statutory role as both a federal
maritime agency and a branch of the military, it can receive funding through both the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOD. For example, as we previously
reported, although the U.S. Navy is not expressly required to provide funding to the Coast
Guard, the Coast Guard receives funding from the Navy to purchase and maintain
equipment, such as self-defense systems or communication systems, because it is in the
Navy’s interest for the Coast Guard systems to be compatible with the Navy’s systems when
the Coast Guard is performing national defense missions in support of the Navy. However,
according to a Coast Guard budget official, the Coast Guard receives the majority of its
funding through the DHS appropriation, with the exception of reimbursements for specific
activities. Also, as the Recapitalization plan acknowledges, there is considerable strain on the
DOD budget. A recent DOD report on the Arctic also notes budgetary challenges, stating
that the near-term fiscal and political environment will make it difficult to support significant
new U.S. investments in the Arctic. Furthermore, DOD and the Coast Guard face different
mission requirements and timelines. For example, DOD’s recent report states that the current
level of human activity in the Arctic is already of concern to DHS, whereas the Arctic is
expected to remain a peripheral interest to much of the national security community for the
next decade or more. As a result, the Coast Guard has a more immediate need than DOD to
acquire Arctic capabilities, such as icebreakers. For example, with preliminary plans for
drilling activity approved in 2011, the Coast Guard must be prepared to provide
environmental response in the event of an oil spill. Similarly, as cruise ship traffic continues
to increase, the Coast Guard must be prepared to conduct search and rescue operations
should an incident occur. For these reasons, it is unlikely that an approach similar to the one
that was used to build the Healy would be feasible at this time.60
Options for Congress
Potential options for Congress include but are not limited to the following:
•
hold hearings to solicit updated information form the Coast Guard on the longterm sustainment of the polar icebreaker fleet; or direct the Coast Guard to
provide such information;
(...continued)
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke; and CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background,
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
60
Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observations on Arctic Requirements, Icebreakers, and
Coordination with Stakeholders, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell,
Director, Homeland Security and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, pp. 24-25.
Congressional Research Service
29
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
•
provide guidance to the Coast Guard concerning the long-term sustainment of the
polar icebreaker fleet;
•
direct the Coast Guard to submit to Congress by a certain date a plan for the
long-term sustainment of the polar icebreaker fleet that includes the Coast
Guard’s preferences regarding required numbers and capabilities for polar
icebreakers, and its preferred acquisition option for achieving and maintaining a
polar icebreaker fleet with those numbers and capabilities; and
•
provide funding to begin implementing one or more options for the long-term
sustainment of the polar icebreaker fleet.
Legislative Activity in 112th Congress
FY2012 Funding Request
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2012 budget requests $39 million for its polar icebreaking
program. The budget proposes decommissioning Polar Sea in FY2011 and transitioning its crew
to the reactivated Polar Star.
FY2012 DHS Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2017)
House
H.R. 2017 as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 112-91 of May 26, 2011)
provides funds for the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses (OE) account with certain provisos,
including the following:
… Provided further, That of the funds provided under this heading, $75,000,000 shall be
withheld from obligation for Coast Guard Headquarters Directorates until (1) a revised
future-years capital investment plan for fiscal years 2012 through 2016, as specified under
the heading `‘Coast Guard, Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements’ of this Act, that is
reviewed by the Comptroller General of the United States; (2) the fiscal year 2012 second
quarter acquisition report; and (3) the polar operations high latitude study are submitted to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives:…
This proviso is mentioned on page 72 of the committee’s report.
Regarding funding for the DHS Office of the Under Secretary of Management, the committee’s
report states:
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $2,550,000 for the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary for
Management, $5,008,000 below the amount requested. None of the requested funding is
provided for analysis of icebreaking requirements in the polar region. The Committee finds
this study to be unnecessary, given the extensive analysis that has already been done on the
subject. In the Department’s own budget justification, there is mention of the “numerous
existing and ongoing studies” on the issue. (Page 15)
Congressional Research Service
30
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
The committee’s report provides $39 million in the Coast Guard’s OE account for polar
operations (see page 72) and states:
POLAR OPERATIONS
The Committee appreciates the restoration of $39,000,000 in operating expenses for polar
operations within the Coast Guard’s budget. However, the restoration of these operational
costs to the operator of the Nation’s polar icebreaker fleet does little to assure the Committee
that national interests in the polar regions can be effectively served in coming years. The
current Administration has failed to execute the existing National Arctic Policy, as stated in
National Security Presidential Directive-66 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-25
(NSPD–66 / HSPD–25) released on January 9, 2009, and appears to be permitting the
Congressional Research Service
26
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
atrophy of national polar capabilities. As the sustainable service lives of the Coast Guard’s
heavy icebreakers rapidly approach their expiration, the need for polar capabilities is
intensifying due to the presence of increased vessel traffic and energy exploration resources
in the Arctic. Rather than address these issues with a cogent implementation plan, the
Administration and Department are delaying the submittal of the Coast Guard’s High
Latitude Study and are requesting an additional $5,000,000 for further study of polar needs.
As noted previously in this report, the Committee denies the request for the additional
$5,000,000 under the [DHS] Under Secretary for Management since the needs are well
known and sufficiently documented. The Coast Guard is directed to submit the High Latitude
Study and brief the Committee on the resources required to meet polar mission requirements
and fulfill the policy directives set forth in NSPD–66 / HSPD–25 no later than 45 days after
the date of enactment of this Act. (Pages 74-75)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 112-74 of September 7, 2011) on
H.R. 2017, stated the following regarding funding for the DHS Office of the Under Secretary of
Management:
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $2,558,000 for the Immediate Office of the Under Secretary,
$175,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 level and $5,000,000 below the budget request. The
recommendation includes a reduction of $175,000 below fiscal year 2011 for administrative
savings, professional services, and operational support, as requested.
The Committee denies the request for $5,000,000 for another study of the need for Coast
Guard icebreakers in the Arctic region. As the ice recedes in the Arctic region, commerce
and natural resource exploration is expected to increase significantly. It is critical that the
Coast Guard be given the tools to operate effectively in this remote area of the world, a
region that is rich with potential natural resources. Yet, the Coast Guard has no operating
polar class heavy icebreakers and virtually no infrastructure in the region. The Polar Star,
first deployed in 1976, is being repaired, but only because Congress took the initiative to
fund the repair. When the repair is complete in 2013, the Polar Star is expected to have a
useful life of only 7–10 years. It takes approximately 8–10 years to build a polar class
icebreaker, yet the administration has no plans for new assets. Russia, on the other hand,
currently has six operational icebreakers, including nuclear-powered vessels and is preparing
to aggressively pursue the estimated 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural
resources in the Arctic.
Since fiscal year 2005, the Committee has urged the Office of Management and Budget and
the Department of Homeland Security to address this issue. In fiscal year 2005, the
Congressional Research Service
31
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Committee required the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] to conduct a comprehensive
study of the role of Coast Guard icebreakers in supporting United States operations in the
Antarctic and the Arctic. The NAS report concluded that the Nation “should immediately
begin to program, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to replace the Polar Star
and Polar Sea.”
The Committee funded a Presidentially requested study of Coast Guard requirements for
assets in the Arctic region in fiscal year 2009. The report, completed in July 2010, wasn’t
submitted to the Committee until July 2011. The report concluded that the Coast Guard
requires “three heavy and three medium icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions” and “six
heavy and four medium icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions and maintain the
continuous presence requirements of the Naval Operations Concept.”
Congressional Research Service
27
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Current and past Coast Guard Commandants have testified to this need and the United States
Transportation Command concluded that the United States has national, strategic, and
economic interests in the Arctic which requires construction of new polar icebreakers. Yet
two successive administrations have failed to seek funding for these assets.
Given the extensive consensus that has been built over the past 5 years, the Committee does
not believe yet another icebreaker study is necessary and instead urges the Department to
move forward on fulfilling the Nation’s icebreaking requirements for the polar regions by
developing a concept of operations and a resource plan. This process can be achieved by
leveraging existing resources and expertise from the Coast Guard and the Science and
Technology Directorate. As a result of the current fiscal climate and need to provide the best
value to the taxpayer, the development of a concept of operations shall include consideration
of using Government-owned vessels as well as non Government-owned vessels to achieve
the Nation’s icebreaking needs. The Committee is to be briefed on the development of this
plan no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act. (Pages 16-17)
Regarding funding in the Coast Guard’s OE account for polar operations, the report states:
POLAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING
The Committee fully funds the request of $39,000,000 for the Coast Guard’s polar
icebreaking program. Reclaiming budget authority for this program will enable the Coast
Guard to make critical decisions with respect to operations and maintenance of its polar
icebreakers. Many unanswered questions remain relating to the Coast Guard’s long-term
ability to maintain a presence in the polar regions. In a report issued last September, the
Government Accountability Office said the Coast Guard lacks adequate infrastructure or
equipment in the Arctic. This has been a growing concern due to the melting ice in the Arctic
region. In a separate report, the DHS–OIG recommended that the Coast Guard work with the
administration to clarify its Arctic and Antarctic mission requirements, something this
Committee has been urging for years. The Coast Guard’s high latitude study, which was
completed in 2010, concluded that additional icebreaking assets are necessary in the polar
regions. This followed a National Academy of Sciences study that made similar conclusions.
Given the extensive consensus that has been built in recent years, the Committee denies the
request for the DHS Under Secretary for Management to conduct redundant assessment of
capabilities necessary to operate in the polar regions. The Committee instead urges the
Department to move forward on fulfilling the Nation’s icebreaking requirements for the
polar regions by developing a concept of operations and a resource plan.
The Coast Guard is required to submit to the Committee the results of its business case
analysis for replacing or performing service life extensions on the Coast Guard’s two heavy
polar icebreakers. This effort was required in Senate Report 111–31 relating to
Congressional Research Service
32
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 and the Coast Guard Authorization Act, 2010 (Public
Law 111–281). (Pages 86-87)
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011 (H.R. 2838)
House
Section 307 of H.R. 2838 as reported by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (
H.Rept. 112-229 of October 3, 2011) states:
SEC. 307. DECOMMISSIONINGS.
H.R. 2838 was introduced on September 2, 2011, and ordered to be reported (amended) on
September 8, 2011. Section 307 of the bill as introduced states:
SEC. 307. DECOMMISSIONINGS.
Congressional Research Service
28
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(a) Polar Sea- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard shall decommission the USCGC POLAR SEA (WAGB
11).
(b) Polar Star- Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commandant
of the Coast Guard shall decommission the USCGC POLAR STAR (WAGB 10).
Section 308 of the bill as introducedreported states:
SEC. 308. ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL COAST GUARD PRESENCE
IN HIGH LATITUDE REGIONS.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives assessing the need for additional Coast Guard
prevention and response capability in the high latitude regions. The assessment shall address
needs for all Coast Guard mission areas, including search and rescue, marine pollution
response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime commerce. The Secretary shall
include in the report—
(1) an assessment of the high latitude operating capabilities of all current Coast Guard assets
other than icebreakers, including assets acquired under the Deepwater program;
(2) an assessment of projected needs for Coast Guard forward operating basesoperations in the high
latitude regions;
and
(3) an assessment of shore infrastructure, personnel, logistics, communications, and
resources requirements to support Coast Guard forward operating bases in the high latitude
regions.operations in the high latitude regions,
including forward operating bases and existing infrastructure in the furthest north locations
that are ice free, or nearly ice free, year round.
H.Rept. 112-229 states:
Administration reform
The Coast Guard does an outstanding job for the Nation. However, in the current budget
environment, the Service’s authorities must be reviewed to find ways to improve operations
while reducing costs. Toward that end, H.R. 2838 repeals antiquated and inoperable
Congressional Research Service
33
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
authorities, places spending limitations on other authorities, and sets a timeline for
decommissioning the Service’s currently inoperable POLAR class icebreakers. (Page 18)
Regarding Section 307 and 308, the report states:
Sec. 307. Decommissionings
This section requires the Commandant to decommission the POLAR SEA within 6 months
of the date of enactment of this Act and the POLAR STAR within 3 years of the date of
enactment of this Act. Neither Class I icebreakers is currently operational. The POLAR
STAR is currently undergoing a sustainment project and is scheduled to return to service in
fiscal year 2013. The Coast Guard estimates the POLAR STAR could be operational through
fiscal year 2019.
Sec. 308. Assessment of the needs for additional Coast Guard presence in high latitude
regions
This Section requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to the Committee on the
Coast Guard’s high latitude capabilities. This report must address prevention and response
capability in the high latitude regions and must touch on all Coast Guard mission areas.
Additionally, it must provide an assessment of the high latitude operating capabilities of all
current Coast Guard assets other than icebreakers, including assets acquired under the
Deepwater program; an assessment of projected needs for Coast Guard forward operating
bases in the high latitude regions; and an assessment of shore infrastructure, personnel,
logistics, communications, and resources requirements to support Coast Guard forward
operating bases in the high latitude regions. (Pages 21-22)
In discussing the legislative history of the bill as reported, H.Rept. 112-229 states in part:
Mr. Landry offered and withdrew an amendment to require the Secretary to contract with a
private entity for the operation of two polar class icebreakers.… Mr. Larsen offered and
withdrew an amendment to strike section 307 of the bill relating to POLAR class
icebreakers. (Page 25)
Statement of Administration Policy
On November 3, 2011, the Administration issued a statement of Administration policy on H.R.
2838 stating the following:
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2838 because it includes a
provision [Sec. 307] that would require the Coast Guard to decommission the icebreaker
USCGC POLAR STAR. The Administration has requested, and Congress has appropriated,
funds to reactivate the USCGC POLAR STAR by December 2012 and extend that vessel’s
service life for seven to 10 years. This effort will stabilize the United States’ existing polar
fleet until long-term icebreaking capability requirements are finalized. By directing the
Commandant to decommission the USCGC POLAR STAR within three years, the bill would
effectively reduce the vessel’s service life to two years and create a significant gap in the
Nation’s icebreaking capacity. The Administration supports Title II (Coast Guard and
Servicemember Parity) [of H.R. 2838], which would promote parity between the Coast
Guard and the other branches of the armed forces. The Administration looks forward to
Congressional Research Service
34
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
working with the Congress to improve H.R. 2838 as the bill moves through the legislative
process.50
50
Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2838 – Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011, November
3, 2011, accessed November 3, 2011 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
29
.
61
Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 (S.
1665)
Senate
S. 1665 was introduced on October 6, 2011, and ordered to be reported from the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute favorably on November 2, 2011. The text of the bill as ordered to be reported on
November 2 and the committee’s report on the bill were not available from the Legislative
Information System as of November 28, 2011.
Section 202 of the bill as introduced on October 6, 2011, states:
SEC. 202. CLARIFICATION OF COAST GUARD ICE OPERATIONS MISSION.
(a) Coast Guard Provision of Federal Icebreaking Services- Chapter 5 of title 14, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 86 the following:
‘SEC. 87. PROVISION OF ICEBREAKING SERVICES.
‘(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as provided in
subsection (b), the Coast Guard shall be the sole supplier of icebreaking services, on an
advancement or reimbursable basis, to each Federal agency that requires icebreaking
services.
‘(b) Exception- In the event that a Federal agency requires icebreaking services and the
Coast Guard is unable to provide the services, the Federal agency may acquire icebreaking
services from another entity.’.
(b) Priority of Coast Guard Missions in Polar Regions(1) SECTION 110- Section 110(b)(2) of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15
U.S.C. 4109(b)(2)) is amended—
(A) by inserting ‘to execute the statutory missions of the Coast Guard and’ after ‘needed’;
and
(B) by inserting ‘and all budget authority related to such operations’ after ‘projects,’.
(2) SECTION 312- Section 312(c) of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act
of 1984 (16 U.S.C. 2441(c)) is amended by inserting ‘to execute the statutory missions of the
Coast Guard and’ after ‘needed’.
61
Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2838 – Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011, November
3, 2011, accessed November 3, 2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/
saphr2838_20111103.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(c) Conforming Amendment- The table of contents for chapter 5 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 86 the following:
‘87. Provision of icebreaking services.’.
Section 402 of the bill as introduced on October 6, 2011, states:
SEC. 402. AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN UNITED STATES POLAR ICEBREAKING
CAPABILITY.
(a) In General- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
acquire, either through new construction or the rebuilding, renovating, or improving of
existing Coast Guard assets, not less than 2 heavy polar icebreakers for operation by the
Coast Guard.
(b) Necessary Measures- The Secretary shall take all necessary measures, including the
provision of necessary operation and maintenance funding, to ensure that—
(1) the Coast Guard maintains, at a minimum, its current vessel capacity, including 1
medium and 2 heavy polar icebreakers, for carrying out ice operations and other Coast Guard
missions in the Arctic and Antarctic, Great Lakes, and New England regions; and
(2) any such vessels that are not fully operational are brought up to, and maintained at, full
operational capability.
(c) Reimbursement- Nothing in this section shall preclude the Secretary from seeking
reimbursement for operation and maintenance costs of the polar icebreakers from other
Federal agencies and entities, including foreign countries, that benefit from the use of the
polar icebreakers.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating such sums as may be necessary—
(1) to acquire the polar icebreakers under subsection (a); and
(2) to maintain and operate the polar icebreaker fleet under subsection (b).
A November 2, 2011, press report stated that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, as part of its markup of S. 1665 on November 2, 2011, adopted an amendment
that would bar the expenditure of funds to decommission Polar Sea and Polar Star until
replacements are acquired.62 The text of the amendment, as linked from the November 2, 2011,
press report, is as follows:
Beginning on page 20, strike line 25 and all that follows through page 21, line 19, and insert
the following: ‘‘Guard to avoid jeopardizing national security, law enforcement, maritime
safety, search and rescue, environmental protection, disaster response, scientific research,
natural resource protection, marine pollution response and prevention, and fishery
enforcement missions.
62
Anne L. Kim and Lauren Gardner, “Committee Backs Coast Guard, Maritime, Environmental Bills,” CQ Markup &
Vote Coverage, November 2, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
36
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(b) NECESSARY MEASURES.—The Secretary shall take all necessary measures, including
the provision of necessary operation and maintenance funding, to ensure that—(1) the Coast
Guard maintains, at a minimum, its current vessel capacity, including 1 medium and 2 heavy
polar icebreakers, for carrying out ice operations and other Coast Guard missions in the
Arctic and Antarctic, Great Lakes, and New England regions; and (2) any such vessels that
are not fully operational are brought up to, and maintained at, full operational capability.
(c) CURRENT ICEBREAKER MAINTENANCE.—Until new icebreakers are acquired
under subsection (a), the Commandant of the Coast Guard may not—
(1) transfer, relinquish ownership of, or recycle the POLAR SEA or POLAR STAR;
(2) remove any part of the POLAR SEA unless it will be installed on the POLAR STAR
before it is put in “active” status and the Commandant certifies to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate; and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives that it is not possible for the POLAR STAR
to function properly without doing so;
(3) change the existing homeport of any Coast 4 Guard icebreaker;
(4) expend any funds—
(A) for any expenses directly or indirectly associated with the decommissioning of either of
the vessels, including expenses for dock use or other goods and services;
(B) for any personnel expenses directly or indirectly associated with the decommissioning of
either of the vessels, including expenses for decommissioning officer;
(C) for any expenses associated with a decommissioning ceremony for either of the vessels;
(D) to appoint a decommissioning officer to be affiliated with either of the vessels; or
(E) to place either of the vessels in inactive status.
(d) REIMBURSEMENT.—Nothing in this section shall preclude the Secretary from seeking
reimbursement for operation and maintenance costs of the polar icebreakers from other
Federal agencies and entities, including foreign governments, that benefit from the use of the
polar icebreakers.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There63
Polar Protection Act (H.R. 3113)
H.R. 3113 was introduced on October 5, 2011. The text of the bill as introduced is as follows:
A BILL
63
The reported text of the amendment ends at this point. Source for reported text of amendment: http://www.cq.com, as
linked from Anne L. Kim and Lauren Gardner, “Committee Backs Coast Guard, Maritime, Environmental Bills,” CQ
Markup & Vote Coverage, November 2, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
37
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
To ensure the icebreaking capabilities of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Polar Protection Act’.
SEC. 2. LONG-TERM LEASE OF POLAR CAPABLE ICEBREAKERS.
(a) In General- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating,
subject to the availability of appropriations, may use competitive procedures to enter into
leases for 2 icebreakers that meet the requirements of subsection (c).
(b) Schedule- In exercising authority under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
(1) publish a request for proposals not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act;
(2) require submission of proposals not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act;
(3) make the final selection of proposals not later than 279 days after the date of enactment
of this Act; and
(4) require that each icebreaker leased under this section begin service not later than 3 years
after the date the proposal for the icebreaker is selected.
(c) Lease Duration- Each lease entered into under this section shall be for a period of not less
than 10 years.
(d) Lease Duration- In addition to such other requirements as are established by the
Secretary, each lease entered into under this section shall require that—
(1) the vessel subject to the lease shall—
(A) be owned and operated by a private entity;
(B) meet the Polar Class 1 requirements for year round operations contained in the ABS
Guide for Building and Classing Vessels intended for Navigation in Polar Waters, 2008; and
(C) be built in the United States; and
(2) the person entering the lease with the Secretary shall—
(A) maintain the vessel that is subject to the lease solely in shipyards located in the United
States;
(B) ensure that such vessel is available for service not less than 300 days per year;
(C) comply with the delivery requirement under subsection (b)(4); and
Congressional Research Service
38
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(D) be able to carry out the purpose of section 307(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 2010 (14 U.S.C. 92 note).
POLAR-C Act (S. 1620)
S. 1620 was introduced on September 22, 2011. The text of the bill as introduced is as follows:
A BILL
To ensure the icebreaking capabilities of the United States and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES.
This Act may be cited as the `Preserve Our Large Arctic Response Capability Act’ or as the
`POLAR-C Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDING; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Finding- Congress finds that the United States priorities for maritime transportation in the
polar regions set out in the National Security Presidential Directive 66 and Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 25 dated January 9, 2009 are—
(1) to facilitate safe, secure, and reliable navigation;
(2) to protect maritime commerce; and
(3) to protect the environment.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the United States should maintain
domestic heavy and medium duty icebreaker assets to meet United States Coast Guard
statutory requirements and priorities for maritime transportation and that maintaining less
than a sufficient number of heavy duty icebreaking assets jeopardizes national security, law
enforcement, maritime safety, environmental protection, disaster response, scientific
research, and natural resource protection in the polar regions and Alaska.
SEC. 3. ICEBREAKING CAPABILITY.
(a) Definitions- In this section:
(1) COVERED VESSELS- The term `covered vessels’ means—
(A) Coast Guard Cutter POLAR SEA (WAGB 11); and
(B) the Coast Guard Cutter POLAR STAR (WAGB 10).
(2) INACTIVE STATUS- The term `inactive status’ includes a status of—
(A) out of commission, in reserve;
(B) out of service, in reserve; or
Congressional Research Service
39
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(C) pending placement out of commission.
(3) SUBMISSION DATE- The term `submission date’ means—
(A) October 15, 2011; or
(B) if this Act is enacted after October 15, 2011, the date that is 1 day after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Submission of Business Case Analysis- Not later than the submission date, the
Commandant of the United States Coast Guard shall submit to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives the polar icebreaker business case analysis
prepared by the Coast Guard.
(c) Maintenance of Existing Vessels- Until the date that is 2 years after the date the
Commandant of the United States Coast Guard makes the submission required by subsection
(b)—
(1) the Commandant may not—
(A) transfer, relinquish ownership of, dismantle, or recycle the covered vessels;
(B) change the homeport of either of the covered vessels;
(C) expend any funds—
(i) for any expenses directly or indirectly associated with the decommissioning of either of
the covered vessels, including expenses for dock use or other goods and services;
(ii) for any personnel expenses directly or indirectly associated with the decommissioning of
either of the covered vessels, including expenses for decommissioning officer; or
(iii) for any expenses associated with a decommissioning ceremony for either of the covered
vessels;
(D) appoint a decommissioning officer to be affiliated with either of the covered vessels; or
(E) place either of the covered vessels in inactive status; and
(2) the Administrator of the Maritime Administration may not receive, maintain, dismantle,
or recycle either of the covered vessels.
Congressional Research Service
40
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Appendix A. Coast Guard Activities Since 2008 To
Assess Requirements and Options for Polar
Icebreakers
This appendix presents information on Coast Guard activities since 2008 to assess requirements
and acquisition options for polar icebreakers.
The Coast Guard stated in February 2008 that it
is awaiting the identification and prioritization of U.S. national policy in the Polar Regions in
order to identify and develop the appropriate capability. In the meantime, the CG is
proceeding with pre-acquisition activities, starting with project identification, to assess
current capability gaps in Coast Guard mission performance in the high latitudes regions.5164
In connection with this statement, it can be noted that a document establishing U.S. national
policy in the Arctic—National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25)—was issued by the George W. Bush Administration on
January 12, 2009.5265
A March 24, 2008, press report stated that
[Coast Guard] Commanders in Alaska plan to conduct an unprecedented expedition to the
Arctic this summer, including a trip already underway by the Healy, to get a clear sense of
their capabilities and problems operating above the Bering Strait. When that survey is
finished, probably by August [2008], [then-Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad] Allen
and the commander of District 17, Rear Adm. Arthur “Gene” Brooks, will be able to make
their case to Congress for funding and new gear, Allen said.5366
On July 16, 2008, then-Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, testified that
Today, our nation is at a crossroads with Coast Guard domestic and international icebreaking
capabilities. We have important decisions to make. And I believe we must address our
icebreaking needs now, to ensure we will continue to prosper in the years and decades to
come, whether on the Great Lakes, the critical waterways of the East Coast or the harsh
operating environments of the polar region.5467
An August 17, 2008, press report quoted Admiral Allen as stating that, in light of the time
required to build a new polar icebreaker, “I think we’re at a crisis point on making a decision.”55
(...continued)
saphr2838_20111103.pdf.
51
68
64
Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12, 2008, op cit.
52
For more on NSPD 66/HSPD 25, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for
Congress, coordinated by Ronald O'Rourke.
5366
Philip Ewing, “CG Steps Up Bid to Rescue Icebreaker Funding,” Navy Times, March 24, 2008.
5467
Transcript of spoken remarks of Admiral Allen at July 16, 2008, hearing on Coast Guard icebreaking needs before
the Coast Guard and Maritime transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
5568
Andrew C. Revkin, “A Push To Increase Icebreakers In The Arctic,” New York Times, August 17, 2008.
65
Congressional Research Service
30
.
41
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Almost two years later—on May 10, 2010—a press report quoted him as stating, “We need to be
able to project U.S. sovereignty up there [i.e., the Arctic] and do the missions that we need to do.
We need to have a serious discussion about icebreakers. It has not concluded. It’s not even started,
and you can see me be a little more vocal on that on the 26th of May [2010] because my change of
command [i.e., the end of his term in office as Commandant of the Coast Guard] is the 25th of
May.”5669
An August 30, 2010, press report stated that the current Commandant of the Coast Guard,
Admiral Robert Papp,
has not yet discussed the matter [of polar icebreakers] with Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano because he has been focused on dealing with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill since he took the helm of the Coast Guard in May.
“I will have to make the case with my secretary on what I think the best way ahead [for
icebreakers] is,” he said. “I’ve got my staff looking at those options and what we might do,
and then once we discern what the best way ahead is, then we’re going to have to sell that to
the administration and hopefully get the funding from Congress.”5770
A September 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO)GAO report on the Coast Guard’s efforts
to identify Arctic requirements in
general stated:
The Coast Guard has taken specific action to identify Arctic requirements and gaps while
also collecting relevant information from routine operations. The High Latitude Study is the
centerpiece of the agency’s efforts to determine its Arctic requirements. The Coast Guard has
also established temporary operating locations in the Arctic and conducted biweekly Arctic
overflights to obtain more information on the Arctic operating environment. In addition,
information gathered during the Coast Guard’s routine missions––ice breaking, search and
rescue, and others––also informs requirements. The agency’s preliminary efforts to identify
its Arctic requirements generally align with key practices for agencies defining missions and
desired outcomes.
The Coast Guard faces Arctic challenges including limited information, minimal assets and
infrastructure, personnel issues, and difficult planning and funding decisions, but is taking
initial steps to address these challenges. Specifically, the Coast Guard does not currently
have Arctic maritime domain awareness––a full understanding of variables that could affect
the security, safety, economy, or environment in the Arctic––but is acquiring additional
Arctic vessel tracking data, among other things, to address this issue. In addition, the Coast
Guard’s Arctic assets and infrastructure are limited and not suitable for the harsh
environment, but the agency is testing equipment and using alternative options to mitigate
gaps. Finally, the Coast Guard faces uncertainty over the timing of predicted environmental
changes in the Arctic, as well as over future funding streams. To address these challenges the
5669
Cid Standifer, Dan Taylor and Zachary M. Peterson, “Notes From The Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Conference
And Exhibition, May 3-5, 2010, National Harbor, MD,” Inside the Navy, May 10, 2010. On May 1, 2010, Janet
Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, announced that Allen would serve as the National
Incident Commander for the Administration’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Allen
stepped down as Commandant on May 25, 2010, and retired from active duty service in the Coast Guard on June 30,
2010, but continued as a civilian in his role as the National Incident Commander for the oil spill. A September 27,
2010, press report states that Allen would step down as National Incident Commander on September 30, 2010. (Rick
Jervis, “BP Spill Shapes Allen’s Legacy,” Navy Times.com, September 27, 2010.
5770
Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Julls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010.
Congressional Research Service
31
.
42
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Coast Guard obtains scientific data on Arctic climate change and is studying its Arctic
resource requirements to support potential future funding needs.5871
The report also stated:
The Coast Guard has multiple efforts underway to better understand the agency’s future
requirements and gaps in both the Arctic and Antarctic with its primary effort being the High
Latitude Study, an effort undertaken in response to congressional direction. In August 2009,
the Coast Guard contracted out the development of the High Latitude Study with the goal of
producing three related mission analyses related to (1) Polar icebreaking needs, (2) all 11
Coast Guard missions in the Arctic region, and (3) all 11 Coast Guard missions in the
Antarctic region. In carrying out the study, contractors have conducted literature reviews,
held workshops to obtain Coast Guard stakeholder input, and conducted site visits and
interviews with Coast Guard units in Alaska as well as with other stakeholders, including
private sector, federal, state, local, Alaska Native, and international interest groups. Coast
Guard officials estimate the study’s cost at $1.7 million and that all three volumes will be
ready for Coast Guard internal review in summer 2010; however, they won’t be released
publicly until a later date.
The Arctic mission analysis piece of the High Latitude Study is expected to include
•
an analysis of the functional requirements to carry out the Coast Guard’s existing
missions in the Arctic,
•
an analysis of how the Coast Guard might close any operational gaps,
•
solutions for a range of future demand scenarios such as a mass search and rescue
incident or an Arctic oil spill (including looking at partnerships and opportunities to
leverage resources), and
•
a rough order of magnitude cost estimate.
According to Coast Guard officials, the High Latitude Study is not expected to detail specific
recommended solutions or assets, but rather identify the types of capabilities needed in the
Arctic. In addition, while not Arctic-specific, DHS and the Coast Guard have begun a
comprehensive Fleet Mix Analysis—an analysis of the capabilities, number, and mix of
assets it needs to fulfill the agency’s missions. According to Coast Guard officials, this
analysis is due to be completed in December 2010 and is expected to include more specific
fleet requirements for surface operations in the Bering Sea region of the Arctic but not above
the Arctic Circle.5972
The Coast Guard provided the above-cited High Latitude Study to Congress in July 2011. The
study, dated July 2010 on its cover, analyzes and makes a series of findings relating to U.S. needs
for polar icebreakers. (See “Coast Guard High Latitude Study Provided to Congress in July 2011”
in “Background.”)
5871
Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:]Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but More
Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial, GAO-10-870, September 2010, summary page.
5972
Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:]Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but More
Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial, GAO-10-870, September 2010, pp. 24-26.
Congressional Research Service
32
.
43
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Appendix B. Legislative Activity in 111th and
110th Congresses
This appendix presents information on legislative activity regarding polar icebreakers in the 111th
and the 110th Congresses, beginning with legislative activity for FY2011 and working backwards.
Headings below that lack Public Law (P.L.) numbers indicate bills that were not enacted into law
by the end of the 111th and 110th Congresses. Details on the final legislative actions taken on these
bills are available from the Legislative Information System (LIS).
FY2011 DOD and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R.
1473/P.L. 112-10)
The text of the FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act
(H.R. 1473/P.L. 112-10 of April 15, 2011) does not provide any funding specifically identified as
being for polar icebreaker sustainment or refurbishment, or for acquisition of new polar
icebreakers.
FY2011 DHS Appropriations Bill (S. 3607)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-222 of July 19, 2010) on S. 3607
of the 111th Congress, did not recommend any funding in the Coast Guard’s AC&I account for
polar icebreaker sustainment or refurbishment, or for acquisition of new polar icebreakers (pages
82-83). The report states:
POLAR ICEBREAKER SUSTAINMENT
The Coast Guard shall continue to periodically brief the Committee on progress made to
reactivate CGC Polar Star. According to the Coast Guard, reactivation work will be
completed by 2013, increasing the fleet of operational polar icebreakers to three. As
discussed in the “Operating Expenses” section of this report, the Committee expects
sufficient funding to be requested in fiscal year 2012 to field a crew for the vessel.
The Committee recently learned that the Polar Sea has been unexpectedly taken out of
service due to excessive wear in its main diesel engines and will likely be in a maintenance
status and unavailable for operations until at least January 2011. As a result of this situation,
the scheduled fall 2010 Arctic patrol will be cancelled as will an Antarctic Operation Deep
Freeze standby period (December 2010-January 2011). The Committee is aware of a rootcause failure-analysis into the underlying cause of the engine wear. The Committee is to be
briefed on its results upon its completion and the Coast Guard’s plans to address them. (Page
86)
The report also states:
Congressional Research Service
33
.
44
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
The report also states:
POLAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING
The Committee notes the budget request once again does not transfer operating and
maintenance funds for the polar icebreakers from the National Science Foundation [NSF] to
the Coast Guard despite congressional direction to the contrary. P.L. 111-117 transfers
$54,000,000 from the NSF to the Coast Guard for icebreaking services to cover all
anticipated operation and maintenance costs for fiscal year 2010.6073 For fiscal year 2012, the
Committee expects the operating and maintenance budget authority and associated FTE to be
included in the Coast Guard’s budget request.
The Coast Guard expects the Polar Star to be reactivated in fiscal year 2013. In keeping with
the standard practice of crewing ships in advance to ensure appropriate training and
readiness, fielding a crew for the Polar Star is required in fiscal year 2012. The Committee
expects sufficient funding to be included in the Coast Guard’s fiscal year 2012 request for
this purpose.
The Committee also notes that the Coast Guard’s analysis of national mission needs in the
high latitude regions has yet to be completed. This effort was funded in fiscal year 2009 to
inform the national polar policy debate. The results of this study are to be submitted
expeditiously and include projected assets and resources necessary to address identified
requirements. (Page 80; material in brackets as in original)
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619/P.L. 111-281)
H.R. 3619 was passed by the House on October 23, 2009, and by the Senate on May 7, 2010. The
Senate-passed version substituted the text of S. 1194 as reported by the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee (see below), with modifications. The House and Senate
resolved their differences and passed the final version of the bill on September 29 and 30, 2010.
The bill was presented to the President on October 4, 2010, and signed into law as P.L. 111-281
on October 15, 2010.
House
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619) as reported by the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure (H.Rept. 111-303, Part 1, of October 16, 2009) contains two
provisions relating to polar icebreaking—Section 311 and Section 1316.
Section 311 states:
SEC. 311. ARCTIC MARINE SHIPPING ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
60
73
The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3288/P.L. 111-117 of December 16, 2009) states, in the
paragraph that appropriates funds for NSF research and related activities, that the funds are made available provided,
among other things, “That from funds specified in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for icebreaking services,
$54,000,000 shall be transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard ‘Operating Expenses’ within 60 days of enactment of this
Act….” The conference report on H.R. 3288 (H.Rept. 111-366 of December 8, 2009) states:
The conference agreement transfers $54,000,000 from NSF to the United States Coast Guard
(USCG) for icebreaking services to cover all anticipated operation and maintenance costs for fiscal
year 2010. The conferees expect that in future years all operation and maintenance budget authority
for these USCG icebreakers will be requested by the Department of Homeland Security. (Page 766)
Congressional Research Service
34
.
45
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Section 311 states:
SEC. 311. ARCTIC MARINE SHIPPING ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to ensure safe, secure, and reliable maritime
shipping in the Arctic including the availability of aids to navigation, vessel escorts, spill
response capability, and maritime search and rescue in the Arctic.
(b) International Maritime Organization Agreements- To carry out the purpose of this
section, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall work
through the International Maritime Organization to establish agreements to promote
coordinated action among the United States, Russia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark
and other seafaring and Arctic nations to ensure, in the Arctic—
(1) placement and maintenance of aids to navigation;
(2) appropriate icebreaking escort, tug, and salvage capabilities;
(3) oil spill prevention and response capability;
(4) maritime domain awareness, including long-range vessel tracking; and
(5) search and rescue.
(c) Coordination by Committee on the Maritime Transportation System- The Committee on
the Maritime Transportation System established under a directive of the President in the
Ocean Action Plan, issued December 17, 2004, shall coordinate the establishment of
domestic transportation policies in the Arctic necessary to carry out the purpose of this
section.
(d) Agreements and Contracts- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may, subject to the availability of appropriations, enter into cooperative
agreements, contracts, or other agreements with, or make grants to individuals and
governments to carry out the purpose of this section or any agreements established under
subsection (b).
(e) Icebreaking- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
promote safe maritime navigation by means of icebreaking where needed to assure the
reasonable demands of commerce.
(f) Demonstration Projects- The Secretary of Transportation may enter into cooperative
agreements, contracts, or other agreements with, or make grants to, individuals to conduct
demonstration projects to reduce emissions or discharges from vessels operating in the
Arctic.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated—
(1) to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating—
(A) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015 for seasonal operations in the
Arctic; and
(B) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to carry out agreements
established under subsection (d); and
Congressional Research Service
46
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(2) to the Secretary of Transportation $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015
to conduct demonstration projects under subsection (f).
Congressional Research Service
35
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(h) Icebreakers(1) ANALYSES- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of
completion of the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess Arctic polar ice-breaking mission
requirements, which ever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall—
(A) conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis of—
(i) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of icebreakers for operation by the
Coast Guard,
(ii) constructing new icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard, and
(iii) any combination of the activities described in clauses (i) and (ii), to carry out the
missions of the Coast Guard; and
(B) conduct an analysis of the impact on mission capacity and the ability of the United States
to maintain a presence in the Arctic regions through the year 2020 if recapitalization of the
icebreaker fleet, either by constructing new icebreakers or rebuilding, renovating, or
improving the existing fleet of icebreakers, is not fully funded.
(2) REPORTS TO CONGRESS(A) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of completion of
the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess Arctic ice-breaking mission requirements, which
ever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a report containing the
results of the study, together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate
under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(B) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall
submit reports containing the results of the analyses required under subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (1), together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate
under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(i) Arctic Definition- In this section the term ‘Arctic’ has the same meaning as in section 112
of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4111).
Section 1316 states:
SEC. 1316. ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL COAST GUARD
PRESENCE IN HIGH LATITUDE REGIONS.
Within 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives assessing the need for additional Coast Guard
prevention and response capability in the high latitude regions. The assessment shall address
Congressional Research Service
47
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
needs for all Coast Guard mission areas, including search and rescue, marine pollution
response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime commerce. The Secretary shall
include in the report—
Congressional Research Service
36
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(1) an assessment of the high latitude operating capabilities of all current Coast Guard assets,
including assets acquired under the Deepwater program;
(2) an assessment of projected needs for Coast Guard forward operating bases in the high
latitude regions;
(3) an assessment of shore infrastructure, personnel, logistics, communications, and
resources requirements to support Coast Guard forward operating bases in the high latitude
regions;
(4) an assessment of the need for high latitude icebreaking capability and the capability of
the current high latitude icebreaking assets of the Coast Guard, including—
(A) whether the Coast Guard’s high latitude icebreaking fleet is meeting current mission
performance goals;
(B) whether the fleet is capable of meeting projected mission performance goals; and
(C) an assessment of the material condition, safety, and working conditions aboard high
latitude icebreaking assets, including the effect of those conditions on mission performance;
(5) a detailed estimate of acquisition costs for each of the assets (including shore
infrastructure) necessary for additional prevention and response capability in high latitude
regions for all Coast Guard mission areas, and an estimate of operations and maintenance
costs for such assets for the initial 10-year period of operations; and
(6) detailed cost estimates (including operating and maintenance for a period of 10 years) for
high latitude icebreaking capability to ensure current and projected future mission
performance goals are met, including estimates of the costs to—
(A) renovate and modernize the Coast Guard’s existing high latitude icebreaking fleet; and
(B) replace the Coast Guard’s existing high latitude icebreaking fleet.
Senate
On May 7, 2010, the Senate passed S.Amdt. 3912, which amended H.R. 3619 by substituting the
text of S. 1194 as reported by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (see
below), with modifications. The Senate then passed H.R. 3619 the same day. Section 603 of the
Senate-passed version of H.R. 3619 states:
SEC. 603. ICEBREAKERS.
(a) ANALYSES- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of
completion of the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess polar ice-breaking mission
requirements, whichever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall require a
nongovernmental, independent third party (other than the National Academy of Sciences)
which has extensive experience in the analysis of military procurements to—
Congressional Research Service
48
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(1) conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis, taking into account future Coast Guard
budget projections (which assume Coast Guard budget growth of no more than inflation) and
other recapitalization needs, of—
Congressional Research Service
37
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(A) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers for operation
by the Coast Guard,
(B) constructing new polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard,
(C) construction of new polar icebreakers by the National Science Foundation for operation
by the Foundation,
(D) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers by the
National Science Foundation for operation by the Foundation, and
(E) any combination of the activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) to carry
out the missions of the Coast Guard and the National Science Foundation;
(2) conduct an analysis of the impact on mission capacity and the ability of the United States
to maintain a presence in the polar regions through the year 2020 if recapitalization of the
polar icebreaker fleet, either by constructing new polar icebreakers or rebuilding, renovating,
or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers, is not fully funded; and
(3) conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact on all Coast Guard activities, including
operations, maintenance, procurements, and end strength, of the acquisition of polar
icebreakers described in paragraph (1) by the Coast Guard or the National Science
Foundation assuming that total Coast Guard funding will not increase more than the annual
rate of inflation.
(b) Reports to Congress(1) Not later than one year and 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of
completion of the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess polar ice-breaking mission
requirements, whichever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a
report containing the results of the study, together with recommendations the Commandant
deems appropriate under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
(2) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall
submit reports containing the results of the analyses required under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a), together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate under
section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
Final Version
Section 307 of H.R. 3619/P.L. 111-281 states:
SEC. 307. ARCTIC MARINE SHIPPING ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
Congressional Research Service
49
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to ensure safe and secure maritime shipping in the
Arctic including the availability of aids to navigation, vessel escorts, spill response
capability, and maritime search and rescue in the Arctic.
(b) International Maritime Organization Agreements- To carry out the purpose of this
section, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating is encouraged
Congressional Research Service
38
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
to enter into negotiations through the International Maritime Organization to conclude and
execute agreements to promote coordinated action among the United States, Russia, Canada,
Iceland, Norway, and Denmark and other seafaring and Arctic nations to ensure, in the
Arctic—
(1) placement and maintenance of aids to navigation;
(2) appropriate marine safety, tug, and salvage capabilities;
(3) oil spill prevention and response capability;
(4) maritime domain awareness, including long-range vessel tracking; and
(5) search and rescue.
(c) Coordination by Committee on the Maritime Transportation System- The Committee on
the Maritime Transportation System established under a directive of the President in the
Ocean Action Plan, issued December 17, 2004, shall coordinate the establishment of
domestic transportation policies in the Arctic necessary to carry out the purpose of this
section.
(d) Agreements and Contracts- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may, subject to the availability of appropriations, enter into cooperative
agreements, contracts, or other agreements with, or make grants to individuals and
governments to carry out the purpose of this section or any agreements established under
subsection (b).
(e) Icebreaking- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
promote safe maritime navigation by means of icebreaking where necessary, feasible, and
effective to carry out the purposes of this section.
(f) Independent Ice Breaker Analyses(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall require a
nongovernmental, independent third party (other than the National Academy of Sciences)
that has extensive experience in the analysis of military procurements, to—
(A) conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis, taking into account future Coast Guard
budget projections (which assume Coast Guard budget growth of no more than inflation) and
other recapitalization needs, of—
(i) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers for operation
by the Coast Guard;
(ii) constructing new polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard;
Congressional Research Service
50
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(iii) construction of new polar icebreakers by the National Science Foundation for operation
by the Foundation;
(iv) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers by the
National Science Foundation for operation by the Foundation; and
Congressional Research Service
39
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(v) any combination of the activities described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) to carry out the
missions of the Coast Guard and the National Science Foundation; and
(B) conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact on all Coast Guard activities, including
operations, maintenance, procurements, and end strength, of the acquisition of polar
icebreakers described in subparagraph (A) by the Coast Guard or the National Science
Foundation assuming that total Coast Guard funding will not increase more than the annual
rate of inflation.
(2) REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit a report containing the
results of the analyses required under paragraph (1), together with recommendations the
Commandant considers appropriate under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code,
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
(g) High-Latitude Study- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the
date of completion of the ongoing High-Latitude Study to assess polar icebreaking mission
requirements for all Coast Guard missions including search and rescue, marine pollution
response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime commerce, whichever occurs
later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a report containing the results of the
study, together with recommendations the Commandant considers appropriate under section
93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives.
(h) Arctic Definition- In this section the term `‘Arctic’ has the same meaning as in section
112 of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4111).
FY2010 and FY2011 Coast Guard Authorization Bill (S. 1194)
Senate
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee reported S. 1194 on October 30,
2009 (S.Rept. 111-95 of October 30, 2009). Section 604 of S. 1194 as reported by the committee
states:
SEC. 604. ICEBREAKERS.
(a) ANALYSES- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of
completion of the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess polar ice-breaking mission
requirements, which ever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall—
(1) conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis of—
(A) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers for operation
by the Coast Guard,
Congressional Research Service
51
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(B) constructing new polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard for operation by the
Coast Guard, and
(C) any combination of the activities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), to carry out the
missions of the Coast Guard; and
Congressional Research Service
40
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(2) conduct an analysis of the impact on mission capacity and the ability of the United States
to maintain a presence in the polar regions through the year 2020 if recapitalization of the
polar icebreaker fleet, either by constructing new polar icebreakers or rebuilding, renovating,
or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers, is not fully funded.
(b) Reports to Congress(1) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of completion of
the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess polar ice-breaking mission requirements, which
ever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a report containing the
results of the study, together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate
under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(2) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall
submit reports containing the results of the analyses required under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a), together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate under
section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
S.Rept. 111-95 summarizes sectionSection 604 on pages 24-25.
On May 7, 2010, the Senate passed S.Amdt. 3912, which amended H.R. 3619 (see above) by
substituting the text of S. 1194 as reported by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee, with modifications. The Senate then passed H.R. 3619 the same day.
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Implementation Act of 2009
(H.R. 2865/S. 1514/S. 1561)
House
H.R. 2865 was introduced on June 12, 2009. Section 8(1)(A) would authorize appropriations of
$750 million per year in FY2011 and FY2012 for the construction of two polar capable
icebreakers.
Section 2 states that Congress finds and declares several things, including the following:
The United States has continuing research, security, environmental, and commercial interests
in the Arctic region that rely on the availability of icebreaker platforms of the Coast Guard.
The Polar Class icebreakers commissioned in the 1970s are in need of replacement.
and
Congressional Research Service
52
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Building new icebreakers, mustering international plans for aids to navigation and other
facilities, and establishing coordinated shipping regulations and oil spill prevention and
response capability through international cooperation, including the approval of the
International Maritime Organization, requires long lead times. Beginning those efforts now,
with the completion of an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment by the eight-nation Arctic
Congressional Research Service
41
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Council, is essential to protect United States interests given the extensive current use of the
Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas by vessels of many nations.
Section 3 states:
To carry out the purpose of this Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating shall work through the International Maritime Organization to establish
agreements to promote coordinated action among the United States, Russia, Canada, Iceland,
Norway, and Denmark and other seafaring and Arctic nations to ensure, in the Arctic....
(2) appropriate icebreaking escort, tug, and salvage capabilities.
Section 6 states, in its entirety:
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall promote safe
maritime navigation by means of icebreaking where needed to assure the reasonable
demands of commerce.
Senate
S. 1514 was introduced on July 24, 2009. Section 8(1)(A) would authorize appropriations of $750
million per year in FY2011 and FY2012 for the construction of two polar capable icebreakers.
Section 2 states that Congress finds and declares several things, including the following:
The United States has continuing research, security, environmental, and commercial interests
in the Arctic region that rely on the availability of icebreaker platforms of the Coast Guard.
The Polar Class icebreakers commissioned in the 1970s are in need of replacement.
and
Building new icebreakers, mustering international plans for aids to navigation and other
facilities, and establishing coordinated shipping regulations and oil spill prevention and
response capability through international cooperation, including the approval of the
International Maritime Organization, requires long lead times. Beginning those efforts now,
with the completion of an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment by the eight-nation Arctic
Council, is essential to protect United States interests given the extensive current use of the
Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas by vessels of many nations.
Section 3 states:
To carry out the purpose of this Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating shall work through the International Maritime Organization to establish
agreements to promote coordinated action among the United States, Russia, Canada, and
other seafaring and Arctic nations to ensure, in the Arctic…
(2) appropriate icebreaking escort, tug, and salvage capabilities….
Congressional Research Service
53
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Section 6 states, in its entirety:
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall promote safe
maritime navigation by means of icebreaking where needed to assure the reasonable
demands of commerce.
Congressional Research Service
42
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
S. 1561 was introduced on August 3, 2009. Section 11(a)(1) would authorize appropriations of
$40 million in FY2011 for the design of a new polar class icebreaker. Section 11(a)(2) would
authorize appropriations of $800 million per year in FY2011 and FY2012 for the construction of
two polar capable icebreakers.
Section 2 states that Congress finds several things, including the following:
The United States has continuing research, security, environmental, and commercial interests
in the Arctic region that rely on the availability of polar class icebreakers of the Coast Guard
that were commissioned in the 1970s and are in need of replacement.
and
Building new icebreakers, forward operating bases, aids to navigation, and other facilities,
and establishing coordinated shipping regulations and oil spill prevention and response
capability through international cooperation requires long lead times.
Section 5 states:
It is the sense of Congress that, to carry out the purpose of this Act, the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commandant of
the Coast Guard, should work to establish agreements to promote coordinated action among
the United States, Russia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark and other seafaring and
Arctic nations with respect to…
(4) appropriate icebreaking escort, tug, and salvage capabilities….
Section 6 states:
(a) Submission of Report Analysis to Congress(1) REQUIREMENT FOR SUBMISSION- Not later than 90 days following the completion
of the High Latitude Polar Ice-Breaking Mission Analysis Report, the Commandant of the
Coast Guard shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress—
(A) such report; and
(B) consistent with section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, any recommendations
of the Commandant related to such report.
(2) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DEFINED- In this subsection, the
term `‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
(b) Mission Requirements Analysis-
Congressional Research Service
54
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(1) MISSION REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS- Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall, subject to the availability
of appropriations, execute a contract with an independent entity to—
(A) conduct an analysis of future mission requirements of the Coast Guard in the Arctic and
Antarctic; and
Congressional Research Service
43
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(B) estimate the necessary resources to provide for such requirements.
(2) SUBMISSION OF ANALYSIS AND ESTIMATE- Not later than 120 days after the date
that the contract described in paragraph (1) is executed, the analysis and estimate described
in subparagraph (A) and (B) of that paragraph shall be submitted to—
(A) the appropriate committees of Congress;
(B) the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and
(C) the Comptroller General of the United States.
(3) ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS- Not later than 90 days after the submission of
the analysis and estimate described in paragraph (2)—
(A) the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress, consistent with section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, any
recommendations of the Commandant related to such analysis and estimate; and
(B) the Comptroller General shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress any
recommendations of the Comptroller General related to such analysis and estimate.
(4) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DEFINED- In this subsection, the
term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means—
(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
Section 10 states, in its entirety:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of the National Science Foundation
shall transfer all amounts provided pursuant to any Act for the procurement of polar
icebreaking services to the United States Coast Guard Appropriation Accounts, and such
amounts shall remain available until expended for operating expenses, renovation, and
improvement.
Congressional Research Service
55
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
FY2010 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 2892/P.L. 111-83)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-157 of June 16, 2009) on H.R.
2892, did not recommend any funding in the Coast Guard’s AC&I account for polar icebreaker
sustainment or acquisition of new polar icebreakers. The report stated:
POLAR ICEBREAKING OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND
FUTURE POLAR NEEDS
The Committee continues to be concerned about Coast Guard’s ability to meet its polar
operations mission requirements and provide the United States with the capability to support
Congressional Research Service
44
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
national interests in the polar regions. These interests extend well beyond the realm of
scientific research. As such, last year the Committee directed the Coast Guard and the
National Science Foundation (NSF) to renegotiate the existing agreement on polar
icebreaking in order to return the budget for operating and maintaining these vessels to the
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010, and to provide a new joint plan for Coast Guard support of
scientific research by NSF and other Federal agencies, which was to be included in the 2010
budget request. No agreement was reached, and no plan was submitted. Negotiations are
apparently underway between the Coast Guard and NSF, but the budget has yet to be
returned to the Coast Guard accounts. Therefore, the Committee directs the Coast Guard to
continue negotiating the agreement for the return of icebreaking in the 2011 budget, and to
provide the joint plan for Coast Guard support as soon as possible.
The Committee further directs the Coast Guard to use existing appropriations to continue its
analysis of national mission needs in the high latitude regions to inform national polar
policy. (Pages 78-79)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-31 of June 18, 2009) on the
FY2010 DHS appropriation bill (S. 1298), recommended $32.5 million in the Coast Guard’s
AC&I account for the reactivation and service life extension of Polar Star. Of this amount, $27.3
million is in an AC&I line item for polar icebreaker sustainment, and the remaining $5.2 million
is included within a line item for AC&I direct personnel costs (page 76). The Senate included the
provisions of S. 1298 in an amendment to H.R. 2892.
The committee’s report on S. 1298 stated:
POLAR ICEBREAKER SUSTAINMENT
The Committee recommends $32,500,000 above the budget request to complete the
reactivation and service life extension of Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star. Of this amount,
$5,200,000 is funded in the AC&I direct personnel costs PPA [program, project, or activity].
Returning Polar Star to operational status is vital to ensuring the U.S. Government has the
ability to project U.S. sovereignty and protect the broad range of security, economic, and
environmental interests in the Arctic and Antarctic. Within this amount, the Coast Guard
shall begin survey and design and conduct a business case analysis for either a new heavy
polar icebreaker class or a major service life extension project for existing heavy icebreakers.
The only existing heavy polar class icebreaker, the Polar Sea, has only 7 years remaining in
its useful life. (Page 78)
Congressional Research Service
56
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
The report also stated:
POLAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING
The Committee notes the budget request did not include transfer of operating and
maintenance funds for the polar icebreakers from the National Science Foundation [NSF] to
the Coast Guard as directed in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 110–329). For fiscal year 2011,
the Committee expects the operating and maintenance budget authority and associated FTE
to be included in the Coast Guard’s request. The two agencies shall update the existing
Memorandum of Agreement to reflect the change in budget authority. (page 73; material in
brackets as in original)
Congressional Research Service
45
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Conference
The conference report (H.Rept. 111-298 of October 13, 2009) on H.R. 2892/P.L. 111-83 of
October 28, 2009, provided $32.5 million to complete the reactivation and service life extension
of Polar Star. Of this total, $27.3 million was provided in the AC&I account in a line item
entitled “Polar Icebreaker sustainment” (Page 87). The conference report stated:
Polar Icebreaker Sustainment
The conference agreement provides an additional $32,500,000 to complete the reactivation
and service life extension of the Coast Guard Cutter POLAR STAR as proposed by the
Senate. No additional funding for this activity was proposed by the House. Of this amount,
$5,200,000 is provided in the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements direct personnel
costs PPA [program, project, or activity]. Funds shall be applied as specified in the Senate
report. The conferees believe returning POLAR STAR to operational status is vital to
national interests in the polar regions. According to the Coast Guard the only existing
operational heavy icebreaker, the POLAR SEA, has only five years of service life remaining.
The absence of requested funding to complete fiscal year 2009 efforts to reactivate POLAR
STAR, combined with the lack of compliance with standing Congressional direction on the
polar icebreaking budget, implies a broader lack of commitment to sustaining polar
capabilities and achieving longterm, strategic objectives in the Arctic. The conferees direct
the Coast Guard to brief the Committees no later than December 15, 2009, on the program
execution plan for reactivation of POLAR STAR and the status of resources required to
achieve mission requirements for polar operations. (Page 89)
The conference report also stated, the section on the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses (OE)
account:
Polar Icebreaking Operations and Maintenance Funding
The conferees expect polar icebreaking operations and maintenance budget authority and
associated FTE to be included in the Coast Guard’s budget request for fiscal year 2011. The
National Science Foundation and Coast Guard shall update the existing Memorandum of
Agreement to reflect the change in budget authority as proposed by the Senate. Furthermore,
the conferees direct the Coast Guard to follow the direction regarding the high latitude study
as outlined in the House report. (Page 85)
Congressional Research Service
57
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(H.R. 1/P.L. 111-5)
A Senate version of H.R. 1 (amendment in Senate, January 30, 2009) stated, in the section on the
Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) account, that of the funds
provided in the bill for the AC&I account, “$87,500,000 shall be for the design of a new polar
icebreaker or the renovation of an existing polar icebreaker, and major repair and maintenance of
existing polar icebreakers.” The provision was not included in other House and Senate versions of
the bill, or in the conference version of the bill, which was signed into law on February 17, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
46
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 2638/P.L. 110-329)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 110-862 of September 18, 2008) on
the FY2009 DHS appropriations bill (H.R. 6947), stated:
POLAR ICEBREAKING OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND
FUTURE POLAR NEEDS
The Committee is concerned about Coast Guard’s ability to meet its polar operations mission
requirements and provide the United States with the capability to support national interests in
the polar regions. The Committee provides $200,000, as requested, to conduct an analysis of
national mission needs in the high latitude regions to inform the national polar policy debate.
In fiscal year 2006 the Committees on Appropriations approved an Administration request
for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the primary user of the three Coast Guard polar
icebreaker vessels, to fund the costs of operating and maintaining these aging vessels.
Because it has become more apparent that the national interest in the polar regions extends
beyond scientific research, the Committee questions whether this arrangement should
continue. Accordingly, the Committee directs Coast Guard and NSF to renegotiate the
existing agreement in order to return the budget for operating and maintaining these vessels
to Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010. This change is consistent with a new joint plan for Coast
Guard support of scientific research by NSF and other Federal agencies, which also is to be
included in the 2010 budget request. NSF shall retain responsibility for the contracting of
scientific support services that Coast Guard does not have the capability to perform or cannot
perform on a cost-competitive basis. The Committee is aware of a $4,000,000 funding
shortfall related to the caretaker status of the POLAR STAR, and directs Coast Guard to
address this shortfall within the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2009. (Page 82)
Senate
The FY2009 DHS appropriations bill (S. 3181) as reported by the Senate appropriations
committee would make available about $6.28 billion for the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses
(OE) account, provided, among other things, “that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$4,000,000 of the amounts made available under this heading may be available to maintain the
USCGC POLAR STAR in caretaker status.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 110-396 of June 23, 2008) on S.
3181, stated:
Congressional Research Service
58
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
POLAR ICEBREAKERS
The Committee reiterates its concern with the Coast Guard’s ability to meet its current and
projected polar operations responsibilities. According to correspondence from the
Commandant on May 23, 2008, the Coast Guard will submit a report on polar mission
requirements no later than August 31, 2008. The Committee expects this report to address
the concerns detailed in the explanatory statement accompanying the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008. The Committee also expects all costs to
operate the polar icebreakers for National Science Foundation [NSF] research, including
unanticipated maintenance, will be reimbursed by NSF. However, the Committee notes that
the NSF budget request states, “Effective with the fiscal year 2009 budget, NSF will no
Congressional Research Service
47
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
longer provide funds to maintain the USCGC Polar Star in caretaker status because NSF
does not envision current or future use of this vessel in support of its mission.” Due to the
changing environmental conditions and increased activity in the polar regions, as well as the
Coast Guard’s multi-mission responsibilities in the polar regions that are not science related,
the Committee includes statutory language making an additional $4,000,000 available to
maintain the USCGC Polar Star in caretaker status. The Committee also notes that the
forthcoming report on Coast Guard polar mission requirements will address the sustainability
of the current operations and maintenance cost sharing arrangement between the Coast
Guard and the NSF to support both current and projected polar icebreaker operations. (Page
81)
Compromise
The FY2009 DHS appropriations bill became Division D of H.R. 2638/P.L. 110-329 of
September 30, 2008, a consolidated appropriations act. H.R. 2638 began as a DHS appropriations
act and was then amended to become a consolidated appropriations act that contained that
includes, among other things, the FY2009 DHS appropriations act. In lieu of a conference report,
there was a compromise version of H.R. 2638 that was accompanied by an explanatory statement.
Section 4 of H.R. 2638 stated that the explanatory statement “shall have the same effect with
respect to the allocation of funds and implementation of this Act as if it were a joint explanatory
statement of a committee of conference.”
H.R. 2638 provided $30.3 million for polar icebreaker sustainment. The funding was provided in
a new line item in the surface ships section of the Deepwater portion of the Coast Guard’s
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) appropriation account. The explanatory
statement stated:
Polar Icebreakers
One of the Coast Guard’s missions is to provide the United States with the capability to
support national interests in the polar regions. In a report recently submitted, the Coast Guard
stated that the United States will need a maritime surface and air presence in the Arctic
sufficient to support prevention and response regimes as well as diplomatic objectives.
However, no funding has been requested for the Coast Guard’s aging icebreakers despite its
inability to meet current and projected polar operations mission responsibilities. The Coast
Guard is directed to follow House report direction regarding the polar icebreaking operating
budget. The Coast Guard should work with the National Science Foundation in the coming
year to renegotiate the existing polar icebreaking agreement in order to return the budget for
operating and maintaining its polar icebreakers to the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2010. The
AC&I appropriation includes $30,300,000 to reactivate the USCGC POLAR STAR for an
additional 7-10 years of service life.
Congressional Research Service
59
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Coast Guard Authorization Act For FY2008 (H.R. 2830/S. 1892)
House
Section 422 of H.R. 2830 as passed by the House stated:
SEC. 422. ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL COAST GUARD PRESENCE
IN HIGH LATITUDE REGIONS.
Congressional Research Service
48
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Within 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives assessing the need for additional Coast Guard
prevention and response capability in the high latitude regions. The assessment shall address
needs for all Coast Guard mission areas, including search and rescue, marine pollution
response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime commerce. The Secretary shall
include in the report—
(1) an assessment of the high latitude operating capabilities of all current Coast Guard assets,
including assets acquired under the Deepwater program;
(2) an assessment of projected needs for Coast Guard forward operating bases in the high
latitude regions;
(3) an assessment of shore infrastructure, personnel, logistics, communications, and
resources requirements to support Coast Guard forward operating bases in the high latitude
regions;
(4) an assessment of the need for high latitude icebreaking capability and the capability of
the current high latitude icebreaking assets of the Coast Guard, including—
(A) whether the Coast Guard’s high latitude icebreaking fleet is meeting current mission
performance goals;
(B) whether the fleet is capable of meeting projected mission performance goals; and
(C) an assessment of the material condition, safety, and working conditions aboard high
latitude icebreaking assets, including the effect of those conditions on mission performance;
(5) a detailed estimate of acquisition costs for each of the assets (including shore
infrastructure) necessary for additional prevention and response capability in high latitude
regions for all Coast Guard mission areas, and an estimate of operations and maintenance
costs for such assets for the initial 10-year period of operations; and
(6) detailed cost estimates (including operating and maintenance for a period of 10 years) for
high latitude icebreaking capability to ensure current and projected future mission
performance goals are met, including estimates of the costs to—
(A) renovate and modernize the Coast Guard’s existing high latitude icebreaking fleet; and
(B) replace the Coast Guard’s existing high latitude icebreaking fleet.
Congressional Research Service
60
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Senate
Section 917 of S. 1892 as reported in the Senate stated:
SEC. 917. ICEBREAKERS.
(a) IN GENERAL—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
shall acquire or construct 2 polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard in addition to
its existing fleet of polar icebreakers.
Congressional Research Service
49
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
(b) NECESSARY MEASURES—The Secretary shall take all necessary measures, including
the provision of necessary operation and maintenance funding, to ensure that—
(1) the Coast Guard maintains, at a minimum, its current vessel capacity for carrying out ice
breaking in the Arctic and Antarctic, Great Lakes, and New England regions; and
(2) any such vessels that are not fully operational are brought up to, and maintained at full
operational capability.
(c) REIMBURSEMENT—Nothing in this section shall preclude the Secretary from seeking
reimbursement for operation and maintenance costs of such polar icebreakers from other
Federal agencies and entities, including foreign countries, that benefit from the use of the
icebreakers.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS—There are authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2008 to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
such sums as may be necessary to acquire the icebreakers authorized by subsection (a), as
well as maintaining and operating the icebreaker fleet as authorized in subsection (b).
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 110-261 of
February 5, 2008) on S. 1892, stated:
Section 917 would require the Secretary to acquire or construct two new polar icebreakers
for operation by the Coast Guard. It also would instruct the Coast Guard to maintain their
existing polar icebreakers and return them to operational status, if not operational already.
This section would authorize such sums as are necessary to carry out this section. Currently,
the Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet is funded by the National Science Foundation. However,
the funding for these vessels has been inconsistent, allowing the Polar Star to fall behind on
the maintenance necessary to keep the vessel in operating condition. With some climate
models predicting an ice-free Arctic summer in the future, more international expeditions
will be headed to the region to examine newly revealed oil and gas reserves and other natural
resources. Canada, Russia, and other countries will begin to compete with the United States
over jurisdiction and, without a strong polar icebreaker fleet, our Nation will suffer a severe
disadvantage. A recent 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that the
United States needs to maintain polar icebreaking capacity and construct at least two new
polar icebreakers. This provision follows those recommendations. (Page 29)
In presenting the CBO’s estimate of the cost of Section 917 of S. 1892 as reported, the report
stated:
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that the USCG would
spend about $1.4 billion over the next five years to purchase two icebreakers. (Costs to
operate and maintain the two new vessels would total about $50 million a year beginning in
2013.) We estimate that an additional $50 million would be spent over the 2008-2010 period
Congressional Research Service
61
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
to recondition an existing USCG icebreaker, which is currently out of operation. Operating
and maintaining that vessel would cost about $10 million in 2010 and about $25 million
annually thereafter. This estimate is based on information provided by the Coast Guard
regarding the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining such vessels to agency
specifications. (Page 8; see also pages 6 and 7)
Congressional Research Service
50
.
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161)
FY2008 funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes the Coast
Guard, was provided in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161 of
December 26, 2007). The explanatory statement for H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161, which is intended to
be the equivalent of a conference report for the bill, stated the following in its discussion of
Division E (the FY2008 DHS appropriations act):
National Interests in the Polar Regions
The Committees on Appropriations are concerned about Coast Guard’s ability to meet its
polar operations mission requirements and provide the United States with the capability to
support national interests in the polar regions. These mission requirements include, but are
not limited to: global reach to the North and South poles; monitoring of U.S.-bound vessel
traffic transiting international waterways in the far north; support of the International Ice
Patrol; and support of other governmental and scientific organizations in pursuit of marine
and atmospheric science activities in the polar regions. The Committees on Appropriations
are specifically concerned whether Coast Guard’s aging polar icebreaking fleet can meet
current mission performance goals and whether this fleet and the service’s small cadre of
specialized polar operations personnel are capable of meeting projected mission performance
goals in light of changing environmental conditions and increased activity in the polar
regions. The National Academy of Sciences made several recommendations in this regard in
September 2006, but the Administration has taken no action to implement those
recommendations.
Therefore, the Commandant is directed to submit a comprehensive polar operations report
that fully assesses the Coast Guard’s ability to meet current and projected polar mission
requirements and includes an evaluation of how Coast Guard’s current capabilities and
resources must be adapted or enhanced to account for changing environmental conditions
and increased activity in the polar regions. This report is to include an analysis of the need
for any permanent, forward operating presence in the polar regions in order to meet mission
requirements and an assessment of the Coast Guard’s ability to meet the requirements of
partner agencies operating in the polar regions, such as the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and the Departments of Commerce and Defense, under current and projected
environmental conditions. Finally, this report should include an appraisal of the
sustainability of the current operations and maintenance cost sharing arrangement between
the Coast Guard and NSF to support both current and projected polar icebreaker operations.
Congressional Research Service
51
.
62
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Appendix C. Bill and Report Language Relating to
Study of High-Latitude Operations
This appendix presents examples of bill and report language in recent years relating to the study
of Coast Guard missions and capabilities for operations in high-latitude areas. These examples,
which are taken from Appendix B, include the following:
•
The explanatory statement for the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161 of December 26, 2007), which included FY2008
funding for DHS, stated: “Therefore, the Commandant is directed to submit a
comprehensive polar operations report that fully assesses the Coast Guard’s
ability to meet current and projected polar mission requirements and includes an
evaluation of how Coast Guard’s current capabilities and resources must be
adapted or enhanced to account for changing environmental conditions and
increased activity in the polar regions. This report is to include an analysis of the
need for any permanent, forward operating presence in the polar regions in order
to meet mission requirements and an assessment of the Coast Guard’s ability to
meet the requirements of partner agencies operating in the polar regions, such as
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Departments of Commerce and
Defense, under current and projected environmental conditions. Finally, this
report should include an appraisal of the sustainability of the current operations
and maintenance cost sharing arrangement between the Coast Guard and NSF to
support both current and projected polar icebreaker operations.”
•
Section 422 of the FY2008 Coast Guard Authorization Act (H.R. 2830) as
passed by the House stated: “Within 270 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
submit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives assessing the need for additional Coast Guard prevention and
response capability in the high latitude regions. The assessment shall address
needs for all Coast Guard mission areas, including search and rescue, marine
pollution response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime
commerce. The Secretary shall include in the report ... an assessment of the need
for high latitude icebreaking capability and the capability of the current high
latitude icebreaking assets of the Coast Guard....”
•
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 110-862 of
September 18, 2008, page 82) on the FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R.
2638/P.L. 110-329 of September 30, 2008), stated: “The Committee provides
$200,000, as requested, to conduct an analysis of national mission needs in the
high latitude regions to inform the national polar policy debate.”
•
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 110-396 of June 23,
2008, page 81) on the FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act (S. 3181), stated:
“According to correspondence from the Commandant on May 23, 2008, the
Coast Guard will submit a report on polar mission requirements no later than
August 31, 2008. The Committee expects this report to address the concerns
detailed in the explanatory statement accompanying the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008.”
Congressional Research Service
52
.
63
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
•
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-157 of June 16,
2009, pages 78-79) on the FY2010 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 2892/P.L.
111-83 of October 28, 2009), stated: “The Committee further directs the Coast
Guard to use existing appropriations to continue its analysis of national mission
needs in the high latitude regions to inform national polar policy.”
•
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-31 of June 18,
2009, page 78) on the FY2010 DHS Appropriations Act (S. 1298), stated:
“Within this amount, the Coast Guard shall begin survey and design and conduct
a business case analysis for either a new heavy polar icebreaker class or a major
service life extension project for existing heavy icebreakers.”
•
The conference report (H.Rept. 111-298 of October 13, 2009, page 85) on the
FY2010 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 2892/P.L. 111-83 of October 28,
20097), stated: “Furthermore, the conferees direct the Coast Guard to follow the
direction regarding the high latitude study as outlined in the House report.”
•
Sections 311(h) and 1316 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R.
3619) as reported by the House Committee on transportation and Infrastructure
(H.Rept. 111-303, part 1, of October 16, 2009) (see Appendix B for the full texts
of these sections).
•
Section 603 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619) as
passed by the Senate (see Appendix B for the full text of this section).
•
Sections 307(f) and 307(g) of the final version of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619/P.L. 111-281 of October 15, 2010) (see
Appendix B for the full texts of these sections).
•
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-222 of July 19,
2010, page 80) on the FY2011 DHS Appropriations Act (S. 3607), stated: “The
Committee also notes that the Coast Guard’s analysis of national mission needs
in the high latitude regions has yet to be completed. This effort was funded in
fiscal year 2009 to inform the national polar policy debate. The results of this
study are to be submitted expeditiously and include projected assets and
resources necessary to address identified requirements.”
The High Latitude Study has a cover date of July 2010. The study was provided to Congress in
July 2011. The Coast Guard states that the study was provided to Congress in response to the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619/P.L. 111-281), which was enacted into law on
October 15, 2010.61
6174
74
Source: Email from Coast Guard Congressional Affairs office to CRS, August 1, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
53
.
64
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
Appendix D. May 2008 Memorandum from DOD
Combatant Commanders
This appendix reprints the text of a May 21, 2008, memorandum for the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff on the topic of icebreaker support signed by three DOD combatant commanders,
each a 4-star general or flag officer.6275
MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
FROM: CDR USPACOM / CDR USTRANSCOM / CDR USNORTHCOM
SUBJECT: Icebreaker Support
1. The United States has enduring national, strategic, and economic interests in the Arctic
and Antarctic. In the north, the United States is an Arctic nation with broad and fundamental
national security interests. In addition to the essential requirements for homeland security
and maritime domain awareness, the effects of climate change and increasing economic
activity require a more active presence in this maritime domain. In the south, the United
States maintains three scientific stations. While the mission of the stations is largely
scientific, their presence secures the United States’ influential role in the Antarctic Treaty
decision making process and maintains the balance necessary to maintain our position on
Antarctic sovereignty.
2. To assert our interests in these regions, the United States needs assured access with
reliable icebreaking ships. Today, however, two of the three Coast Guard icebreakers are
nearing the end of their service lives, with one relegated to caretaker status. Over the past 10
years some routine maintenance has been deferred and there is no service life extension
program for these ships. As a result, the nation’s icebreaking capability has diminished
substantially and is at risk of being unable to support our national interests in the Arctic
regions. An example of our reduced icebreaking capability is last season’s McMurdo Station
resupply mission where USNS GIANELLA spent 50 hours in pack-ice awaiting escort from
a leased Swedish icebreaker.
3. In summary, icebreakers are essential instruments of United States policy in the polar
regions. We therefore recommend Joint Chiefs of Staff support for the following:
—A program for the construction of new polar icebreakers to be operated by the Coast
Guard.
—Coast Guard funding to keep existing icebreakers viable until the new ships enter service.
—Sufficient Coast Guard operations funding to provide increased, regular and reliable
icebreaker presence in the polar regions.
6275
Memorandum for Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, from CDR USPACOM / CDR USTRANSCOM / CDR
USNOTHCOM, Subject: Icebreaker Support. The Navy Office of Legislative Affairs provided CRS with a copy of the
memorandum on September 11, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
54
.
65
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization
[signed]
Victor E. Renuart
General, USAF
Commander
U.S. Northern
Command
Norton A. Schwartz
General, USAF
Commander
U. S. Transportation
Command
Timothy J. Keating
Admiral, USN
Commander
U.S. Pacific Command
cc :
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
Author Contact Information
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
Congressional Research Service
5566