Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization:
Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
November 20, 2015January 15, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34391
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
Coast Guard polar icebreakers perform a variety of missions supporting U.S. interests in polar
regions. The operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently consists of one heavy polar
icebreaker, Polar Star, and one medium polar icebreaker, Healy. A Department of Homeland
A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Mission Need Statement (MNS) approved in
June 2013 states that “current
requirements and future projections ... indicate the Coast Guard
will need to expand its
icebreaking capacity, potentially requiring a fleet of up to six icebreakers
(3 heavy and 3 medium)
to adequately meet mission demands in the high latitudes.... ”
”
The operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently consists of one heavy polar icebreaker,
Polar Star, and one medium polar icebreaker, Healy. In addition to Polar Star, the Coast Guard
has a second heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Sea. This
ship suffered an engine casualty in June
2010 and has been non-operational since then. Polar Star
and Polar Sea entered service in 1976
and 1978, respectively, and are now well beyond their
originally intended 30-year service lives. This situation—combined with the MNS statement
about the Coast Guard needing up to three heavy polar icebreakers and concerns among some
The current condition of the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet, the DHS MNS, and concerns among
some observers about whether the United States is adequately investing in capabilities to carry
out its
responsibilities and defend its interests in the Arctic—has, have focused policymaker attention
on the
question of whether and when to procure one or more new heavy polar icebreakers as
replacements for Polar Star and Polar Sea. A new heavy polar icebreaker might cost roughly
$900 million to $1.1 billion to procure.
The Administration’s FY2013 budget submission initiated a new project for the design and
construction of a new polar icebreaker, and included $860 million over five years for the
procurement of the ship. The submission stated that DHS anticipated awarding a construction
contract for the ship “within the next five years” (i.e., by FY2018) and taking delivery on the ship
“within a decade” (i.e., by 2023).
The Administration’s FY2014 budget submission reduced the five-year funding for a new polar
icebreaker to $230 million—a 73% reduction—but still stated that DHS anticipated awarding a
construction contract for the ship “within the next four years” (i.e., by FY2018).
The Administration’s FY2015 budget submission maintained five-year funding for a new polar
icebreaker at $230 million, but did not state when a construction contract for the ship might be
awarded, creating uncertainty about the timing of the project.
The Administration’s FY2016 budget submission, submitted to Congress in February 2015,
reduced five-year funding for a new polar icebreaker further, to $166 million—an 81% reduction
from the figure in the FY2013 budget submission—and again did not state when a construction
contract for the ship might be awarded, maintaining the uncertainty about the timing of the
project.
On September 1, 2015, the White House issued a fact sheet in conjunction with a visit to Alaska
by President Obama indicating that the Administration, in its own internal planning, had at some
point over the past two years deferred procurement of a new polar icebreaker to FY2022, but that
this has now been changed to FY2020. The newly announced procurement date of FY2020 is a
two-year acceleration from the previously unpublicized date of FY2022, and a two-year deferral
from the FY2018 date implied in the FY2013 and FY2014 budget submissions. The fact sheet
states that the Administration will also “begin planning for construction of additional icebreakers”
beyond the one that the Administration proposes to procure in FY2020On September 1, 2015, the White House issued a fact sheet in conjunction with a visit to Alaska
by President Obama indicating that the Administration wants to procure a new polar icebreaker in
FY2020, and that the Administration will also “begin planning for construction of additional
icebreakers” beyond the one that the Administration proposes to procure in FY2020.
On January 13, 2016, the Coast Guard announced that “the United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Polar Icebreaker Replacement Program intends to host an Industry Day followed by one-on-one
meetings with prospective shipbuilders and ship designers as a part of ongoing market research....
Industry Day is tentatively planned to occur in March 2016.” As part of this announcement, the
Coast Guard released an industry data package for the polar icebreaker replacement program. A
notional schedule for the program included in the package shows a draft Request for Proposals
(RFP) being released in the first quarter of FY2017, a final RFP being released in the fourth
quarter of FY2017 or the first quester of FY2018, a contract award being made between the
fourth quarter of FY2018 and the fourth quarter of FY2019, and construction of the ship
beginning as soon as the fourth quarter of FY2019.
A polar icebreaker procured in FY2020 might enter service in 2024 or 2025. Polar Star has been
refurbished and reentered service in December 2012 for an intended period of 7 to 10 years—a
period that will end between December 2019 and December 2022. Consequently, unless the
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
service life of Polar Star is further extended (or unless Polar Sea is repaired and returned to
service), there will be a period of perhaps two to six years during which the United States will
have no operational heavy polar icebreakers.
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject,
or modify the Administration’s plans for
sustaining and modernizing the polar icebreaking fleet.
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Issue ..................................................................................................................... 1
Missions of U.S. Polar Icebreakers ........................................................................................... 2
Current U.S. Polar Icebreakers.................................................................................................. 3
Three Coast Guard Ships .................................................................................................... 4
One National Science Foundation Ship .............................................................................. 7
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 8
U.S. Requirements for Polar Icebreakers .................................................................................. 9
June 2013 DHS Polar Icebreaker Mission Need Statement .............(MNS) ................................... 9
January 2014 Implementation Plan for National Strategy for Arctic Region ................... 10
November 2015 Coast Guard Testimony ........................................................................... 11
Polar Icebreakers Operated by Other Countries ....................................................................... 11
Cost Estimates for Certain Polar Icebreaker Modernization Options ..................................... 1213
New Replacement Ships ................................................................................................... 1213
25-Year Service Life Extensions ....................................................................................... 13
Reactivate Polar Sea for Several Years ............................................................................ 1314
Administration Plans for Procuring a New Polar Icebreaker .................................................. 15
FY2013-FY2016 Budget Submissions ............................................................................. 15
September 1, 2015, White House Fact Sheet .................................................................... 1617
January 13, 2016, Coast Guard Announcement of Industry Day ...................................... 17
Reduction in Coast Guard’s AC&I Account in FY2014 Budget Submission ......................... 1718
Funding an Icebreaker with Contributions from Agencies Other Than Coast Guard ............. 17
Recent 18
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Acquisition Actions Prior to January 13, 2016,
Announcement ..................................................................................................................... 18
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 1920
Whether to Approve, Reject, or Modify the Administration’s Plans for Procuring a
New Polar Icebreaker ........................................................................................................... 1920
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1920
Amount of Funding Requested for FY2017 ..................................................................... 21
Procuring a New Polar Icebreaker with Non-Coast Guard Funding................................. 1921
Building Polar Icebreakers in Foreign Shipyards ............................................................. 1921
Awarding a Contract to Design a Polar Icebreaker with a Contract Option to
Build the Ship ................................................................................................................ 2123
Funding Level of Coast Guard’s AC&I Account .............................................................. 2123
Procurement vs. Leasing ......................................................................................................... 2628
Legislative Activity for FY2016 .................................................................................................... 2930
FY2016 Funding Request ....................................................................................................... 29
FY2016 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)30
FY2016 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 3128/S.
1619 1619/H.R. 2029) ........................................ 31
House .............................................................................................. 29
House .................................. 31
Senate ..................................................................................................... 29
Senate ................................... 31
Conference ........................................................................................................................ 3032
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 1987) /S. 1611/H.R. 4188) ............................... 33
House .................................................................................. 31
House.............................................. 33
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 31
37
Conference ........................................................................................................................ 39
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Icebreaker Recapitalization Act (S. 1386)............................................................................... 3542
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 3542
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735) ..................................................... 3643
House ................................................................................................................................ 3643
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY2016 (S.Con.Res. 11) ....................................... 37
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
43
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 3743
Figures
Figure 1. Polar Star and Polar Sea ................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Polar Sea .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Healy ................................................................................................................................ 7
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Polar Icebreakers ....................................................................................................... 8
Table 2. Major Icebreakers Around the World ............................................................................... 11 12
Table 3. Funding for Acquisition of New Polar Icebreaker Under FY2013-FY2016
Budget Submissions ................................................................................................................... 16
Table 4. Funding in AC&I Account in FY2013-FY2016 Budgets ................................................ 2223
Appendixes
Appendix. Recent Studies Relating to Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers ......................................... 3845
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 4653
Congressional Research Service
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
This report provides background information and issues for Congress on the sustainment and
modernization of the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet. Coast Guard polar icebreakers perform
a variety of missions supporting U.S. interests in polar regions. The operational U.S. polar
icebreaking fleet currently consists of one heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Star, and one medium
polar icebreaker, Healy.
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Administration’s plans for
sustaining and modernizing the polar icebreaking fleet. CongressionalCongress’s decisions on this issue
could could
affect Coast Guard funding requirements, the Coast Guard’s ability to perform its polar
missions,
and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.
This report does not cover the icebreakers that the Coast Guard operates on the Great Lakes. A
separate CRS report covers procurement of general-purpose cutters for the Coast Guard.1 Another
CRS report provides an overview of various issues relating to the Arctic.2
Background
Overview of Issue
Coast Guard polar icebreakers perform a variety of missions supporting U.S. interests in polar
regions. The operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently consists of one heavy polar
icebreaker, Polar Star, and one medium polar icebreaker, Healy. A Department of Homeland
A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Mission Need Statement (MNS) approved in
June 2013 states that “current
requirements and future projections ... indicate the Coast Guard
will need to expand its
icebreaking capacity, potentially requiring a fleet of up to six icebreakers
(3 heavy and 3 medium)
to adequately meet mission demands in the high latitudes.... ”3
” 3
The operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently consists of one heavy polar icebreaker,
Polar Star, and one medium polar icebreaker, Healy. In addition to Polar Star, the Coast Guard
has a second heavy polar icebreaker, Polar Sea. This
ship suffered an engine casualty in June
2010 and has been non-operational since then. Polar Star
and Polar Sea entered service in 1976
and 1978, respectively, and are now well beyond their
originally intended 30-year service lives. This situation—combined with the MNS statement
about the Coast Guard needing up to three heavy polar icebreakers and concerns among some
The current condition of the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet, the DHS MNS, and concerns among
some observers about whether the United States is adequately investing in capabilities to carry
out its
responsibilities and defend its interests in the Arctic—has, have focused policymaker attention
on the
question of whether and when to procure one or more new heavy polar icebreakers as
replacements for Polar Star and Polar Sea. A new heavy polar icebreaker might cost roughly
$900 million to $1.1 billion to procure.
The Administration’s FY2013 budget submission initiated a new project for the design and
construction of a new polar icebreaker, and included $860 million over five years for the
procurement of the ship. The submission stated that DHS anticipated awarding a construction
contract for the ship “within the next five years” (i.e., by FY2018) and taking delivery on the ship
“within a decade” (i.e., by 2023).
1
CRS Report R42567, Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ronald O'Rourke.
3
Department of Homeland Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0,
approved by DHS June 28, 2013, p. 9.
2
Congressional Research Service
1
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
The Administration’s FY2014 budget submission reduced the five-year funding for a new polar
icebreaker to $230 million—a 73% reduction—but still stated that DHS anticipated awarding a
construction contract for the ship “within the next four years” (i.e., by FY2018).
The Administration’s FY2015 budget submission maintained five-year funding for a new polar
icebreaker at $230 million, but did not state when a construction contract for the ship might be
awarded, creating uncertainty about the timing of the project.
The Administration’s FY2016 budget submission, submitted to Congress in February 2015,
reduced five-year funding for a new polar icebreaker further, to $166 million—an 81% reduction
from the figure in the FY2013 budget submission—and again did not state when a construction
contract for the ship might be awarded, maintaining the uncertainty about the timing of the
project.
On September 1, 2015, the White House issued a fact sheet in conjunction with a visit to Alaska
by President Obama indicating that the Administration, in its own internal planning, had at some
point over the past two years deferred procurement of a new polar icebreaker to FY2022, but that
this has now been changed to FY2020.4 The newly announced procurement date of FY2020 is a
two-year acceleration from the previously unpublicized date of FY2022, and a two-year deferral
from the FY2018 date implied in the FY2013 and FY2014 budget submissions. The fact sheet
states that the Administration will also “begin planning for construction of additional icebreakers”
beyond the one that the Administration proposes to procure in FY2020.On September 1, 2015, the White House issued a fact sheet in conjunction with a visit to Alaska
by President Obama indicating that the Administration wants to procure a new polar icebreaker in
FY2020, and that the Administration will also “begin planning for construction of additional
icebreakers” beyond the one that the Administration proposes to procure in FY2020.4
1
CRS Report R42567, Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Ronald O'Rourke.
3
Department of Homeland Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0,
approved by DHS June 28, 2013, p. 9.
4
The White House, “FACT SHEET: President Obama Announces New Investments to Enhance Safety and Security in
(continued...)
2
Congressional Research Service
1
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
On January 13, 2016, the Coast Guard announced that “the United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Polar Icebreaker Replacement Program intends to host an Industry Day followed by one-on-one
meetings with prospective shipbuilders and ship designers as a part of ongoing market research....
Industry Day is tentatively planned to occur in March 2016.”5 As part of this announcement, the
Coast Guard released an industry data package for the polar icebreaker replacement program. A
notional schedule for the program included in the package shows a draft Request for Proposals
(RFP) being released in the first quarter of FY2017, a final RFP being released in the fourth
quarter of FY2017 or the first quester of FY2018, a contract award being made between the
fourth quarter of FY2018 and the fourth quarter of FY2019, and construction of the ship
beginning as soon as the fourth quarter of FY2019.6
A polar icebreaker procured in FY2020 might enter service in 2024 or 2025. Polar Star has been
refurbished and reentered service in December 2012 for an intended period of 7 to 10 years—a
period that will end between December 2019 and December 2022. Consequently, unless the
service life of Polar Star is further extended (or unless Polar Sea is repaired and returned to
service), there will be a period of perhaps two to six years during which the United States will
have no operational heavy polar icebreakers.
Missions of U.S. Polar Icebreakers
U.S. polar ice operations support 9 of the Coast Guard’s 11 statutory missions.57 The roles 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 in 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
4
The White House, “FACT SHEET: President Obama Announces New Investments to Enhance Safety and Security in
the Changing Arctic,” September 1, 2015, accessed September 2, 2015, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2015/09/01/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-new-investments-enhance-safety-and.
5
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.
(...continued)
the Changing Arctic,” September 1, 2015, accessed September 2, 2015, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2015/09/01/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-new-investments-enhance-safety-and.
5
“USCG Polar Class Icebreaker Replacement Program,” accessed January 15, 2016, at:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a778c49349c443d2658666e19cc100e9&tab=core&tabmo
de=list&= .
6
Polar Icebreaker Industry Data Package, undated, released January 13, p. 3. Accessed January 15, 2016, at:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&tabid=a82ce0769a3dc86fc8984d6854dea47
f.
7
The nine missions supported by polar ice operations are search and rescue; maritime safety; aids to navigation; ice
operations; marine environmental protection; living marine resources; other law enforcement (protect the exclusive
economic zone [EEZ]); ports, waterways and costal security; and defense readiness. The two missions not supported by
polar ice operations are illegal drug interdiction and undocumented migrant interdiction. (Department of Homeland
Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0, approved by DHS June 28,
2013, p. 10.)
Congressional Research Service
2
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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.68
Supporting NSF research in the Antarctic has included performing 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
increased levels of support from polar icebreakers.79 Changing ice conditions in Antarctic waters
have made the McMurdo resupply mission more challenging since 2000.810 An April 18, 2011,
press report states that the Commandant of the Coast Guard at the time, 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
[each year]. It’s coming down pretty far. We don't need to get up there just during
summer months when there’s open water.” 911
The Coast Guard’s strategy document for the Arctic region, released on May 21, 2013, states that
“The United States must have adequate icebreaking capability to support research that advances
fundamental understanding of the region and its evolution,” and that “The Nation must also make
a strategic investment in icebreaking capability to enable access to the high latitudes over the
long-term.”1012
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.
6
8
This passage, beginning with “The roles 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.
79
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.
810
National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 6-7, 14, 63.
911
Cid Standifer, “Adm. Papp: Coast Guard Still Needs Icebreakers For Winter, Antarctic,” Inside the Navy, April 18,
2011.
1012
United States Coast Guard Arctic Strategy, Washington, May 2013, p. 35; accessed May 24, 2013, at
http://www.uscg.mil/seniorleadership/DOCS/CG_Arctic_Strategy.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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),1113 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.
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.
The ships are 399 feet long and displace about 13,200 tons.1214 They are among the world’s most
powerful non-nuclear-powered icebreakers, with a capability to break through ice up to 6 feet
1113
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.
1214
By comparison, the Coast Guard’s new National Security Cutters—its new high-endurance cutters—are about 418
feet long and displace roughly 4,000 tons.
Congressional Research Service
4
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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.
Figure 2. Polar Sea
Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcpolarsea/img/PSEApics/FullShip2.jpg on
April 21, 2011.
Polar Star was commissioned into service on January 19, 1976, and consequently is now several
years beyond its intended 30-year service life. Due to worn out electric motors and other
problems, the Coast Guard placed the ship in caretaker status on July 1, 2006.1315 Congress in
FY2009 and FY2010 provided funding to repair Polar Star and return it to service for 7 to 10
years; the repair work, which reportedly cost about $57 million, was completed, and the ship was
reactivated on December 14, 2012.1416 Although the repair work on the ship was intended to give it
another 7 to 10 years of service, an August 30, 2010, press report quoted then-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.”15
Figure 2. Polar Sea
Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcpolarsea/img/PSEApics/FullShip2.jpg on
April 21, 2011.
17
Polar Sea was commissioned into service on February 23, 1978, and consequently is also several
years 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 engine casualty, and the ship
was unavailable for operation after that.1618 The Coast Guard placed Polar Sea in commissioned,
1315
Source for July 1, 2006, date: U.S. Coast Guard email to CRS on February 22, 2008. The Coast Guard’s official term
for caretaker status is “In Commission, Special.”
1416
See, for example, Kyung M. Song, “Icebreaker Polar Star Gets $57 Million Overhaul,” Seattle Times, December 14,
2012.
1517
Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010.
1618
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
inactive status on October 14, 2011. The Coast Guard transferred certain major equipment from
Polar Sea to Polar Star to facilitate Polar Star’s return to service.1719
Section 222 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 2838/P.L. 112213 of December 20, 2012) prohibited the Coast Guard from removing any part of Polar Sea and
from transferring, relinquishing ownership of, dismantling, or recycling the ship until it submitted
a business case analysis of the options for and costs of reactivating the ship and extending its
service life to at least September 30, 2022, so as to maintain U.S. polar icebreaking capabilities
and fulfill the Coast Guard’s high latitude mission needs, as identified in the Coast Guard’s July
2010 High Latitude Study. (The business case analysis was submitted to Congress with a cover
date of November 7, 2013.)
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 built numerous Coast Guard
and Navy ships, and which eventually became part of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).1820 HII in
recent years has wound down shipbuilding activities at Avondale; the facility is no longer
building ships.1921
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 2 visitors). The ship is used
primarily for supporting scientific research in the Arctic.
(...continued)
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.)
1719
Source: October 17, 2011, email to CRS from Coast Guard Congressional Affairs office.
1820
HII was previously owned by Northrop Grumman, during which time it was known as Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding.
1921
See, for example, Marc Selinger, “Avondale Shipyard’s Fate Remains Unclear,” Defense Daily, April 21, 2015: 5.
Congressional Research Service
6
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 3. Healy
Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Healy_CGC_1_300.jpg on
April 21, 2011.
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
Offshore Service Vessels LLC, operated by Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) of Galliano, LA (a
firm that owns and operates research ships and offshore deepwater service ships),2022 and chartered
by the NSF. 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 37.2123
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,
so as to resupply Palmer Station, a U.S. research station on the peninsula. Some observers might
2022
For more on ECO, see the firm’s website at http://www.chouest.com/.
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.
2123
Congressional Research Service
7
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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), one of which is
operational, that are designed to perform missions in either polar area, including
the challenging McMurdo resupply mission;
one medium polar icebreaker (Healy) 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 1. U.S. Polar Icebreakers
Operator
U.S.-Government owned?
Currently operational?
Entered service
Length (feet)
Polar Star
Polar Sea
Healy
Palmer
USCG
USCG
USCG
NSF
Yes
Yes
Yes
Noa
Yes (reactivated on
December 14, 2012)
No
Yes
Yes
1976
1978
2000
1992
399
399
420
308
Displacement (tons)
13,200
13,200
16,000
6,500
Icebreaking capability at 3
knots (ice thickness in feet)
Ice ramming capability (ice
thickness in feet)
Operating temperature
Crew (when operational)
Additional scientific staff
6 feet
6 feet
4.5 feet
3 feet
21 feet
21 feet
8 feet
n/a
-60o Fahrenheit
155b
32
-60o Fahrenheit
155b
32
-50o Fahrenheit
85c
35d
n/a
22
27-37
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 2 visitors.
In addition to the four ships shown in Table 1, a fifth U.S.-registered polar ship with icebreaking
capability—the icebreaking anchor handling tug supply vessel Aiviq—is used by Royal Dutch
Shell oil company to support oil exploration and drilling in Arctic waters off Alaska. The ship,
which completed construction in 2012, is owned by ECO and chartered by Royal Dutch Shell. It
is used primarily for towing and laying anchors for drilling rigs, but is also equipped for
responding to oil spills.
Congressional Research Service
8
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
U.S. Requirements for Polar Icebreakers
June 2013 DHS Polar Icebreaker Mission Need Statement (MNS)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in June 2013 approved a Mission Need Statement
(MNS) for the polar icebreaker recapitalization project. The MNS states (emphasis added):
This Mission Need Statement (MNS) establishes the need for polar icebreaker
capabilities provided by the Coast Guard, to ensure that it can meet current and future
mission requirements in the polar regions....
Polar Ice Operations support nine of the eleven authorized [i.e., statutory] Coast Guard
missions....2224
Current requirements and future projections based upon cutter demand modeling,
as detailed in the HLMAR [High Latitude Mission Analysis Report], indicate the
Coast Guard will need to expand its icebreaking capacity, potentially requiring a
fleet of up to six icebreakers (3 heavy and 3 medium) to adequately meet mission
demands in the high latitudes.... The analysis took into account both the Coast Guard
statutory mission requirements and additional requirements for year-round presence in
both polar regions detailed in the Naval Operations Concept (NOC) 2010. The NOC
describes when, where, and how U.S. naval forces will contribute to enhancing security,
preventing conflict, and prevailing in war. The analysis also evaluated employing single
and multi-crewing concepts. Baseline employment standards for single and multi-crew
concepts used 185 DAFHP and 250/280 DAFHP, respectively. Strategic home porting
analysis based upon existing infrastructure and distance to operational areas provided the
final input to determine icebreaker capacity demand....
In response to the National guidance, the HLMAR was commissioned that identified
capability gaps in the Coast Guard’s ability to support and conduct required missions in
the polar regions. Nine of the Coast Guard’s eleven authorized mission programs are
conducted in the high latitudes. These directly support the 2012 Department of Homeland
Security Strategic Plan as well as twelve of the 22 goals and objectives stated in the
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) Report: A Strategic Framework for a
Secure Homeland, February 2010 and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Annual
Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2010 – 2012....
... numerous agencies of the Federal Government have an obligation to conduct polar ice
operations to meet the requirements mandated by treaties, statutes, and executive
direction....
Without recapitalizing the Nation’s polar icebreaking capability, the gap between the
mission demand and icebreaking capacity and capability will continue to grow. Given the
most optimistic scenarios, this gap will grow as the existing fleet ages beyond the
vessels’ designed service lives and unscheduled maintenance diminishes the assets’
operational availabilities. Even with straightline demand, the current polar icebreaker
fleet will not be sufficient to meet projected mission demands. The Coast Guard will be
unable to meet either the current and projected Coast Guard and Federal agency mission
demands or the goals for the QHSR in the high latitudes. Disapproval of the polar
2224
The nine missions supported by polar ice operations are search and rescue; maritime safety; aids to navigation; ice
operations; marine environmental protection; living marine resources; other law enforcement (protect the exclusive
economic zone [EEZ]); ports, waterways and costal security; and defense readiness. The two missions not supported by
polar ice operations are illegal drug interdiction and undocumented migrant interdiction. (Department of Homeland
Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0, approved by DHS June 28,
2013, p. 10.)
Congressional Research Service
9
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
icebreaker project will further challenge the agencies responsible for maintaining an
active and influential United States presence in the polar regions. 2325
A number of studies have been conducted in recent years to assess U.S. requirements for polar
icebreakers and options for sustaining and modernizing the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet.
The findings of some of these studies are presented in the Appendix.
January 2014 Implementation Plan for National Strategy for Arctic Region
On May 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released a document entitled National Strategy for
the Arctic Region.2426 On January 30, 2014, the Obama Administration released an implementation
plan for this strategy.2527 Of the 36 or so specific initiatives in the implementation plan, one is
entitled “Sustain federal capability to conduct maritime operations in ice-impacted waters.” The
implementation plan states the following regarding this initiative:
Objective: Ensure the United States maintains icebreaking and ice-strengthened ship
capability with sufficient capacity to project a sovereign U.S. maritime presence, support
U.S. interests in the Polar Regions and facilitate research that advances the fundamental
understanding of the Arctic.
Next Steps: The Federal Government requires the ability to conduct operations in iceimpacted waters in the Arctic. As maritime activity in the Arctic region increases,
expanded access will be required. Next steps include:
• The lead and supporting Departments and Agencies will develop a document that
lists the capabilities needed to operate in ice-impacted waters to support Federal activities
in the Polar Regions and emergent sovereign responsibilities over the next ten to twenty
years by the end of 2014.
• Develop long-term plans to sustain Federal capability to physically access the
Arctic with sufficient capacity to support U.S. interests by the end of 2017.
Measuring Progress: Sustaining federal capability will be demonstrated through the
Federal Government’s ability to conduct operations in the Arctic to support statutory
missions and sovereign responsibilities, and to advance interests in the region. Progress in
implementing this objective will be measured by completion of the capabilities
document, and long term sustainment plan.
Lead Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Supporting Agencies: Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration), Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of
Transportation, National Science Foundation[.]26
2328
25
Department of Homeland Security, Polar Icebreaking Recapitalization Project Mission Need Statement, Version 1.0,
approved by DHS June 28, 2013, pp. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12.
2426
National Strategy for the Arctic Region, May 2013, 11 pp.; accessed May 14, 2013, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf. The document includes a cover letter from President Obama dated May
10, 2013.
2527
The White House new release about the release of the implementation plan was posted at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/30/white-house-releases-implementation-plan-national-strategy-arcticregion. The document is posted at httphttps://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
implementation_plan_for_the_national_strategy_for_the_arctic_region_-_fi.... pdf.
2628
Implementation Plan for The National Strategy for the Arctic Region, January 2014, pp. 8-9.
Congressional Research Service
10
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
November 2015 Coast Guard Testimony
At a November 17, 2015, hearing before the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
subcommittee and the Western Hemisphere subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, Vice Admiral Charles Michel, the Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard, stated in his
prepared statement that “Polar icebreakers are critical to supporting key national priorities laid
out in the National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Region policy and the National
Strategy for the Arctic Region.”2729 During the discussion portion of the hearing, Michel testified
that the “Coast Guard needs at least two heavy icebreakers to provide year-round assured access
and self-rescueability in the polar regions.”2830
Polar Icebreakers Operated by Other Countries
In discussions of U.S. polar icebreakers, 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.
Table 2 shows a Coast Guard summary of major icebreakers around the world; the figures in the
table include some icebreakers designed for use in the Baltic Sea.
29
Testimony of Vice Admiral Charles D. Michel, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, on “Arctic Operations” Before
the House Foreign Affairs Committee—Western Hemisphere & Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
Subcommittees, November 17, 2015, p. 3.
30
Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
11
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 2. Major Icebreakers Around the World
(as of June 26, 2014)
Total all
types, in
inventory (+
under
construction
+ planned)
In inventory, government owned or
operated
In inventory, privately owned and
operated
45,000 or
more
BHP
20,000 to
44,999
BHP
10,000 to
19,999
BHP
45,000 or
more
BHP
6 (all
nuclear
powered; 4
operational)
7
Russia
40 (+ 6 + 5)
Finland
7 (+ 0 +1)
3
Sweden
6
4
Canada
6 (+0 +1)
2
United States
5 (+0 +1)
2 (Polar Star
and Polar
Sea—Polar
Sea not
operational)
20,000 to
44,999
BHP
10,000 to
19,999
BHP
6
12
9
1
3
2
4
1 (Aiviq—
built for
Shell Oil)
1 (Healy)
Denmark
4
Estonia
2
2
Norway
1 (+0 +1)
1
Germany
1 (+0 +1)
1
China
1 (+0 +1)
1
1 (Palmer)
4
27
Testimony of Vice Admiral Charles D. Michel, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, on “Arctic Operations” Before
the House Foreign Affairs Committee—Western Hemisphere & Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
Subcommittees, November 17, 2015, p. 3.
28
Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
11
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Total all
types, in
inventory (+
under
construction
+ planned)
In inventory, government owned or
operated
In inventory, privately owned and
operated
45,000 or
more
BHP
45,000 or
more
BHP
20,000 to
44,999
BHP
10,000 to
19,999
BHP
Japan
1
Australia
1
1
Chile
1
1
Latvia
1
1
South Korea
1
1
South Africa
1
1
Argentina
1
1 (not
operational)
Argentina
20,000 to
44,999
BHP
10,000 to
19,999
BHP1 (Palmer)
4
1
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Coast Guard chart showing data compiled by the Coast Guard as
of June 26, 2014, accessed online July 1, 2014, at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg552/ice.asp. The table also lists the
United Kingdom as planning one new polar research vessel.
Notes: Includes some icebreakers designed for use in the Baltic Sea. BHP = the brake horsepower of the ship’s
power plant. A ship with 45,000 or more BHP might be considered a heavy polar icebreaker, a ship with 20,000
to 44,999 BHP might be considered a medium polar icebreaker, and a ship with 10,000 to 19,999 BHP might be
considered a light polar icebreaker or an ice-capable polar ship.
Congressional Research Service
12
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Cost Estimates for Certain Polar Icebreaker 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.2931 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. 3032
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.
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.
30
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
12
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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;
$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.”3133
25-Year Service Life Extensions
The Coast Guard stated in February 2008 that performing the extensive maintenance, repair, and
modernization work needed to extend the service lives of Polar Star and Polar Sea 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
31
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.
32
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.
33
United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, p. 13.
Congressional Research Service
13
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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.3234
An August 30, 2010, press report stated that the Commandant of the Coast Guard at the time,
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.”3335
Reactivate Polar Sea for Several Years
At a June 26, 2013, hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Vice Admiral John P. Currier, the Vice
Commandant of the Coast Guard, testified that repairing and reactivating Polar Sea for an
additional 7 to 10 years of service would require about 3 years of repair work at a cost of about
$100 million.3436
As mentioned earlier, the business case analysis required by Section 222 of H.R. 2838/P.L. 112213 was submitted to Congress with a cover date of November 7, 2013. The executive summary
of the analysis states:
Findings:
31
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.
33
Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010. Ellipsis as in original.
34
Transcript of hearing.
32
Congressional Research Service
13
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
A total of 43 mission critical systems in five general categories were assessed and
assigned a condition rating. Overall, Propulsion, Auxiliary and Prime Mission Equipment
are rated Poor to Fair, while Structure and Habitability are rated Fair to Good. POLAR
SEA reactivation is estimated to cost $99.2 million (excluding annual operations and
support costs) to provide 7-10 years of service to the Coast Guard. Given the age of the
icebreaker, operations and support costs are projected to rise from $36.6 million in the
first year of operation to $52.8 million in the tenth year of operation. Combining
reactivation costs and point estimates for operating costs, reactivation would cost $573.9
million. Accounting for operational and technical uncertainties, using a 90% Confidence
Level Risk Analysis, the total potential cost rises to $751.7 million.
Arctic seasonal icebreaking demands through 2022 can be met with existing and planned
Coast Guard assets, as current requirements do not justify the need for heavy icebreaking
capability in the Arctic. Heavy icebreaker capability is needed to perform Operation
Deep Freeze in Antarctica, but Coast Guard assets may not be the only option available to
the National Science Foundation to support this activity. Although a second heavy
icebreaker would provide redundancy, the cost of this redundant capability would come
at the expense of more pressing and immediate operational demands. POLAR STAR,
when fully reactivated, will provide heavy icebreaker capability until a new icebreaker
can be delivered to meet both current and emerging requirements. 3537
34
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.
35
Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010. Ellipsis as in original.
36
Transcript of hearing.
37
U.S. Coast Guard, USCGC POLAR SEA Business Case Analysis, 2103 Report to Congress, November 7, 2013, p. 4.
The report was accessed April 9, 2014, at http://assets.fiercemarkets.net/public/sites/govit/
polarsea_businesscaseanalysis_nov2013.pdf. See also “Second Heavy Icebreaker Not Necessary Through 2022, Says
Coast Guard,” Fierce Homeland Security (http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com), January 19, 2014, which includes
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
At a July 23, 2014, hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger, the Vice
Commandant of the Coast Guard, testified that “as I understand it, that $100 million [estimate]
was a snapshot in time if we were to have begun at that point to reactivate the vessel. We believe
that there’s been some additional deterioration [in the ship’s condition] in the 2.5 years it’s been
sitting [at pier].... But I suspect that it will be something more than $100 million once we do the
assessment [of the ship’s condition].”3638
In an interview published on September 26, 2015, Admiral Paul Zukunft, the Commandant of the
Coast Guard, stated:
One course of action is to reactivate an even older ship, the Polar Sea, and we're doing an
assessment on that to see what would it take to reactivate it. So we'll make that decision
next year. So there's always this cut to the chase, how much is it going to cost?
This is a ship that's been laid up now for five years, parts were cannibalized in order to
get the Polar Star running, it hasn't had a crew on it for that same amount of time as well.
So it's like an old car that's been laid up without an engine in it, an engine that's been
stripped of its parts. It's not until you really tear into it, and what you maybe thought you
could do for $100 million is now $200, is now $300, $400 and you reach a point where
you keep throwing good money after bad. You step back and say, well if it was a car, you
should've bought a new car instead.
The other part to look at with these old icebreakers is if they don't meet today's MARPOL
code [a regulation to limit accidental or operational pollution from ships] for
environmental compliance. If we are setting the standards, we the United State Coast
Guard, ship-going standards to operate in the Arctic under that polar code, then by golly
we ought to be in compliance as well and not in violation. So as we look at new
35
U.S. Coast Guard, USCGC POLAR SEA Business Case Analysis, 2103 Report to Congress, November 7, 2013, p. 4.
The report was accessed April 9, 2014, at http://assets.fiercemarkets.net/public/sites/govit/
polarsea_businesscaseanalysis_nov2013.pdf. See also “Second Heavy Icebreaker Not Necessary Through 2022, Says
Coast Guard,” Fierce Homeland Security (http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com), January 19, 2014, which includes
a link to the assets.fiercemarkets.net site at which the report was posted.
36
Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
14
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
construction, we want to make sure we're in compliance with modern day environmental
standards up there as well.
When asked by the interviewer, as a follow-up question, whether he has “any idea of costs for
reactivating the Polar Sea,” Zukunft replied:
That's why we're doing this full assessment, but we should know probably within a year
from now, and what that will provide us is a floor. It will cost not less than, and I would
never give an exact amount because it's not until you tear into this with an old ship in
trying to find new parts and the like, those costs in all likelihood will grow over time. 3739
Administration Plans for Procuring a New Polar Icebreaker
FY2013-FY2016 Budget Submissions
FY2013 Submission
The Administration’s FY2013 budget submission initiated a new project for the design and
construction of a new polar icebreaker, and included $860 million over five years for the
procurement of the ship (Table 3)—enough or almost enough to fully fund the procurement of a
(...continued)
a link to the assets.fiercemarkets.net site at which the report was posted.
38
Transcript of hearing.
39
Jacqueline Klimas, “Interview: Adm. Paul Zukunft, Coast Guard Commandant,” Washington Examiner, September
26, 2015. Material in brackets as in original.
Congressional Research Service
15
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
new polar icebreaker. (Any remaining needed funding might have been projected for FY2018 and
perhaps also FY2019, which were beyond the five-year window of the FY2013 budget
submission.) The submission stated that DHS anticipated awarding a construction contract for the
ship “within the next five years” (i.e., by FY2018) and taking delivery on the ship “within a
decade” (i.e., by 2023).3840
FY2014 Submission
The Administration’s FY2014 budget submission reduced the five-year funding for a new polar
icebreaker to $230 million (Table 3)—a 73% reduction from the figure in the FY2013 budget
submission—but still stated that DHS anticipated awarding a construction contract for the ship
“within the next four years” (i.e., by FY2018).3941
FY2015 Submission
The Administration’s FY2015 budget submission maintained five-year funding for a new polar
icebreaker at $230 million (Table 3), but did not state when a construction contract for the ship
might be awarded, creating uncertainty about the timing of the project.40
37
Jacqueline Klimas, “Interview: Adm. Paul Zukunft, Coast Guard Commandant,” Washington Examiner, September
26, 2015. Material in brackets as in original.
38
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2011-2013, p. CG-AC&I-40 (pdf
page 1,777 of 3,134).
39
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Justification, p. CGAC&I-32 (pdf page 204 of 403).
40
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2015, Congressional Justification, p. CGAC&I-42 (pdf page 196 of 474).
Congressional Research Service
15
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress42
FY2016 Submission
The Administration’s FY2016 budget submission, submitted to Congress in February 2015,
reduced five-year funding for a new polar icebreaker further, to $166 million (Table 3)—an 81%
reduction from the figure in the FY2013 budget submission—and again did not state when a
construction contract for the ship might be awarded, maintaining the uncertainty about the timing
of the project.4143
Table 3. Funding for Acquisition of New Polar Icebreaker Under FY2013-FY2016
Budget Submissions
(millions of then-year dollars)
FY2013 budget
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
8
120
380
270
82
2
8
100
20
100
6
4
100
20
100
4
10
2
100
FY2014 budget
FY2015 budget
FY2016 budget
FY18
FY19
FY20
5-year
total
860
230
230
50
166
Source: Coast Guard FY2013-FY2016 budget submissions.
40
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2011-2013, p. CG-AC&I-40 (pdf
page 1,777 of 3,134).
41
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Justification, p. CGAC&I-32 (pdf page 204 of 403).
42
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2015, Congressional Justification, p. CGAC&I-42 (pdf page 196 of 474).
43
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2016 Congressional Justification, p. CGAC&I-36 (pdf page 202 of 518).
Congressional Research Service
16
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
September 1, 2015, White House Fact Sheet
On September 1, 2015, the White House issued a fact sheet in conjunction with a visit to Alaska
by President Obama indicating that the Administration, in its own internal planning, had at some
point over the past two years deferred procurement of a new polar icebreaker to FY2022, but that
this has now been changed to FY2020.4244 The newly announced procurement date of FY2020 is a
41
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2016 Congressional Justification, p. CGAC&I-36 (pdf page 202 of 518).
42
two-year acceleration from the previously unpublicized date of FY2022, and a two-year deferral
from the FY2018 date implied in the FY2013 and FY2014 budget submissions. The fact sheet
states that the Administration will also “begin planning for construction of additional icebreakers”
beyond the one that the Administration proposes to procure in FY2020.
January 13, 2016, Coast Guard Announcement of Industry Day
On January 13, 2016, the Coast Guard announced that “the United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Polar Icebreaker Replacement Program intends to host an Industry Day followed by one-on-one
meetings with prospective shipbuilders and ship designers as a part of ongoing market research....
Industry Day is tentatively planned to occur in March 2016.”45 As part of this announcement, the
Coast Guard released an industry data package for the polar icebreaker replacement program. A
notional schedule for the program included in the package shows a draft Request for Proposals
(RFP) being released in the first quarter of FY2017, a final RFP being released in the fourth
quarter of FY2017 or the first quester of FY2018, a contract award being made between the
fourth quarter of FY2018 and the fourth quarter of FY2019, and construction of the ship
beginning as soon as the fourth quarter of FY2019.46
44
The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Obama Announces New Investments to Enhance Safety and Security in the
Changing Arctic,” September 1, 2015, accessed September 2, 2015, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2015/09/01/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-new-investments-enhance-safety-and. Regarding icebreakers, the
fact sheet states:
Accelerating the acquisition of new Coast Guard icebreakers. After World War II, the United
States Coast Guard had seven icebreakers in its fleet—four under the U.S. Navy and three under the
U.S. Coast Guard. Today, the United States technically has three icebreakers in its fleet—all under
the command of the U.S. Coast Guard. However, when age and reliability are taken into account,
the fleet is down to the equivalent of two fully functional icebreakers and only one heavy-duty
icebreaker. Russia, on the other hand, has forty icebreakers and another eleven planned or under
construction.
The growth of human activity in the Arctic region will require highly engaged stewardship to
maintain the open seas necessary for global commerce and scientific research, allow for search and
rescue activities, and provide for regional peace and stability. Accordingly, meeting these
challenges requires the United States to develop and maintain capacity for year-round access to
greater expanses within polar regions.
That is why the Administration will propose to accelerate acquisition of a replacement heavy
icebreaker to 2020 from 2022, begin planning for construction of additional icebreakers, and call on
Congress to work with the Administration to provide sufficient resources to fund these critical
investments. These heavy icebreakers will ensure that the United States can meet our national
interests, protect and manage our natural resources, and strengthen our international, state, local,
and tribal relationships.
Congressional Research Service
16
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
two-year acceleration from the previously unpublicized date of FY2022, and a two-year deferral
from the FY2018 date implied in the FY2013 and FY2014 budget submissions. The fact sheet
states that the Administration will also “begin planning for construction of additional icebreakers”
beyond the one that the Administration proposes to procure in FY2020.
At a November 17, 2015, hearing before the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
subcommittee and the Western Hemisphere subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, Vice Admiral Charles Michel, the Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard, testified
that
The DHS is working with the Administration to support the President’s announced
intention to accelerate the acquisition of a replacement heavy polar icebreaker and begin
planning for construction of additional icebreakers.... The USCGC POLAR STAR
operates with aging equipment and the recent reactivation effort is expected to extend its
lifespan for only another five to eight years. The Coast Guard is finalizing operational
requirements documentation as part of the acquisition process to acquire new heavy polar
icebreakers to address future needs.43
45
“USCG Polar Class Icebreaker Replacement Program,” accessed January 15, 2016, at:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a778c49349c443d2658666e19cc100e9&tab=core&tabmo
de=list&= .
46
Polar Icebreaker Industry Data Package, undated, released January 13, p. 3. Accessed January 15, 2016, at:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&tabid=a82ce0769a3dc86fc8984d6854dea47
f.
Congressional Research Service
17
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Reduction in Coast Guard’s AC&I Account in FY2014 Budget
Submission
The reduction in five-year funding for a new polar icebreaker that began with the FY2014 budget
submission (see Table 3) appears related to a substantial reduction in the annual funding levels in
the Coast
Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) account that began with
the Coast
Guard’s FY2014 budget submission (see Table 4). Prior to the release of the
Administration’s
September 1, 2015, fact sheet, the Coast Guard testified that if annual funding
levels in the AC&I
account are not increased from currently programmed levels, the icebreaker
would be, essentially,
an unfunded requirement. For example, at an April 28, 2015, hearing on
Coast Guard resources
and priorities before the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard
subcommittee of the
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Admiral Paul
Zukunft, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, testified that
by reactivating Polar Star, we have purchased up to 10 years of decision space to
recapitalize our ice-breaking fleet. Two of those years have expired. And while I'm
exploring several options to reconstitute our nation’s fleet of icebreakers, I will need
topline relief [i.e., an increase] in my acquisition budget to make this requirement a
reality.4447
Funding an Icebreaker with Contributions from Agencies Other
Than Coast Guard
Prior to the release of the Administration’s September 1, 2015, fact sheet, theThe Coast Guard’s
strategy for funding the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker appeared to appears to
depend on having other
federal agencies help pay for part of the ship’s cost. The Coast Guard’s
website for the polar
icebreaker acquisition project stated:
43
Testimony of Vice Admiral Charles D. Michel, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, on “Arctic Operations” Before
the House Foreign Affairs Committee—Western Hemisphere & Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
Subcommittees, November 17, 2015, p. 3.
44
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
17
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
In order to fully fund subsequent phases of this program, the Coast Guard believes that a
“whole-of-government” approach will be necessary. Obtaining a new, heavy polar
icebreaker that meets Coast Guard requirements will depend upon supplementary
financing from other agencies whose activities also rely upon the nation possessing a
robust, Arctic-capable surface fleet.45
Recent Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Acquisition Actions
A March 6, 2015, press report stated:
The Coast Guard is in consultation with the Canadians and Finnish ship designers on
technology that could end up in a future U.S. icebreaker, the service’s assistant
commandant for acquisitions said on Thursday [March 5].
“We’re working very closely with the Canadians and the Finns because there’s a small
technological base of real ice breaking experts in the world,” Rear Adm. Bruce Baffer
said....
“We’re trying to keep from recreating the wheel whenever we can.”46 icebreaker acquisition project states:
A new, heavy polar icebreaker will be designed to meet the requirements of multiple
government stakeholders that require access to and presence within the polar regions. In
order to appropriately fund the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker, a “whole-ofgovernment” funding approach is necessary to acquire this national asset. 48
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Acquisition Actions Prior to January
13, 2016, Announcement
This section briefly reviews Coast Guard polar icebreaker acquisition actions prior to the Coast
Guard’s announcement of January 13, 2016.
A December 10, 2015, press report stated:
The Coast Guard is ramping up its engagement with industry in the hopes of finalizing an
acquisition strategy for a new heavy icebreaker by next spring, its top acquisition officer
said Wednesday [December 9].
The service plans on hosting an industry day early next year to seek input from
companies on technologies and potential designs for the vessel, said Rear Adm. Mike
Haycock, Coast Guard director of acquisition programs and program executive officer....
47
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Coast Guard website, “Icebreaker,” accessed December 11, 2015, at http://www.uscg.mil/ACQUISITION/
icebreaker/default.asp.
48
Congressional Research Service
18
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
The hope is to find a “whole of government solution” in which other agencies and
military services will help pay for the vessel, Haycock said.
“The proof will be whether that materializes,” he said. To help generate interest, the
Coast Guard created an integrated product team consisting of 11 governmental
organizations, including the Marine Corps, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and
Naval Sea Systems Command, which have provided feedback on potential requirements.
None of them have volunteered funding thus far, but the Coast Guard plans to ask for
more money for its own budget in the president’s fiscal year 2017 budget request to help
accelerate acquisition activities, he told Defense Daily after the event....
Department of Homeland Security approval of an operational requirements document
could occur as early as January, Haycock said.
To drive down costs and speed up the development process, the Coast Guard wants to
“leverage the work that’s already been done” both by industry and partner nations, he
said. The service has interfaced with the Canadian government, for instance, but found
that the U.S. requirements were significantly different because Canada has a shorter
transit to the Arctic.
It also wants to evaluate the technologies and hull designs that have emerged since the
Polar Sea and Polar Star were designed in the 1960s. Since then, emission standards and
other regulations have changed. A new icebreaker could incorporate features that make it
more efficient, maneuverable and powerful, such as a double hull, advances in
propulsion, fixed pitch propellers, integrated power plants and advanced hull forms.
None of the requirements have been set in stone, but broadly speaking, the Coast Guard
wants a vessel that can break 6 foot deep sheets of ice at 3 knots, Haycock said.
The icebreaker will also need to have some level of multi-mission capability, such as an
oil skimming system and space, weight and power reservations. 49
At a November 17, 2015, hearing before the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
subcommittee and the Western Hemisphere subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, Vice Admiral Charles Michel, the Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard, testified
that
The DHS is working with the Administration to support the President’s announced
intention to accelerate the acquisition of a replacement heavy polar icebreaker and begin
planning for construction of additional icebreakers.... The USCGC POLAR STAR
operates with aging equipment and the recent reactivation effort is expected to extend its
lifespan for only another five to eight years. The Coast Guard is finalizing operational
requirements documentation as part of the acquisition process to acquire new heavy polar
icebreakers to address future needs.50
A March 6, 2015, press report stated:
The Coast Guard is in consultation with the Canadians and Finnish ship designers on
technology that could end up in a future U.S. icebreaker, the service’s assistant
commandant for acquisitions said on Thursday [March 5].
49
Valerie Insinna, “Coast Guard to Finalize Acquisition Strategy for New Heavy Icebreaker Next Spring,” Defense
Daily, December 10, 2015: 1-3.
50
Testimony of Vice Admiral Charles D. Michel, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, on “Arctic Operations” Before
the House Foreign Affairs Committee—Western Hemisphere & Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
Subcommittees, November 17, 2015, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
19
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
“We’re working very closely with the Canadians and the Finns because there’s a small
technological base of real ice breaking experts in the world,” Rear Adm. Bruce Baffer
said....
“We’re trying to keep from recreating the wheel whenever we can.” 51
An October 6, 2014, trade press report stated:
Reaching out to industry, the Coast Guard has issued a Request for Information (RFI) for
commercial heavy polar icebreaker designs and the capability of industry in the United
States to build such a ship....
In a Sept. 30 notice in the FedBizOpps.gov, the Coast Guard says the RFI is a
“precursor” to a potential procurement of a non-nuclear polar icebreaker. The Coast
Guard is interested in commercial and scientific research icebreakers that can be, or be
configured to meet, its operational mission requirements. Responses may be used to help
the service develop an acquisition strategy, it says.
The minimum mission set is to be able to perform operations that the 399-foot Polar Star
can do, the Coast Guard says.4752
The Coast Guard stated on June 20, 2014, that
The U.S. Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker acquisition project achieved the next acquisition
milestone on June 13, 2014, with approval to enter the Analyze/Select phase of the
Department of Homeland Security acquisition lifecycle. This action validates the need for
continued icebreaker capabilities and allows the project to move forward to the next
acquisition phase.
Approval to proceed was granted after the Coast Guard identified specific capabilities
necessary to address mission performance gaps and prepared a formal mission need
statement, concept of operations overview and preliminary acquisition plan. During the
Analyze/Select Phase, the Coast Guard will develop operational requirements for a future
polar icebreaker, identify resources required to maintain the asset through its lifecycle
and assess potential alternatives capable of meeting polar icebreaking mission
requirements.48
45
Coast Guard website, “Icebreaker,” accessed March 16, 2015, at http://www.uscg.mil/ACQUISITION/icebreaker/
default.asp.
46
Sam LaGrone, “Coast Guard Working With Canadians, Finns on Future Icebreaker Design,” USNI News, March 6,
2015.
47
Calvin Biesecker, “Coast Guard Requests Information On Heavy Polar Icebreaker,” Defense Daily, October 6, 2014.
48
“Acquisition Update: Polar Icebreaker Acquisition Project Approved For Next Phase,” June 20, 2014, accessed
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Issues for Congress
Whether to Approve, Reject, or Modify the Administration’s Plans
for Procuring a New Polar Icebreaker
Overview
A key issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Administration’s plans for
sustaining and modernizing the polar icebreaking fleet. A polar icebreaker procured in FY2020,
as the Administration is proposing, might enter service in 2024 or 2025. Polar Star has been
refurbished and reentered service in December 2012 for an intended period of 7 to 10 years—a
53
Issues for Congress
Whether to Approve, Reject, or Modify the Administration’s Plans
for Procuring a New Polar Icebreaker
Overview
A key issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Administration’s plans for
sustaining and modernizing the polar icebreaking fleet. A polar icebreaker procured in FY2020,
as the Administration is proposing, might enter service in 2024 or 2025. Polar Star has been
refurbished and reentered service in December 2012 for an intended period of 7 to 10 years—a
51
Sam LaGrone, “Coast Guard Working With Canadians, Finns on Future Icebreaker Design,” USNI News, March 6,
2015.
52
Calvin Biesecker, “Coast Guard Requests Information On Heavy Polar Icebreaker,” Defense Daily, October 6, 2014.
53
“Acquisition Update: Polar Icebreaker Acquisition Project Approved For Next Phase,” June 20, 2014, accessed
December 23, 2014, at http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/newsroom/updates/icebreaker062014.asp.
Congressional Research Service
20
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
period that will end between December 2019 and December 2022. Consequently, unless the
service life of Polar Star is further extended (or unless Polar Sea is repaired and returned to
service), there will be a period of perhaps two to six years during which the United States will
have no operational heavy polar icebreakers.
Whether it would be feasible and cost effective to extend the service life of Polar Star beyond the
end of its current 7- to 10-year period of service is not clear. As discussed earlier, the Coast Guard
estimates that repairing Polar Sea so as to support its reactivation for 7 to 10 additional years of
operation would likely cost more than $100 million (not including the ship’s annual operation and
support costs for those 7 to 10 years).
Amount of Funding Requested for FY2017
The Coast Guard will submit its proposed FY2017 budget to Congress in February 2016. In
reviewing that proposed budget, one potential oversight issue for Congress will be the amount of
acquisition funding that the budget requests for polar icebreaker acquisition in FY2017, and how
that amount compares with the $120 million that was programmed for FY2014 under the Coast
Guard’s FY2013 budget submission, the $100 million that was programmed for FY2016 under
the Coast Guard’s FY2014 budget submission, the $100 million that was programmed for
FY2017 under the Coast Guard’s FY2015 budget submission, and the $100 million that was
programmed for FY2019 under the Coast Guard’s FY2016 budget submission (see Table 3).
Procuring a New Polar Icebreaker with Non-Coast Guard Funding
Some observers believe it might be easier to fund the procurement of a new polar icebreaker if at
least some of the funding came from parts of the federal budget other than the Coast Guard’s
budget. As discussed earlier, prior to the release of the Administration’s September 1, 2015, fact
sheet, the Coast Guard’s strategy for funding the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker appeared
to depend on having other federal agencies help pay for part of the ship’s cost.
There is some precedent for the idea of funding the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker in part
with contributions from other federal agencies: the procurement of Healy was largely funded in FY1990
in
FY1990 through the Navy’s shipbuilding account.4954 Other federal agencies, however, currently
face challenges
in being able to fund their own programs within funding constraints, raising a
question as to
whether they would be able to contribute significant amounts of funding to a
project to procure a
new polar icebreaker.
Building Polar Icebreakers in Foreign Shipyards
Some observers believe the procurement cost of U.S. Coast Guard polar icebreakers could be
reduced, perhaps substantially, by building them in a foreign shipyard, such as a yard in one of
(...continued)
December 23, 2014, at http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/newsroom/updates/icebreaker062014.asp.
49
The
54
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY1990 budget requested $244 million for the procurement of an icebreaker. 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 ship in
the SCN account. (See pages 77 and 78 of H.Rept. 101-345 of November 13, 1989.) The
Coast Guard states that “The FY 1990 Coast Guard budget included a request for $244M [million]. Congress opted
instead to provide $329M in the Navy’s Shipbuilding and Conversion (SCN) account to fully fund production for a
‘Coast Guard Icebreaker Ship Program’. Following a rescission of $54.2M later that year from that account, Congress
provided an additional $59.5M in FY 1991 to complete production.” (Coast Guard email to CRS, November 12, 2015.)
Congressional Research Service
19 Coast Guard states that “The
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings sequestration reduced this amount by $4.2M [million]. The FY 1990 DoD Dire Emergency
Supplemental Act rescinded $50M for other purposes. [The] Remaining funds ($274.8M) were preserved in the DoD
SCN account for the original purpose. U.S. Navy policy limited the use of SCN funds for spares, training, and
administrative costs. As a result, Coast Guard requested funds for these activities in the following years.” Congress, in
acting on these requests, appropriated a total of $40.4 million through the Coast Guard’s budget in a series of annual
increments from FY1988 through FY2001. (Source: Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS, December 28, 2015.)
Congressional Research Service
21
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
the Nordic countries that is experienced in building icebreakers. Shipyards in Finland reportedly
are interested in building polar icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard.5055
Some observers have suggested that a U.S. law known as the Jones Act prevents the U.S. Coast
Guard from buying or operating a foreign-built polar icebreaker. The Jones Act, however, does
not prevent the U.S. Coast Guard from buying or operating a foreign-built polar icebreaker.5156 Two
other laws, however, are of note in connection with the idea of building a U.S. Coast Guard polar
icebreaker in a foreign shipyard. One is 14 U.S.C. 665, which states:
§665. Restriction on construction of vessels in foreign shipyards
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no Coast Guard vessel, and no major component
of the hull or superstructure of a Coast Guard vessel, may be constructed in a foreign
shipyard.
(b) The President may authorize exceptions to the prohibition in subsection (a) when the
President determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do
so. The President shall transmit notice to Congress of any such determination, and no
contract may be made pursuant to the exception authorized until the end of the 30-day
period beginning on the date the notice of such determination is received by Congress.
The other is 10 U.S.C. 7309, which states:
§7309. Construction of vessels in foreign shipyards: prohibition
(a) Prohibition.-Except as provided in subsection (b), no vessel to be constructed for any
of the armed forces,5257 and no major component of the hull or superstructure of any such
vessel, may be constructed in a foreign shipyard.
(b) Presidential Waiver for National Security Interest.-(1) The President may authorize
exceptions to the prohibition in subsection (a) when the President determines that it is in
the national security interest of the United States to do so.
(2) The President shall transmit notice to Congress of any such determination, and no
contract may be made pursuant to the exception authorized until the end of the 30-day
5055
See, for example, Jim Paulin, “Finland Wants In On US Icebreaker Investment,” Alaska Dispatch News, September
8, 2015.
5156
The Jones Act (sectionSection 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, P.L. 66-261) applies to vessels transporting
“merchandise” from one U.S. point to another U.S. point. It requires that such transportation be performed in U.S.built -built
vessels owned by U.S. citizens and registered in the United States; U.S. registration, in turn, requires that crew
members be U.S. citizens. Merchandise is defined to include “merchandise owned by the U.S. Government, a State, or
a subdivision of a State; and valueless material” (46 U.S.C. §55102). Merchandise is further defined at 19 U.S.C.
§1401(c) to mean “goods, wares, and chattels of every description.” It is the waterborne transportation of merchandise
domestically that triggers the Jones Act. A vessel wishing to engage in such transportation would apply to the U.S.
Coast Guard for a “coastwise endorsement.” Thus, an icebreaker strictly performing the task it is designed for and not
transporting cargo from one U.S. point to another would not be subject to the Jones Act.
The federal agency in charge of deciding what kind of maritime activity must comply with the Jones Act, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP), has confirmed that icebreaking is not one of those activities. In a 2006 ruling, which
appears to be its most recent ruling on the subject, CPB informed Alcoa, Inc. that it could use foreign-built and foreignflagged vessels for icebreaking on the Hudson River in New York State. CBP reasoned that the transporting of
equipment, supplies, and materials used on or from the vessel in effecting its service is not coastwise trade, provided
that these articles are necessary for the accomplishment of the vessel’s mission and are usually carried aboard the
vessel as a matter of course. The 2006 ruling cited earlier rulings in 1974, 1985, and 2000 as precedent.
For more on the Jones Act, see CRS Report R42764, Federal Freight Policy: In Brief, by John Frittelli, and CRS
Report RS21566, The Jones Act: An Overview, by John Frittelli.
5257
14 U.S.C. 1, which establishes the Coast Guard, states: “The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a
military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.”
Congressional Research Service
2022
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
period beginning on the date on which the notice of the determination is received by
Congress.
(c) Exception for Inflatable Boats.-An inflatable boat or a rigid inflatable boat, as defined
by the Secretary of the Navy, is not a vessel for the purpose of the restriction in
subsection (a).
Awarding a Contract to Design a Polar Icebreaker with a Contract Option to
Build the Ship
The polar icebreaker acquisition project can be viewed as competing for limited acquisition
funding against ongoing programs for building other military ships, aircraft, vehicles, weapons,
and other equipment. The builders of these other military end items are known; the builder of a
polar icebreaker, were such a ship to be funded, is not. One potential option for Congress for
addressing the situation of the identity of the builder of a polar icebreaker not being known would
be to include, in an annual Coast Guard and maritime transportation authorization act and/or an
annual DHS appropriations act, language directing the Coast Guard to complete requirements
definition for a polar icebreaker and competitively award a contract for the detailed design of a
polar icebreaker, with a priced option in that contract to build the ship, should funding at some
point be appropriated for the construction of the ship. Under this option, funding might be
authorized and appropriated for completing requirements definition, holding the competition for
the contract, and completing the detailed design of the ship.
Coast Guard officials state that defining the requirements for a new polar icebreaker is a lengthy
process due to the complexity of the ship’s mission and the need to consult with other federal
agencies, such as NSF and the Navy.53 Supporters of completing requirements definition and
competitively awarding a contract for the detailed design of a polar icebreaker could argue that
although defining requirements is a lengthy process, the Coast Guard has been studying
requirements for polar icebreakers for several years and can also draw on decades of experience
in operating polar icebreakers to inform its understanding of requirements for a new polar
icebreaker.
Funding Level of Coast Guard’s AC&I Account
The Coast Guard’s apparent difficulty—at least prior to the release of the Administration’s
September 1, 2015, fact sheet—in identifying funding from within its own budget to fully fund
the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker can be viewed as just one reflection of a larger challenge
that the Coast Guard faces in funding various acquisition projects within an Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) account that has been reduced in the Coast Guard’s
FY2014-FY2016 budget submissions to roughly $1 billion to $1.2 billion per year.
The Coast Guard has testified that acquiring the ships and aircraft in its program of record (POR)
on a timely basis while also adequately funding other Coast Guard acquisition programs would
require a funding level for the AC&I account of roughly $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion per year. As
shown in Table 4 below, the Administration’s FY2013 budget submission programmed an
average of about $1.5 billion per year in the AC&I account. As also shown in the table,
53
See, for example, the spoken comments of Coast Guard Vice Admiral Charles Michel, Deputy Commandant for
Operations, at a March 18, 2015, hearing on naval cooperative strategy before the Seapower and Projection Forces
subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as reflected in the transcript of the hearing.
Congressional Research Service
21
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
subsequent budget submissions have reduced that figure to roughly $1 billion to $1.2 billion per
year.
Table 4. Funding in AC&I Account in FY2013-FY2016 Budgets
Millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth
FY13 budget
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
1,217.3
1,429.5
1,619.9
1,643.8
1,722.0
951.1
1,195.7
901.0
1,024.8
1,030.3
1,084.2
1,103.0
1,128.9
1,180.4
1,228.7
1,017.3
1,125.3
1,255.7
1,201.0
FY14 budget
FY15 budget
FY16 budget
FY18
FY19
FY20
Avg.
1,526.5
1,020.6
1,145.0
1,294.6
1,178.8
Source: Coast Guard FY2013-FY2016 budget submissions.
Congressional Research Service
23
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
At a June 26, 2013, hearing on Coast Guard acquisition before the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, CRS
testified that
The Coast Guard’s FY2014 Five Year (FY2014-FY2018) CIP includes a total of about
$5.1 billion in acquisition funding, which is about $2.5 billion, or about 33%, less than
the total of about $7.6 billion that was included in the Coast Guard’s FY2013 Five Year
(FY2013-FY2017) CIP. (In the four common years of the two plans—FY2014FY2017—the reduction in funding from the FY2013 CIP to the FY2014 CIP is about
$2.3 billion, or about 37%.) This is one of the largest percentage reductions in funding
that I have seen a five-year acquisition account experience from one year to the next in
many years.
About twenty years ago, in the early 1990s, Department of Defense (DOD) five-year
procurement plans were reduced sharply in response to the end of the Cold War—a largescale change in the strategic environment that led to a significant reduction in estimated
future missions for U.S. military forces. In contrast to that situation, there has been no
change in the Coast Guard’s strategic environment since last year that would suggest a
significant reduction in estimated future missions for the Coast Guard. 5458
Funding the AC&I account at a level of about $1 billion per year, the Coast Guard has testified,
would make it difficult to fund various Coast Guard acquisition projects. Coast Guard plans, for
example, call for procuring Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs) at an eventual rate of two per year.5559
If each OPC costs roughly $400 million (a current estimate), procuring two OPCs per year in an
AC&I account of about $1 billion per year would leave about $200 million per year for all other
AC&I-funded programs.
At an October 4, 2011, hearing on the Coast Guard’s major acquisition programs before the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, the following exchange occurred:
REPRESENATIVE FRANK LOBIONDO:
54
Statement of Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Congressional Research Service, before the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Hearing on
Coast Guard Readiness: Examining Cutter, Aircraft, and Communications Needs, June 26, 2013, p. 1.
55
For more on the OPC program, see CRS Report R42567, Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
22
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Can you give us your take on what percentage of value must be invested each year to
maintain current levels of effort and to allow the Coast Guard to fully carry out its
missions?
ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, COMMANDANT OF THE COAST GUARD:
I think I can, Mr. Chairman. Actually, in discussions and looking at our budget—and I’ll
give you rough numbers here, what we do now is we have to live within the constraints
that we’ve been averaging about $1.4 billion in acquisition money each year.
If you look at our complete portfolio, the things that we’d like to do, when you look at the
shore infrastructure that needs to be taken care of, when you look at renovating our
smaller icebreakers and other ships and aircraft that we have, we’ve done some rough
estimates that it would really take close to about $2.5 billion a year, if we were to do all
the things that we would like to do to sustain our capital plant.
So I’m just like any other head of any other agency here, as that the end of the day, we’re
given a top line and we have to make choices and tradeoffs and basically, my tradeoffs
58
Statement of Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Congressional Research Service, before the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Hearing on
Coast Guard Readiness: Examining Cutter, Aircraft, and Communications Needs, June 26, 2013, p. 1.
59
For more on the OPC program, see CRS Report R42567, Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
24
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
boil down to sustaining frontline operations balancing that, we’re trying to recapitalize
the Coast Guard and there’s where the break is and where we have to define our
spending.5660
An April 18, 2012, blog entry stated:
If the Coast Guard capital expenditure budget remains unchanged at less than $1.5 billion
annually in the coming years, it will result in a service in possession of only 70 percent of
the assets it possesses today, said Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mark Butt.
Butt, who spoke April 17 [2012] at [a] panel [discussion] during the Navy League Sea
Air Space conference in National Harbor, Md., echoed Coast Guard Commandant Robert
Papp in stating that the service really needs around $2.5 billion annually for
procurement.5761
At a May 9, 2012, hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY2013 budget before the Homeland
Security subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Admiral Papp testified, “I’ve
gone on record saying that I think the Coast Guard needs closer to $2 billion dollars a year [in
acquisition funding] to recapitalize—[to] do proper recapitalization.”5862
At a May 14, 2013, hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget before the Homeland
Security subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Admiral Papp stated the
56
following regarding the difference between having about $1.0 billion per year rather than about
$1.5 billion per year in the AC&I account:
Well, Madam Chairman, $500 million—a half a billion dollars—is real money for the
Coast Guard. So, clearly, we had $1.5 billion in the [FY]'13 budget. It doesn't get
everything I would like, but it—it gave us a good start, and it sustained a number of
projects that are very important to us.
When we go down to the $1 billion level this year, it gets my highest priorities in there,
but we have to either terminate or reduce to minimum order quantities for all the other
projects that we have going.
If we're going to stay with our program of record, things that have been documented that
we need for our service, we're going to have to just stretch everything out to the right.
And when we do that, you cannot order in economic order quantities. It defers the
purchase. Ship builders, aircraft companies—they have to figure in their costs, and it
inevitably raises the cost when you're ordering them in smaller quantities and pushing it
off to the right.
60
Source: Transcript of hearing.
David Perera, “The Coast Guard Is Shrinking,” FierceHomelandSecurity.com, April 18, 2012, accessed July 20,
2012, at http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/story/coast-guard-shrinking/2012-04-18.
5862
Source: transcript of hearing. Papp may have been referring to remarks he made to the press before giving his annual
state of the Coast Guard speech on February 23, 2012, in which reportedly stated that the Coast Guard would require
about $2 billion per year in acquisition funding to fully replace its current assets. (See Adam Benson, “Coast Guard
Cutbacks Will Cost 1,000 Jobs,” Norwich Bulletin, February 23, 2012, accessed May 31, 2012, at
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/x1138492141/Coast-Guard-cutbacks-will-cost-1-000-jobs#axzz1wSDAFCzX.
See also “Coast Guard Leader Calls For More Ships,” MilitaryFeed.com, February 24, 2012, accessed May 31, 2012, at
http://militaryfeed.com/coast-guard-leader-calls-for-more-ships-5/; Associated Press, “Coast Guard Commandant Calls
for New Ships,” TheLog.com, March 10, 2012, accessed May 31, 2012, at http://www.thelog.com/SNW/Article/CoastGuard-Commandant-Calls-for-New-Ships-to-Replace-Aging-Fleet; Mickey McCarter, “Congress Poised to Give Coast
Guard More Money Than Requested for FY 2013,” HSToday.us, May 10, 2012, accessed May 31, 2012, at
http://www.hstoday.us/focused-topics/customs-immigration/single-article-page/congress-poised-to-give-coast-guardmore-money-than-requested-for-fy-2013.html.) See also “Interview, Adm. Robert Papp, US Coast Guard
Commandant,” Defense News, November 11, 2013: 30.
5761
Congressional Research Service
23
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
following regarding the difference between having about $1.0 billion per year rather than about
$1.5 billion per year in the AC&I account:
Well, Madam Chairman, $500 million—a half a billion dollars—is real money for the
Coast Guard. So, clearly, we had $1.5 billion in the [FY]'13 budget. It doesn't get
everything I would like, but it—it gave us a good start, and it sustained a number of
projects that are very important to us.
When we go down to the $1 billion level this year, it gets my highest priorities in there,
but we have to either terminate or reduce to minimum order quantities for all the other
projects that we have going.
If we're going to stay with our program of record, things that have been documented that
we need for our service, we're going to have to just stretch everything out to the right.
And when we do that, you cannot order in economic order quantities. It defers the
purchase. Ship builders, aircraft companies—they have to figure in their costs, and it
inevitably raises the cost when you're ordering them in smaller quantities and pushing it
off to the right.
25
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Plus, it almost creates a death spiral for the Coast Guard because we are forced to sustain
older assets—older ships and older aircraft—which ultimately cost us more money, so it
eats into our operating funds, as well, as we try to sustain these older things.
So, we'll do the best we can within the budget. And the president and the secretary have
addressed my highest priorities, and we'll just continue to go on the—on an annual basis
seeing what we can wedge into the budget to keep the other projects going. 5963
At a March 12, 2014, hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY2015 budget before the
Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Admiral Papp stated:
Well, that’s what we've been struggling with, as we deal with the five-year plan, the
capital investment plan, is showing how we are able to do that. And it will be a challenge,
particularly if it sticks at around $1 billion [per year]. As I've said publicly, and actually, I
said we could probably—I've stated publicly before that we could probably construct
comfortably at about 1.5 billion [dollars] a year. But if we were to take care of all the
Coast Guard’s projects that are out there, including shore infrastructure that that fleet that
takes care of the Yemen [sic: inland] waters is approaching 50 years of age, as well, but I
have no replacement plan in sight for them because we simply can't afford it. Plus, we
need at some point to build a polar icebreaker. Darn tough to do all that stuff when you're
pushing down closer to 1 billion [dollars per year], instead of 2 billion [dollars per year].
As I said, we could fit most of that in at about the 1.5 billion [dollars per year] level, but
the projections don't call for that. So we are scrubbing the numbers as best we can. 6064
At a March 24, 2015, hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY2016 budget before the
Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Admiral Paul
Zukunft, Admiral Papp’s successor as Commandant of the Coast Guard, stated:
I look back to better years in our acquisition budget when we had a—an acquisition
budget of—of $1.5 billion. That allows me to move these programs along at a much more
rapid pace and, the quicker I can build these at full-rate production, the less cost it is in
the long run as well. But there’s an urgent need for me to be able to deliver these
platforms in a timely and also in an affordable manner. But to at least have a reliable and
a predictable acquisition budget would make our work in the Coast Guard much easier.
59
60
Transcript of hearing. The remarks were made in response to a question from Senator Mary Landrieu.
Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
24
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
But when we see variances of—of 30, 40% over a period of three or four years, and not
knowing what the Budget Control Act may have in store for us going on, yes, we are
treading water now but any further reductions, and now I am—I am beyond asking for
help. We are taking on water.6165
At an earlier point in the hearing, Zukunft stated:
The concern is our ability to recapitalize and to recapitalize at—at a pace that would
make it affordable. We—we've had unpredictable budgets. I've been through 21
continuing resolutions in the last four years. Under a continuing resolution it prohibits me
from engaging in—major acquisition programs so a predictable, reliable budget, to have
an acquisition budget that is equally predictable and doesn't experience a 35 to 38%
reduction over a period of three or four years, at a point in time where I have a
confluence of finishing the national security cutter [NSC]. I'd need to bring on the
offshore patrol cutter [OPC], finish out the fast-response cutter [FPC] by 2020,62 and that
66 and that
63
Transcript of hearing. The remarks were made in response to a question from Senator Mary Landrieu.
Transcript of hearing.
65
Transcript of hearing. The remarks were made in response to a question from Representative John Culberson.
66
For more on the NSC, OPC, and FRC programs, see CRS Report R42567, Coast Guard Cutter Procurement:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
64
Congressional Research Service
26
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
doesn't even touch the Arctic domain. There—there is no money for me to even address
the Arctic. And so those are the challenges that I face and I—I could not be more clear is
that a one point, you know, [a] $1 billion AC&I (ph) budget will not address these
concerns that are—they're not even over the horizon. They are now in front of me...
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS STEWART:
(Inaudible)
ZUKUNFT:
... staring me in the face today.6367
Although the annual amounts of acquisition funding that the Coast Guard has received in recent
years are one potential guide to what Coast Guard acquisition funding levels might or should be
in coming years, there may be other potential guides. For example, one could envision potential
guides that focus on whether Coast Guard funding for ship acquisition and sustainment is
commensurate with Coast Guard funding for the personnel that in many cases will operate the
ships. Observations that might be made in connection with this example based on the Coast
Guard and Navy budget submissions include the following:
Using figures from the FY2014 budget submission, the Coast Guard has about
12.9% as many active-duty personnel as the Navy.6468 If the amount of funding for
the surface ship acquisition and sustainment part of the AC&I account were
equivalent to 12.9% of the amount of funding in the Navy’s shipbuilding account,
this part of the AC&I account would be about $1.8 billion per year.6569 Navy
surface ship acquisition, unlike Coast Guard surface ship acquisition, includes
substantial numbers of large and complex ships, including nuclear-powered
aircraft carriers, highly capable surface combatants, and large amphibious and
auxiliary ships. Accounting for this difference in Navy and Coast Guard surface
61
Transcript of hearing. The remarks were made in response to a question from Representative John Culberson.
For more on the NSC, OPC, and FRC programs, see CRS Report R42567, Coast Guard Cutter Procurement:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
63
Transcript of hearing. The remarks were made in response to a question from Representative Chris Stewart.
64
The Coast Guard for FY2014 appears to be requesting an active-duty end strength—the number of active-duty
military personnel—of 41,594 (measured by the Coast Guard in full-time equivalent [FTE] positions); the Navy for
FY2014 is requesting an active-duty end strength of 323,600.
65
The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $14,078 million for the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN)
appropriation account.
62
Congressional Research Service
25
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
ship acquisition by reducing the $1.8 billion figure by, say, one-half or one-third
would produce an adjusted figure of about $900 million to about $1.2 billion per
year.
Again using figures from the FY2014 budget submission, funding in the Navy’s
shipbuilding account is equivalent to about 51% of the Navy’s funding for activeduty personnel.6670 If Coast Guard funding for surface ship acquisition and
sustainment were equivalent to 51% of Coast Guard funding for military pay and
allowances, this part of the AC&I account would be about $1.7 billion per year.6771
Reducing the $1.8 billion figure by, say, one-half or one-third to account for
differences in the types of surface ships acquired by the Navy and Coast Guard
(see previous bullet point) would produce an adjusted figure of about $850
million to about $1.1 billion per year.
67
Transcript of hearing. The remarks were made in response to a question from Representative Chris Stewart.
The Coast Guard for FY2014 appears to be requesting an active-duty end strength—the number of active-duty
military personnel—of 41,594 (measured by the Coast Guard in full-time equivalent [FTE] positions); the Navy for
FY2014 is requesting an active-duty end strength of 323,600.
69
The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $14,078 million for the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN)
appropriation account.
70
The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $27,824 million for the Military Personnel, Navy (MPN)
appropriation account.
71
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $3,425.3 million for military pay and allowances.
68
Congressional Research Service
27
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Procurement 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 before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that focused on the polar
icebreaker fleet, Admiral Robert Papp, the Commandant of the Coast Guard at the time, 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. 6872
At another point in the hearing, Admiral Papp stated:
66
The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $27,824 million for the Military Personnel, Navy (MPN)
appropriation account.
67
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $3,425.3 million for military pay and allowances.
68
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
26
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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.6973
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.
72
73
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
28
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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. 7074
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. 7175
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.7276
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
69
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Source: Transcript of hearing.
71
Source: Transcript of hearing.
72
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.
70
Congressional Research Service
27
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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.7377
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.
74
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Source: Transcript of hearing.
76
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.
77
Source: Transcript of hearing.
75
Congressional Research Service
29
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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.7478
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 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
73
74
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
28
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Guard. Additionally, an initial cost-benefit 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.7579
Legislative Activity for FY2016
FY2016 Funding Request
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2016 budget requests $4 million to continue initial acquisition
activities for a new polar icebreaker.
FY2016 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations
Act (H.R. 3128/S. 161978
Source: Transcript of hearing.
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.
79
Congressional Research Service
30
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
FY2016 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 3128/S. 1619/H.R. 2029)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 114-215 of July 21, 2015) on H.R.
3128, recommends $4 million for a polar icebreaking vessel (page 61).
H.Rept. 114-215 states:
Polar Ice Breaking Vessel
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the polar ice breaking program, the same
amount included in the request and $4,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year
2015.
This Administration has failed repeatedly to present a viable acquisition program for a
new, heavy icebreaker. Previous CIPs have alluded to an incrementally funded
acquisition within the existing Coast Guard AC&I topline funding level—a topline that
has apparently been set arbitrarily with no relation to Coast Guard requirements. These
proposals only partially fund a new icebreaker while jeopardizing existing, validated
Coast Guard recapitalization programs.
Further, it is unreasonable for the Administration to impose the entire cost of an
icebreaker on the Coast Guard because this vessel’s capability supports the missions and
requirements of multiple executive branch agencies and these requirements will
significantly increase the total cost of the asset. The Committee believes that shared
funding among stakeholder agencies is a more appropriate method of funding, as it
allows for continued recapitalization of the Coast Guard while simultaneously acquiring a
critically needed ice breaking capability. (Pages 62-63)
H.Rept. 114-215 also states:
The Committee is alarmed by the significant decrease in the President’s budget request
for AC&I [Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements]. The Coast Guard continues to
communicate publicly that its fleets of aircraft and vessels are in desperate need of
recapitalization. Many vessels are decades beyond their useful life. Though the need for
recapitalization programs is apparent, the budget request fails to meet the requirement.
75
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.
Congressional Research Service
29
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
The Committee recommends a significant increase to the AC&I request and expects the
Department and the Administration to provide a more realistic AC&I budget request in
the future. (Page 60)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 114-68 of June 18, 2015) on S. 1619,
recommends $4 million to continue initial acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar
icebreaker (pages 80 and 83).
S.Rept. 114-68 states:
As an extension of our border security needs, the Coast Guard’s vessel and air fleets are
vital. Yet, the age of those fleets and their antiquated capabilities beg recapitalization and
modernization. Year after year, the President’s budget requests short-change Coast
Guard’s acquisition needs and year after year, the Coast Guard’s Commandants indicate
before Congress that their annual acquisition budget is insufficient. As the Coast Guard
proceeds towards selecting a final design for the Offshore Patrol Cutter [OPC], the
Committee sees an opportunity for a ninth National Security Cutter [NSC] in the interim.
The most capable vessel ever commissioned by the Coast Guard, the NSC will replace
aging high endurance cutters which were state-of-the-art nearly a half-century ago. In
Congressional Research Service
31
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
addition to cutter needs, the Committee continues its acquisition and sustainment
investments in the Coast Guard’s icebreaking fleet, directs further guidance from the
Coast Guard on their air fleet mix, and increases investments in critical shore facilities.
(Page 6)
S.Rept. 114-68 also states:
POLAR ICEBREAKER
It is obvious that the United States needs another polar icebreaker, yet the administration
has offered nothing in the way of a plan to fund and procure this new asset. Furthermore,
the administration has not articulated a bridging strategy to demonstrate how legacy
assets will be used in the interim to accomplish Coast Guard missions. Even with one
operational heavy polar icebreaker, it is unclear how the Coast Guard would perform a
rescue operation in the event that the Polar Star were to be in jeopardy.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, shall submit to Congress a report on the
current ability of the Coast Guard to provide the U.S. Navy with adequate icebreaking
capabilities to operate a surface combatant ship in the Arctic year-round. This report shall
take into account the current requirements on Coast Guard icebreakers to conduct
Operation Deep Freeze as well as regularly scheduled maintenance. This report shall also
provide what assets are required to ensure that the Coast Guard can provide the Navy
year-round icebreaking capabilities in the Arctic while also completing all current
missions through 2030. (Pages 74-75)
S.Rept. 114-68 also states:
CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
The CIP is essential for the Committee to carry out its oversight function of the Coast
Guard, especially at a time when recapitalization of aging assets has become so critical
for the service. All of the information required by the Committee is in accordance with
the Coast Guard’s Major Systems Acquisition Manual and applicable DHS management
directives. The fiscal year 2017–2021 plan is to be submitted with the fiscal year 2017
congressional budget justification. While the Committee appreciates the timely delivery
of the 2016–2020 CIP, the Coast Guard needs to ensure the document it provides is
robust and meets congressional intent particularly with respect to detailing the deviations
Congressional Research Service
30
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
from original baseline. For example, the Coast Guard has the goal of a C–130 fleet
comprised entirely of the ‘‘J’’ model by the mid-2020s, but provides no funding to that
end and no roadmap to this fleet. The CIP is similarly brief concerning other critical
assets such as the polar icebreaker and plans for UAS. The Committee expects additional
details on these areas in the CIP accompanying the fiscal year 2017 budget request.
(Pages 80-81)
Conference
The FY2016 DHS appropriations act is Division F of H.R. 2029, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2016. The explanatory statement for Division F of H.R. 2029 provides $6 million in the
Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction and Improvements (AC&I) account for “Polar Ice
Breaking Vessel”—an increase of $2 million above the request (PDF page 47 of 118; see also
PDF page 100 of 118). The explanatory statement states:
Polar Icebreaker
The growth of global commerce, scientific research, tourism, and other activity in the
Arctic region requires a multi-mission icebreaker to sustain a U.S. presence, maintain
domain awareness, and furnish critical search and rescue capabilities. Unfortunately, the
Coast Guard's current fleet of heavy icebreakers is not adequate to meet this expanding
Congressional Research Service
32
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
mission. Although the Administration has now proposed accelerating the acquisition of
the first replacement heavy icebreaker, the funding proposed for the Coast Guard's
icebreaker program in fiscal year 2016 inadequately supports this plan. In addition, the
Capital Investment Plan, which informs Congress about planned future asset acquisitions,
projected funding levels, and program timelines, is devoid of any useful detail. In order
for the Coast Guard to address this requirement in the coming year and preclude falling
further behind, an additional $3,200,000 above the request 80 is provided to accelerate the
acquisition of the next icebreaker. (pdf page 49 of 118)
The explanatory statement also states:
Survey and Design
As detailed in the Senate report, an additional $6,000,000 is included above the request
for survey and design work associated with reactivation of the Polar Sea. (pdf page 48 of
118)
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 1987/S. 1611/H.R. 4188Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 1987)
House
Section 208 of H.R. 1987 as reported by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
(H.Rept. 114-115 of May 15, 2015) states:
SEC. 208. “Polar Sea” materiel condition assessment and service life extension decision.
Section 222 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (Public Law
112–213; 126 Stat. 1560) is amended—
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
“(a) In general.—Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 2015, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating shall—
“(1) complete a materiel condition assessment with respect to the Polar Sea;
“(2) make a determination of whether it is cost effective to reactivate the Polar Sea
compared with other options to provide icebreaking services as part of a strategy to
maintain polar icebreaking services; and
“(3) submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate—
“(A) the assessment required under paragraph (1); and
“(B) written notification of the determination required under paragraph (2).”;
(2) in subsection (b) by striking “analysis” and inserting “written notification”;
(3) by striking subsection (c);
(4) by redesignating subsections (d) through (h) as subsections (c) through (g),
respectively;
80
The funding tables on PDF pages 47 and 100 of 118 of the explanatory statement show an increase of $2 million
(rather than $3.2 million) on the polar icebreaker line. The difference between the two figures—$1.2 million—might be
included in another part of the AC&I account or in some other part of the Coast Guard’s budget.
Congressional Research Service
33
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
(5) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section)—
(A) in paragraph (1)—
(i) in subparagraph (A) by striking “based on the analysis required”; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C) by striking “analysis” and inserting “written notification”;
(B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
“(2) DECOMMISSIONING.—If the Secretary makes a determination under subsection
(a) that it is not cost effective to reactivate the Polar Sea, then, not later than 180 days
after written notification of that determination is submitted under that subsection, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard may decommission the Polar Sea.”; and
(C) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
Congressional Research Service
31
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
“(3) RESULT OF NO DETERMINATION.—If the Secretary does not make a
determination under subsection (a) regarding whether it is cost effective to reactivate the
Polar Sea, then the Commandant of the Coast Guard may decommission the Polar Sea.”;
(6) in subsection (d)(1) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section) by striking
“analysis” and inserting “written notification”; and
(7) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section) by striking “in
subsection (d)” and inserting “in subsection (c)”.
Section 222 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-213)—the
provision that would be amended by the above legislation—stated:
SEC. 222. COAST GUARD POLAR ICEBREAKERS.
(a) In General.—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
shall conduct a business case analysis of the options for and costs of reactivating and
extending the service life of the Polar Sea until at least September 30, 2022, to maintain
United States polar icebreaking capabilities and fulfill the Coast Guard’s high latitude
mission needs, as identified in the Coast Guard’s July 2010, High Latitude Study Mission
Analysis Report, during the Coast Guard’s recapitalization of its polar class icebreaker
fleet. The analysis shall include—
(1) an assessment of the current condition of the Polar Sea;
(2) a determination of the Polar Sea’s operational capabilities with respect to fulfilling the
Coast Guard’s high latitude operating requirements if renovated and reactivated;
(3) a detailed estimate of costs with respect to reactivating and extending the service life
of the Polar Sea;
(4) a life cycle cost estimate with respect to operating and maintaining the Polar Sea for
the duration of its extended service life; and
(5) a determination of whether it is cost-effective to reactivate the Polar Sea compared
with other options to provide icebreaking services as part of a strategy to maintain polar
icebreaking services.
(b) Restrictions.—The Secretary shall not remove any part of the Polar Sea until the
Secretary submits the analysis required under subsection (a).
(c) Deadline.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate the analysis required under subsection (a).
(d) Requirement for Reactivation of Polar Sea.—
Congressional Research Service
34
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
(1) Service life extension plan.—
(A) In general.—If the Secretary determines based on the analysis required under
subsection (a) that it is cost-effective to reactivate the Polar Sea compared with other
options to provide icebreaking services, the Secretary shall develop a service life
extension plan for such reactivation, including a timetable for such reactivation.
(B) Utilization of existing resources.—In the development of the plan required under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall utilize to the greatest extent practicable recent
plans, studies, assessments, and analyses regarding the Coast Guard’s icebreakers and
high latitude mission needs and operating requirements.
(C) Submission.—The Secretary shall submit the plan required under subparagraph (A),
if so required, to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Congressional Research Service
32
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Senate not later than 180 days after the submission of the analysis required under
subsection (a).
(2) Decommissioning; bridging strategy.—If the analysis required under subsection (a) is
submitted in accordance with subsection (c) and the Secretary determines under
subsection (a)(5) that it is not cost-effective to reactivate the Polar Sea, then not later than
180 days after the date on which the analysis is required to be submitted under subsection
(c) the Commandant of the Coast Guard—
(A) may decommission the Polar Sea; and
(B) shall submit a bridging strategy for maintaining the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking
services until at least September 30, 2022, to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
(e) Restriction.—Except as provided in subsection (d), the Commandant of the Coast
Guard may not—
(1) transfer, relinquish ownership of, dismantle, or recycle the Polar Sea or Polar Star;
(2) change the current homeport of either of the vessels; or
(3) 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 a 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.
(f) Definition.—For purposes of this section—
(1) the term ``Polar Sea’’ means Coast Guard Cutter Polar Sea (WAGB 11); and
(2) the term ``Polar Star’’ means Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star (WAGB 10).
(g) Repeal.—This section shall cease to have effect on September 30, 2022.
Regarding Section 208, H.Rept. 114-115 states:
Sec. 208. POLAR SEA materiel condition assessment and service life extension decision
Congressional Research Service
35
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
The POLAR SEA is one of the Coast Guard’s and the Nation’s two polar class heavy
icebreakers. Since it suffered a major engine casualty in June 2010, the icebreaker has not
been operational. In October 2011, the Coast Guard placed the POLAR SEA in
commissioned, inactive service and cannibalized many of its parts to help reactivate its
sister ship, the POLAR STAR.
Section 222 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–213)
required the Coast Guard to conduct a business case analysis of the options for, and costs
associated with, reactivation of the POLAR SEA. The section further required the Service
to make a determination based on the analysis of whether to reactivate or decommission
the icebreaker.
In November 2013, the Service completed the analysis and estimated the reactivation
would cost approximately $99 million to provide 7 to 10 years of service. Although it
Congressional Research Service
33
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
completed the analysis nearly two years ago, the Service has refused to make a
determination concerning the icebreaker’s future. The Service is currently spending $8
million to stabilize and preserve the POLAR SEA and is requesting an additional $6
million in its FY 2016 budget request to conduct a materiel condition assessment of the
icebreaker. Under the timeline put forward by the Coast Guard, a determination to
reactivate or decommission the icebreaker will not be made before completion of the
assessment in late 2016. In the meantime, the POLAR SEA continues to deteriorate and
the United States is left with only one functioning polar class heavy icebreaker.
This section sets a deadline of 270 days for the Coast Guard to complete and submit to
Congress its assessment of the condition of the POLAR SEA and its determination of
whether it is cost effective to reactivate or decommission the icebreaker. (Pages 30-31)
Section 508 of the bill as reported by the committee states:
SEC. 508. National Academy of Sciences cost comparison.
(a) Cost comparison.—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall seek to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences
under which the Academy, by no later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a comparison of the costs incurred by the Federal Government for each of the
following alternatives:
(1) Transferring the Polar Sea to a non-governmental entity at no cost, and leasing back
the vessel beginning on the date on which the Coast Guard certifies that the vessel is
capable of the breaking out and missions described in subsection (c)(1).
(2) The reactivation and operation by the Coast Guard of the Polar Sea to an operational
level at which the vessel is capable of such breaking out and missions.
(3) Acquiring and operating a new icebreaker through the Coast Guard’s acquisition
process that is capable of such breaking out and missions.
(4) Construction by a non-Federal entity of an icebreaker capable of such breaking out
and missions, that will be leased by the Federal Government and operated using a Coast
Guard crew.
(5) Construction by a non-Federal entity of an icebreaker capable of such breaking out
and missions, that will be leased by the Federal Government and operated by a crew of
non-Federal employees.
(6) The acquisition of services from a non-Federal entity to perform such breaking out
and missions.
Congressional Research Service
36
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
(b) Included costs.—For purposes of subsection (a), the cost of each alternative includes
costs incurred by the Federal Government for—
(1) the lease or operation and maintenance of the vessel concerned;
(2) disposal of such vessel at the end of the useful life of the vessel;
(3) retirement and other benefits for Federal employees who operate such vessel; and
(4) interest payments assumed to be incurred for Federal capital expenditures.
(c) Assumptions.—For purposes of comparing the costs of such alternatives, the
Academy shall assume that—
(1) each vessel under consideration is—
(A) capable of breaking out of McMurdo Station, and conducting Coast Guard missions
in the United States territory in the Arctic (as that term is defined in section 112 of the
Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4111)); and
(B) operated for a period of 20 years;
(2) the acquisition of services and the operation of each vessel begin on the same date;
and
(3) the periods for conducting Coast Guard missions in the Arctic are of equal lengths.
Senate
Section 101(e) of S. 1611 as reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation (S.Rept. 114-168 of November 30, 2015) states:
(e) Icebreaking assets.—
(1) FINDING.—Congress finds that icebreaking assets are critical to the United States
Arctic and Antarctic capabilities and readiness, and the execution of national priorities,
including national security, shipping, maritime domain awareness, search and rescue, and
environmental response.
(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to section 2702(2) of title 14, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a), there is authorized to be appropriated to the Coast Guard $4,000,000 for
fiscal year 2016 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2017, for preacquisition activities for a
new polar icebreaker, including initial specification development and feasibility studies.
Section 212 of S. 1611 as reported states:
SEC. 212. Polar Icebreakers.
(a) Classification of Polar Icebreakers.—Section 573(c) of title 14, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting “or Polar Icebreaker” after “National Security
Cutter”; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting “or Polar Icebreaker” after “National Security Cutter”.
(b) Incremental funding authority for Polar Class Icebreakers.—In fiscal year 2016 and
each fiscal year thereafter, the Commandant of the Coast Guard is granted the authority
to enter into a contract or contracts for the acquisition of Polar Icebreakers and associated
equipment using incremental funding.
Congressional Research Service
37
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
(c) “Polar Sea” materiel condition assessment and service life extension decision.—
Section 222 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (Public Law
112–213; 126 Stat. 1560) is amended—
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
“(a) In general.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2015, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall—
“(1) complete a materiel condition assessment with respect to the Polar Sea;
“(2) make a determination whether it is cost effective to reactivate the Polar Sea when
compared with other options to provide icebreaking services as part of a strategy to
maintain polar icebreaking services; and
“(3) submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representative and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate—
“(A) the assessment required under paragraph (1); and
“(B) written notification of the determination required under paragraph (2).”;
(2) in subsection (b) by striking “analysis” and inserting “written notification”;
(3) by striking subsection (c);
(4) by redesignating subsections (d) through (h) as subsections (c) through (g),
respectively;
(5) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section)—
(A) in paragraph (1)—
(i) in subparagraph (A) by striking “based on the analysis required”; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C) by striking “analysis” and inserting “written notification”; and
(B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
“(2) DECOMMISSIONING.—If the Secretary makes a determination under subsection
(a) that it is not cost effective to reactivate the Polar Sea, then, not later than 180 days
after written notification of that determination is submitted under that subsection, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard may decommission the Polar Sea.”; and
(6) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section) by striking “in
subsection (d)” and inserting “in subsection (c)”.
Regarding Section 212, H.Rept. 114-168 states:
Section 212. Polar icebreakers.
Subsection (a) of section 212 of the bill would exempt a polar icebreaker from the
requirement to be classed by the American Bureau of Shipping before final acceptance,
but would require the design and construction of a polar icebreaker to be assessed by an
independent third party with expertise in vessel design and construction certification.
Subsection (b) of section 212 would provide the Commandant with the authority to enter
into a contract or contracts for the acquisition of a polar icebreaker using incremental
funding. Incremental funding has been used by the Navy during the acquisition of aircraft
carriers, assault ships, and destroyers to reduce the overall impact on the service’s budget
during large vessel acquisition. The USCG’s acquisitions budget of approximately $1
billion would not have the capability to simultaneously support current recapitalization
efforts and an icebreaker that may cost nearly $1 billion.
Congressional Research Service
38
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Subsection (c) of section 212 would set a deadline of one year following enactment for
the USCG to complete and submit to Congress its assessment of the condition of the
POLAR SEA and its determination of whether it is cost effective to reactivate or
decommission the icebreaker.
In November 2013, the USCG completed the analysis of the POLAR STAR as required
by section 222 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–
213; 126 Stat. 1560) and estimated the reactivation would cost approximately $99 million
to provide 7 to 10 years of service. Although it completed the analysis nearly two years
ago, the USCG has not made a determination concerning the icebreaker’s future. The
USCG is currently spending $8 million to stabilize and preserve the POLAR SEA and is
requesting an additional $6 million in its FY 2016 budget request to conduct a materiel
condition assessment of the icebreaker. (Page 15)
S.Rept. 114-168 also states that
the USCG’s only operational heavy icebreaker (HIB), the POLAR STAR, has exceeded
its 30-year service life, and has already undergone one major service life extension
program (SLEP). It was reactivated in 2012 following repairs that should give the vessel
an additional seven to ten years of service. A SLEP of the POLAR SEA, the USCG’s
other HIB, was completed in 2006, but it experienced a major engine casualty in 2010
and it has been inoperable ever since. The Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2014 (P.L. 113–281; 128 Stat. 3022) included a provision that
authorizes the USCG to conduct a SLEP of the Coast Guard Cutter POLAR SEA after it
provides a business case analysis to Congress—that analysis was required by previous
legislation enacted in 2012, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012
(P.L. 112–213; 126 Stat. 1540). Estimates on another SLEP of the Coast Guard Cutter
POLAR SEA range from $100 million to $500 million, while a new HIB may cost more
than $1 billion, and would have a tremendous impact on the USCG’s acquisitions budget.
(Pages 4-5)
Conference
H.R. 4188, as described by Representative Garamendi (Congressional Record, daily edition,
December 10, 2015, p. H9240), was “developed over the course of several months of negotiation
within this House and with that other body [i.e., the Senate].” H.R. 4188 was introduced in the
House on December 8, 2015, and considered and passed by the House under suspension of the
rules on December 10, 2015.
Section 101(e) of H.R. 4188 states:
(e) Icebreakers.—
(1) ICEBREAKING ON THE GREAT LAKES.—For fiscal years 2016 and 2017, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard may use funds made available pursuant to section
2702(2) of title 14, United States Code (as added by subsection (a) of this section), for the
selection of a design for and the construction of an icebreaker that is capable of buoy
tending to enhance icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes.
(2) POLAR ICEBREAKING.—Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
section 2702(2) of title 14, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), there is
authorized to be appropriated to the Coast Guard $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2016 and
$10,000,000 for fiscal year 2017 for preacquisition activities for a new polar icebreaker,
including initial specification development and feasibility studies.
Section 207 of H.R. 4188 states:
SEC. 207. Polar icebreakers.
Congressional Research Service
39
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
(a) Incremental funding authority for polar icebreakers.—In fiscal year 2016 and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Commandant of the Coast Guard may enter into a contract or
contracts for the acquisition of polar icebreakers and associated equipment using
incremental funding.
(b) “Polar Sea” materiel condition assessment and service life extension.—Section 222 of
the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–213; 126
Stat. 1560) is amended—
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
“(a) In general.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2015, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall—
“(1) complete a materiel condition assessment with respect to the Polar Sea;
“(2) make a determination of whether it is cost effective to reactivate the Polar Sea
compared with other options to provide icebreaking services as part of a strategy to
maintain polar icebreaking services; and
“(3) submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate—
“(A) the assessment required under paragraph (1); and
“(B) written notification of the determination required under paragraph (2).”;
(2) in subsection (b) by striking “analysis” and inserting “written notification”;
(3) by striking subsection (c);
(4) by redesignating subsections (d) through (h) as subsections (c) through (g),
respectively;
(5) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) of this section)—
(A) in paragraph (1)—
(i) in subparagraph (A) by striking “based on the analysis required”; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C) by striking “analysis” and inserting “written notification”;
(B) in paragraph (2)—
(i) by striking “analysis” each place it appears and inserting “written notification”;
(ii) by striking “subsection (a)” and inserting “subsection (a)(3)(B)”;
(iii) by striking “subsection (c)” each place it appears and inserting “that subsection”; and
(iv) by striking “under subsection (a)(5)”; and
(C) in paragraph (3)—
(i) by striking “in the analysis submitted under this section”;
(ii) by striking “(a)(5)” and inserting “(a)”;
(iii) by striking “then” and all that follows through “(A)” and inserting “then”;
(iv) by striking “; or” and inserting a period; and
(v) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(6) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) of this subsection) by striking “in
subsection (d)” and inserting “in subsection (c)”.
Congressional Research Service
40
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Section 604 of H.R. 4188 states:
SEC. 604. National Academy of Sciences cost assessment.
(a) Cost assessment.—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall seek to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences
under which the Academy, by no later than 365 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate an assessment of the costs incurred by the Federal Government to carry out polar
icebreaking missions. The assessment shall—
(1) describe current and emerging requirements for the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking
capabilities, taking into account the rapidly changing ice cover in the Arctic environment,
national security considerations, and expanding commercial activities in the Arctic and
Antarctic, including marine transportation, energy development, fishing, and tourism;
(2) identify potential design, procurement, leasing, service contracts, crewing, and
technology options that could minimize life-cycle costs and optimize efficiency and
reliability of Coast Guard polar icebreaker operations in the Arctic and Antarctic; and
(3) examine—
(A) Coast Guard estimates of the procurement and operating costs of a Polar icebreaker
capable of carrying out Coast Guard maritime safety, national security, and stewardship
responsibilities including—
(i) economies of scale that might be achieved for construction of multiple vessels; and
(ii) costs of renovating existing polar class icebreakers to operate for a period of no less
than 10 years.
(B) the incremental cost to augment the design of such an icebreaker for multiuse
capabilities for scientific missions;
(C) the potential to offset such incremental cost through cost-sharing agreements with
other Federal departments and agencies; and
(D) United States polar icebreaking capability in comparison with that of other Arctic
nations, and with nations that conduct research in the Arctic.
(b) Included costs.—For purposes of subsection (a), the assessment shall include costs
incurred by the Federal Government for—
(1) the lease or operation and maintenance of the vessel or vessels concerned;
(2) disposal of such vessels at the end of the useful life of the vessels;
(3) retirement and other benefits for Federal employees who operate such vessels; and
(4) interest payments assumed to be incurred for Federal capital expenditures.
(c) Assumptions.—For purposes of comparing the costs of such alternatives, the
Academy shall assume that—
(1) each vessel under consideration is—
(
Congressional Research Service
34
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
(A) capable of breaking out of McMurdo Station, and conducting Coast Guard missions
in
the Antarctic, and in the United States territory in the Arctic (as that term is defined in
section 112 of the
Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4111)); and
(B) operated for a period of 2030 years;
(2) the acquisition of services and the operation of each vessel beginbegins on the same date;
and
Congressional Research Service
41
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
(3) the periods for conducting Coast Guard missions in the Arctic are of equal lengths.
(d) Use of information.—In formulating cost pursuant to subsection (a), the National
Academy of Sciences may utilize information from other Coast Guard reports,
assessments, or analyses regarding existing Coast Guard Polar class icebreakers or for the
acquisition of a polar icebreaker for the Federal Government.
Icebreaker Recapitalization Act (S. 1386)
Senate
The text of S. 1386, introduced on May 19, 2015, states:
A BILL
To provide multiyear procurement authority for the procurement of up to six polar
icebreakers to be owned and operated by the Coast Guard.
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 “Icebreaker Recapitalization Act”.
SEC. 2. Multiyear procurement authority for polar icebreakers.
(a) Multiyear procurement.—Subject to section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, the
Secretary of the Navy shall enter into multiyear contracts for the procurement of up to six
heavy duty polar icebreakers and any systems and equipment associated with those
vessels.
(b) Authority for advance procurement.—The Secretary may enter into one or more
contracts, beginning in fiscal year 2016, for advance procurement associated with the
vessels, systems, and equipment for which authorization to enter into a multiyear contract
is provided under subsection (a).
(c) Condition for Out-Year Contract Payments.—A contract entered into under
subsection (a) shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment
under the contract for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2016 is subject to the availability of
appropriations or funds for that purpose for such later fiscal year.
(d) Memorandum of agreement.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard is operating shall enter into a memorandum of agreement establishing a
process by which the Coast Guard, in concurrence with the Navy, shall—
(1) identify the vessel specifications, capabilities, systems, equipment, and other details
required for the design of heavy polar icebreakers capable of fulfilling Navy and Coast
Guard mission requirements, with the Coast Guard, as the sole operator of United States
Government polar icebreaking assets, retaining final decision authority in the
establishment of vessel requirements;
(2) oversee the construction of heavy polar icebreakers authorized to be procured under
this section; and
(3) to the extent not adequately addressed in the 1965 Revised Memorandum of
Agreement between the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Treasury on
Congressional Research Service
35
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
the Operation of Icebreakers, transfer heavy polar icebreakers procured through contracts
authorized under this section from the Navy to the Coast Guard to be maintained and
operated by the Coast Guard.
Congressional Research Service
42
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 114-102 of May 5, 2015) on H.R.
1735, stated:
Coast Guard polar icebreaker
The committee notes that the United States Coast Guard initiated a new project for the
design and construction of a new polar icebreaker in fiscal year 2013, but the timing and
execution of this project have become uncertain. The project received $7.6 million in the
Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–6), $2.0 million in Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113–76), and no funding in fiscal year 2015. The
budget request for fiscal year 2016 requests $4.0 million to continue initial acquisition
activities for the ship. A new polar icebreaker is projected to cost between $900 million
to $1.10 billion.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approved a Mission Need Statement for
the polar icebreaker recapitalization project in June 2013. The MNS states, ‘‘This
Mission Need Statement (MNS) establishes the need for polar icebreaker capabilities
provided by the Coast Guard, to ensure that it can meet current and future mission
requirements in the polar regions.... Current requirements and future projections based
upon cutter demand modeling, as detailed in the HLMAR [High Latitude Mission
Analysis Report], indicate the Coast Guard will need to expand its icebreaking capacity,
potentially requiring a fleet of up to six icebreakers (3 heavy and 3 medium) to
adequately meet mission demands in the high latitudes.... ’’
The committee believes that the administration has inadequately valued the necessity to
procure required icebreaking capacity. The committee believes the failure to acquire all
domain access capability in polar regions expeditiously may irreparably harm
Department of Defense national security missions, and may leave the Department in
which the Coast Guard is operating unable to meet its anticipated future responsibilities
related to maritime safety and security, search and rescue, environmental response, and
fishery law enforcement. The committee supports the use of Department of Defense
authorities and acquisition expertise to acquire required icebreaking capabilities. The
committee is supportive of interim leasing authority to meet short- and mid-term
icebreaking requirements to include the use of section 2401 of title 10, United States
Code, leasing authority and other such leasing authorities resident in the Department in
which the Coast Guard is operating. The committee encourages the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to acquire all domain
access capability in polar regions expeditiously. Such a plan should address both a
bridging strategy to cover the period between the end of the useful life of the USCGC
Polar Star and the construction of a new medium or heavy icebreaker. (Pages 28-29)
Congressional Research Service
36
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY2016 (S.Con.Res. 11)
Senate
On March 27, 2015, as part of its consideration of S.Con.Res. 11, the Senate agreed by
unanimous consent to S.Amdt. 770, which added a new section. The new section (Section 399k)
states:
SEC. 399k. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the construction of Arctic polar
icebreakers.
Congressional Research Service
43
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations
of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses,
motions, or conference reports relating to the construction of Arctic polar icebreakers, by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years
2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
Congressional Research Service
3744
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix. Recent Studies Relating to Coast Guard
Polar Icebreakers
A number of studies have been conducted in recent years to assess U.S. requirements for polar
icebreakers and options for sustaining and modernizing the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet.
This appendix presents the findings of some of these studies.
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. 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 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....
Congressional Research Service
3845
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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 nonmaterial 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 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
Congressional Research Service
3946
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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. 7681
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.7782
January 2011 DHS Office of Inspector General Report
A January 2011 report on the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers from the 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
76
7781
82
United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, pp. 10-13, 15.
Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
4047
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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. 7883
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
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
Antarctic79 Antarctic84
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.80
Regarding current polar icebreaking capabilities for performing Antarctic missions, the report
states:
7885
83
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.
7984
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.
8085
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.
Congressional Research Service
4148
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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 breakin….
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
break-in 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
Antarctica to enforce the Antarctic Treaty and
ensure facilities’
environment compliance81compliance86
The report’s conclusion and recommendations were as follows:
Conclusion
With an aging fleet of three icebreakers, one operational and two beyond their intended
30-year 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, 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.
81
86
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
4249
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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.8287
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.8388
2010 U.S. Arctic Research Commission Report
A 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.8489
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.8590
The study was required by report language accompanying the FY2005 DHS appropriations act
(H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334).8691 The study was completed in 2006 and published in 2007. Some
8287
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.
8388
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.
8489
U.S. Arctic Research 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.
8590
National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, 122 pp.
8691
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
43
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
50
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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 (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
(...continued)
(...continued)
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
4451
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
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.
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. 8792
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
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.”88
87
National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 2-3.
88
92
National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 2-3.
Congressional Research Service
52
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
U.S. interests and priorities are identified, the current USG [U.S. Government] polar icebreaking
fleet should be maintained in an operational status.”93
Author Contact Information
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
93
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.
Congressional Research Service
45
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress
Author Contact Information
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
Congressional Research Service
4653