Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization:
Background and Issues for Congress

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
December 10, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34391
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2013 budget includes $8 million in acquisition funding to initiate
survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker. The Coast Guard’s Five Year Capital
Investment Plan includes an additional $852 million in FY2014-FY2017 for acquiring the ship.
The Coast Guard anticipates awarding a construction contract for the ship “within the next five
years” and taking delivery on the ship “within a decade.” The project to design and build a polar
icebreaker is a new acquisition project initiated in the FY2013 budget.
Coast Guard polar icebreakers perform a variety of missions supporting U.S. interests in polar
regions. The Coast Guard’s two existing heavy polar icebreakers—Polar Star and Polar Sea
have exceeded their intended 30-year service lives, and neither is currently operational. Polar
Star
was placed in caretaker status on July 1, 2006. Congress in FY2009 and FY2010 provided
funding to repair it and return it to service for 7 to 10 years; the Coast Guard expects the
reactivation project to be completed in December 2012. On June 25, 2010, the Coast Guard
announced that Polar Sea had suffered an unexpected engine casualty; the ship was unavailable
for operation after that. The Coast Guard placed Polar Sea in commissioned, inactive status on
October 14, 2011.
The Coast Guard’s third polar icebreaker—Healy—entered service in 2000. Compared to Polar
Star
and Polar Sea, Healy has less icebreaking capability (it is considered a medium polar
icebreaker), but more capability for supporting scientific research. The ship is used primarily for
supporting scientific research in the Arctic.
The reactivation of Polar Star will result in an operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet consisting
for the next 7 to 10 years of one heavy polar icebreaker (Polar Star) and one medium polar
icebreaker (Healy). The new polar icebreaker for which initial acquisition funding is requested in
the FY2013 budget would replace Polar Star at about the time Polar Star’s 7- to 10-year
reactivation period ends.
Potential issues for Congress regarding Coast Guard polar icebreaker modernization include the
potential impact on U.S. polar missions of the United States currently having no operational
heavy polar icebreakers; the numbers and capabilities of polar icebreakers the Coast Guard will
need in the future; the disposition of Polar Sea; whether the new polar icebreaker initiated in the
FY2013 budget should be funded with incremental funding (as proposed in the Coast Guard’s
Five Year Capital Investment Plan) or full funding in a single year, as normally required under the
executive branch’s full funding policy; whether new polar icebreakers should be funded entirely
in the Coast Guard budget, or partly or entirely in some other part of the federal budget, such as
the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget, or
both; whether to provide future icebreaking capability through construction of new ships or
service life extensions of existing polar icebreakers; and whether future polar icebreakers should
be acquired through a traditional acquisition or a leasing arrangement.

Congressional Research Service

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Missions of U.S. Polar Icebreakers ........................................................................................... 1
Current U.S. Polar Icebreakers .................................................................................................. 2
Three Coast Guard Ships ..................................................................................................... 2
One National Science Foundation Ship............................................................................... 6
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6
Recent Studies Relating to Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers ....................................................... 8
Coast Guard High Latitude Study Provided to Congress in July 2011 ............................... 8
January 2011 DHS Office of Inspector General Report .................................................... 11
2010 U.S. Arctic Research Commission Report ............................................................... 13
2007 National Research Council Report ........................................................................... 14
Cost Estimates for Certain Modernization Options ................................................................. 16
New Replacement Ships .................................................................................................... 16
25-Year Service Life Extensions ....................................................................................... 17
Reactivate Polar Sea for Several Years ............................................................................. 17
Funding in FY2013 Budget for New Polar Icebreaker ............................................................ 19
December 1, 2011, Hearing ..................................................................................................... 20
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 20
Impact of Currently Having No Operational Heavy Polar Icebreakers ................................... 20
Number and Capabilities of Future Polar Icebreakers ............................................................. 21
Factors to Consider............................................................................................................ 21
Notional Arguments for Various Numbers ........................................................................ 23
Disposition of Polar Sea ......................................................................................................... 24
Incremental Funding vs. Full Funding .................................................................................... 25
Funding Ships in Coast Guard Budget or Elsewhere .............................................................. 26
New Construction vs. Service Life Extension ......................................................................... 27
Procurement vs. Leasing ......................................................................................................... 28
Legislative Activity Following Submission of Proposed FY2013 Budget .................................... 31
FY2013 Funding Request ........................................................................................................ 31
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 2838) ...................................... 32
House ................................................................................................................................. 32
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5887) ...................................... 34
House ................................................................................................................................. 34
FY2013 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R. 5855/S. 3216) ........... 34
House ................................................................................................................................. 34
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 34

Figures
Figure 1. Polar Star and Polar Sea .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Polar Sea .......................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Healy ................................................................................................................................ 5
Congressional Research Service

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress


Tables
Table 1. U.S. Polar Icebreakers ........................................................................................................ 7
Table 2. Uses of Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers in FY2005-FY2007 ............................................. 7
Table 3. Funding for Acquisition of New Polar Icebreaker, FY2013-FY2017 .............................. 19
Table 4. Major Icebreakers Around the World ............................................................................... 23

Appendixes
Appendix A. Coast Guard Activities Since 2008 To Assess Requirements and Options for
Polar Icebreakers ........................................................................................................................ 36
Appendix B. Legislative Activity in 111th and 110th Congresses ................................................... 39
Appendix C. Bill and Report Language Relating to Study of High-Latitude Operations ............. 58
Appendix D. May 2008 Memorandum from DOD Combatant Commanders ............................... 60

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 61

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, which performs a variety of missions
supporting U.S. interests in polar regions. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2013 budget includes
$8 million in acquisition funding to initiate survey and design activities for a new polar
icebreaker. The Coast Guard’s Five Year Capital Investment Plan includes an additional $852
million in FY2014-FY2017 for acquiring the ship. The Coast Guard anticipates awarding a
construction contract for the ship “within the next five years” and taking delivery on the ship
“within a decade.”
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify Coast Guard plans for sustaining
and modernizing its polar icebreaking fleet. Congressional decisions on this issue could affect
Coast Guard funding requirements, the Coast Guard’s ability to perform its polar missions, and
the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.
Background
Missions of U.S. Polar Icebreakers
The missions of U.S. polar icebreakers can be summarized as follows:
• conducting and supporting scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctic;
• defending U.S. sovereignty in the Arctic by helping to maintain a U.S. presence
in U.S. territorial waters 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
• conducting other typical Coast Guard missions (such as search and rescue, law
enforcement, and protection of marine resources) in Arctic waters, including U.S.
territorial waters north of Alaska.
Operations to support National Science Foundation (NSF) research activities in the Arctic and
Antarctic have accounted in the past for a significant portion of U.S. polar icebreaker operations.1
Supporting NSF research in the Antarctic has included performing—or, in more recent years,
standing ready to assist in—an annual mission, called Operation Deep Freeze, to break through
the Antarctic ice so as to resupply McMurdo Station, the large U.S. Antarctic research station
located on the shore of McMurdo Sound, near the Ross Ice Shelf.

1 This passage, beginning with “The missions of…”, originated in an earlier iteration of this CRS report and was later
transferred by GAO with minor changes to Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:]Efforts to Identify Arctic
Requirements Are Ongoing, but More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial
, GAO-10-
870, September 2010, p. 53.
Congressional Research Service
1

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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.2 Changing ice conditions in Antarctic waters
have made the McMurdo resupply mission more challenging since 2000.3 An April 18, 2011,
press report states that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp,
sees plenty of reasons the United States will need polar icebreakers for the “foreseeable
future,” despite speculation that thinning ice in the Arctic could make the icebreakers
replaceable with other ice-hardened ships, the admiral said last week….
“I don’t see that causing us to back down on some minimal level of polar icebreakers,” Papp
told Inside the Navy. “The fact of the matter is, there’s still winter ice that’s forming. It’s
coming down pretty far. We don't need to get up there just during summer months when
there’s open water.”4
Current U.S. Polar Icebreakers
The U.S. polar icebreaker fleet currently includes four ships—three Coast Guard ships and one
ship operated by the NSF. The ships are described briefly below.
Three Coast Guard Ships
The Coast Guard’s three polar icebreakers are multimission ships that can break through ice,
support scientific research operations, and perform other missions typically performed by Coast
Guard ships.
Heavy Polar Icebreakers Polar Star and Polar Sea
Polar Star (WAGB-10) and Polar Sea (WAGB-11),5 sister ships built to the same general design
(Figure 1 and Figure 2), were procured in the early 1970s as replacements for earlier U.S.
icebreakers. They were designed for 30-year service lives, and were built by Lockheed
Shipbuilding of Seattle, WA, a division of Lockheed that also built ships for the U.S. Navy, but
which exited the shipbuilding business in the late 1980s. Neither ship is currently in operational
condition.

2 For more on changes in the Arctic due to diminishment of Arctic ice, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic:
Background and Issues for Congress
, coordinated by Ronald O'Rourke.
3 National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 6-7, 14, 63.
4 Cid Standifer, “Adm. Papp: Coast Guard Still Needs Icebreakers For Winter, Antarctic,” Inside the Navy, April 18,
2011.
5 The designation WAGB means Coast Guard icebreaker. More specifically, W means Coast Guard ship, A means
auxiliary, G means miscellaneous purpose, and B means icebreaker.
Congressional Research Service
2


Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

The ships are 399 feet long and displace about 13,200 tons.6 They are among the world’s most
powerful non-nuclear-powered icebreakers, with a capability to break through ice up to 6 feet
thick at a speed of 3 knots. Because of their icebreaking capability, they are considered heavy
polar icebreakers. In addition to a crew of 134, each ship can embark a scientific research staff of
32 people.
Figure 1. Polar Star and Polar Sea
Side by side in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica

Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcpolarsea/history.asp on April 21, 2011.
Polar Star was commissioned into service on January 19, 1976, and consequently is now several
years beyond its intended 30-year service life. The ship currently is not in operational condition
due to worn out electric motors and other problems. The Coast Guard placed the ship in caretaker
status on July 1, 2006.7 Congress in FY2009 and FY2010 provided funding to repair Polar Star
and return it to service for 7 to 10 years; the Coast Guard expects the $62.8 million reactivation
project to be completed in December 2012.8 The ship is to undergo testing during the summer of

6 By comparison, the Coast Guard’s new National Security Cutters—its new high-endurance cutters—are about 418
feel long and displace roughly 4,000 tons.
7 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.”
8 Source for $62.8 million cost figure: Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observations on Arctic
Requirements, Icebreakers, and Coordination with Stakeholders, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Statement of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3









Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

2013, and be ready for operations in FY2014.9 Although the repair work on the ship is intended to
give it another 7 to 10 years of service, an August 30, 2010, press report quoted the Commandant
of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, as saying, “We’re getting her back into service, but it’s
a little uncertain to me how many more years we can get out of her in her current condition, even
after we do the engine repairs.”10
Figure 2. Polar Sea

Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcpolarsea/img/PSEApics/Ful Ship2.jpg on
April 21, 2011.
Polar Sea was commissioned into service on February 23, 1978, and consequently is also beyond
its originally intended 30-year service life. In 2006, the Coast Guard completed a rehabilitation
project that extended the ship’s expected service life to 2014. On June 25, 2010, however, the
Coast Guard announced that Polar Sea had suffered an unexpected engine casualty, and the ship
was unavailable for operation after that.11 The Coast Guard placed Polar Sea in commissioned,

(...continued)
Stephen L. Caldwell, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, p. 10.
9 Source: Email from Coast Guard Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS, February 23, 2012.
10 Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010.
11 On June 25, 2010, the Coast Guard announced that
POLAR SEA suffered an unexpected engine casualty and will be unable to deploy on its scheduled
fall 2010 Arctic patrol and may be unavailable for Operation Deep Freeze [the annual mission to
break through the Antarctic ice so as to resupply McMurdo Station], Dec. 20 to Jan 2, 2011.
POLAR SEA will likely be in a maintenance status and unavailable for operation until at least
January 2011….
Currently, the 420-foot CGC HEALY, commissioned in 1999, is the service’s sole operational
polar region icebreaker. While the HEALY is capable of supporting a wide range of Coast Guard
missions in the polar regions, it is a medium icebreaker capable of breaking ice up to 4.5-feet thick
at three knots.
The impact on POLAR SEA’s scheduled 2011 Arctic winter science deployment, scheduled for
Jan. 3 to Feb. 23, 2011, is not yet known and depends on the scope of required engine repair.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4




Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

inactive status on October 14, 2011. The Coast Guard is transferring certain major equipment
from Polar Sea to Polar Star to facilitate Polar Star’s return to service.12
Medium Polar Icebreaker Healy
Healy (WAGB-20) (Figure 3) was procured in the early 1990s as a complement to Polar Star and
Polar Sea, and was commissioned into service on August 21, 2000. The ship was built by
Avondale Industries, a shipyard located near New Orleans, LA, that has built numerous Coast
Guard and Navy ships, and which now forms part of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).13
Figure 3. Healy

Source: Coast Guard photo accessed at http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Healy_CGC_1_300.jpg on
April 21, 2011.

(...continued)
(“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.)
12 Source: October 17, 2011, email to CRS from Coast Guard Congressional Affairs office.
13 HII was previously owned by Northrop Grumman, during which time it was known as Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding.
Congressional Research Service
5

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Healy is a bit larger than Polar Star and Polar Sea—it is 420 feet long and displaces about 16,000
tons. Compared to Polar Star and Polar Sea, Healy has less icebreaking capability (it is
considered a medium polar icebreaker), but more capability for supporting scientific research.
The ship can break through ice up to 4½ feet thick at a speed of 3 knots, and embark a scientific
research staff of 35 (with room for another 15 surge personnel and two visitors). The ship is used
primarily for supporting scientific research in the Arctic.
One National Science Foundation Ship
The nation’s fourth polar icebreaker is Nathaniel B. Palmer, which was built for the NSF in 1992
by North American Shipbuilding, of Larose, LA. The ship, called Palmer for short, is owned by
Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO) of Galliano, LA, a firm that owns and operates research ships
and offshore deepwater service ships.14 NSF uses a contractor, Raytheon Polar Services Company
(RPSC), to lease the ship from ECO.15 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 37.16
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
view Palmer not so much as an icebreaker as an oceanographic research ship with enough
icebreaking capability for the Antarctic Peninsula. Palmer’s icebreaking capability is not
considered sufficient to perform the McMurdo resupply mission.
Summary
In summary, the U.S. polar icebreaking fleet currently includes
• two heavy polar icebreakers (Polar Star and Polar Sea), neither currently
operational, that are designed to perform missions in either polar area, including
the challenging McMurdo resupply mission;
• one medium polar icebreaker (Healy) that that is used primarily for scientific
research in the Arctic; and
• one ship (Palmer) that is used for scientific research in the Antarctic.

14 For more on ECO, see the firm’s website at http://www.chouest.com/.
15 For more on RPSC, see the division’s website at http://rpsc.raytheon.com/.
16 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.
Congressional Research Service
6

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 1 summarizes the four ships. Table 2 shows the uses of the three Coast Guard polar
icebreakers in FY2005-FY2007 by operational hours.
Table 1. U.S. Polar Icebreakers

Polar Star
Polar Sea
Healy
Palmer
Operator
USCG USCG USCG
NSF
U.S.-Government owned?
Yes Yes Yes
Noa
Currently operational?
No No
Yes
Yes
Entered service
1976 1978 2000
1992
Length (feet)
399 399 420
308
Displacement (tons)
13,200 13,200 16,000
6,500
Icebreaking capability at 3
6 feet
6 feet
4.5 feet
3 feet
knots (ice thickness in feet)
Ice ramming capability (ice

21 feet
21 feet
8 feet
n/a
thickness in feet)
Operating temperature

-60o Fahrenheit
-60o Fahrenheit
-50o Fahrenheit
n/a
Crew (when operational)
155b 155b 85c 22
Additional scientific staff
32 32 35d 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.
Table 2. Uses of Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers in FY2005-FY2007
(in mission hours)
Polar Star
Polar Sea
Healy
Mission
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
area
05
06
07
05
06
07
05
06
07
SAR
31
2

ATON


Ice
Ops
1,809 1,642
2,658
3,563 3,210 2,930
MEP

16

LMR
193

PWCS


DR

121

94
Support 34

1
802
21
256
424
596
Total
2,066
1,642
0
1
802
2,818
3,819
3,634
3,620
Source: U.S. Coast Guard data provided to CRS on June 12 and 20, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
7

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Notes: SAR = search and rescue; ATON = aids to navigation; Ice Ops = ice operations, polar icebreaking and
domestic ice; MEP = marine environmental protection; LMR = living marine resources; PWCS = ports,
waterways, and coastal security; DR = defense readiness; Support = includes operations such as training, public
affairs, cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies.
Regarding the data shown in Table 2, the Coast Guard states further that
for CGC [Coast Guard Cutter] HEALY, all of the Polar Operations hours are either transit
to/from the operating area or scientific research. For CGC POLAR SEA/POLAR STAR, all
of the Polar Operations hours are transit to/from the operating area, scientific research or
mobility logistics (icebreaking for re-supply). We estimate 25% transit / 75% scientific
research for HEALY and 50% transit / 10% scientific research / 40% mobility logistics for
POLAR SEA/POLAR STAR.
Recent Studies Relating to Coast Guard Polar Icebreakers
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 section 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.17 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....

17 For examples of bill and report language in recent years relating to the study of Coast Guard missions and
capabilities for operations in high latitude areas, see Appendix C.
Congressional Research Service
8

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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....
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.
Congressional Research Service
9

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Applying crewing and home porting alternatives reduces the overall requirement
to four heavy and two medium icebreakers. This assessment of non-material
solutions shows that the reduced number of icebreakers can be achieved by having all
vessels operate with multiple crews and two of the heavy icebreakers homeporting in the
Southern Hemisphere.
Leasing was also considered as a nonmaterial solution. While there is no dispute that the
Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet is in need of recapitalization, the decision to acquire this
capability through purchase of new vessels, reconstruction of existing ships, or commercial
lease of suitable vessels must be resolved to provide the best value to the taxpayer. The
multi-mission nature of the Coast Guard may provide opportunities to conduct some subset
of its missions with non government-owned vessels. However, serious consideration must be
given to the fact that the inherently governmental missions of the Coast Guard must be
performed using government-owned and operated vessels. An interpretation of the national
policy is needed to determine the resource level that best supports the nation’s interests....
The existing icebreaker capacity, two inoperative heavy icebreakers and an operational
medium icebreaker, does not represent a viable capability to the federal government. The
time needed to augment this capability is on the order of 10 years. At that point, around
2020, the heavy icebreaking capability bridging strategy expires.18
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

18 United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, pp. 10-13, 15.
Congressional Research Service
10

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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.19
January 2011 DHS Office of Inspector General Report
A January 2011 report on the Coast Guard’s polar icebreakers from Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General stated:
The Coast Guard does not have the necessary budgetary control over its [polar] icebreakers,
nor does it have a sufficient number of icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the Polar
Regions. Currently, the Coast Guard has only one operational [polar] icebreaker [i.e., Healy],
making it necessary for the United States to contract with foreign nations to perform
scientific, logistical, and supply activities. Without the necessary budgetary control and a
sufficient number of icebreaking assets, the Coast Guard will not have the capability to
perform all of its missions, will lose critical icebreaking expertise, and may be beholden to
foreign nations to perform its statutory missions. The Coast Guard should improve its
strategic approach to ensure that it has the long-term icebreaker capabilities needed to
support Coast Guard missions and other national interests in the Arctic and Antarctic
regions.20
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
Missions Not Being Met
United States Coast Guard
—Fisheries enforcement in Bering Sea to prevent
foreign fishing in U.S. waters and overfishing
—Capability to conduct search and rescue in Beaufort
Sea for cruise line and natural resource exploration
ships
—Future missions not anticipated to be met: 2010
Arctic Winter Science Deployment
NASA
Winter access to the Arctic to conduct oceanography
and study Arctic currents and how they relate to
regional ice cover, climate, and biology

19 Source: Transcript of hearing.
20 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 1 (Executive Summary). Report accessed September
21, 2011, at http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-31_Jan11.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

NOAA and NSF
Winter research
Department of Defense
Assured access to ice-impacted waters through a
persistent icebreaker presence in the Arctic and
Antarctic21
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.22
Regarding current polar icebreaking capabilities for performing Antarctic missions, the report
states:
The Coast Guard needs additional icebreakers to accomplish its missions in the Antarctic.
The Coast Guard has performed the McMurdo Station resupply in Antarctica for decades,
but with increasing difficulty in recent years. The Coast Guard’s two heavy-duty icebreakers
[i.e., Polar Star and Polar Sea] are at the end of their service lives, and have become less
reliable and increasingly costly to keep in service….
In recent years, the Coast Guard has found that ice conditions in the Antarctic have become
more challenging for the resupply of McMurdo Station. The extreme ice conditions have
necessitated the use of foreign vessels to perform the McMurdo break-in….
As ice conditions continue to change around the Antarctic, two icebreakers are needed for
the McMurdo break-in and resupply mission. Typically, one icebreaker performs the 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
to enforce the Antarctic Treaty and ensure facilities’
environment compliance23

21 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 9.
22 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 10.
23 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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.
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.24
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.25
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:

(...continued)
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program, OIG-11-31, January 2011, pp. 10-11.
24 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, The Coast Guard’s Polar Icebreaker Maintenance,
Upgrade, and Acquisition Program
, OIG-11-31, January 2011, p. 12.
25 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.
Congressional Research Service
13

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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.26
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.27
The study was required by report language accompanying the FY2005 DHS appropriations act
(H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334).28 The study was completed in 2006 and published in 2007. Some
sources refer to the study as the 2006 NRC report. The report made the following conclusions and
recommendations:
Based on the current and future needs for icebreaking capabilities, the [study] committee
concludes that the nation continues to require a polar icebreaking fleet that includes a
minimum of three multimission ships [like the Coast Guard’s three current polar icebreakers]
and one single-mission [research] ship [like Palmer]. The committee finds that although the
demand for icebreaking capability is predicted to increase, a fleet of three multimission and
one single-mission icebreakers can meet the nation’s future polar icebreaking needs through
the application of the latest technology, creative crewing models, wise management of ice
conditions, and more efficient use of the icebreaker fleet and other assets. The nation should
immediately begin to program, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to replace
the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA.
Building only one new polar icebreaker is insufficient for several reasons. First, a single ship
cannot be in more than one location at a time. No matter how technologically advanced or
efficiently operated, a single polar icebreaker can operate in the polar regions for only a

26 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.
27 National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, 122 pp.
28 H.R. 4567/P.L. 108-334 of October 18, 2004. The related Senate bill was S. 2537. The Senate report on S. 2537
(S.Rept. 108-280 of June 17, 2004) stated:
The Committee expects the Commandant to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy
of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the role of Coast Guard icebreakers in supporting
United States operations in the Antarctic and the Arctic. The study should include different
scenarios for continuing those operations including service life extension or replacement of existing
Coast Guard icebreakers and alternative methods that do not use Coast Guard icebreakers. The
study should also address changes in the roles and missions of Coast Guard icebreakers in support
of future marine operations in the Arctic that may develop due to environmental change, including
the amount and kind of icebreaking support that may be required in the future to support marine
operations in the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage; the suitability of the Polar Class
icebreakers for these new roles; and appropriate changes in existing laws governing Coast Guard
icebreaking operations and the potential for new operating regimes. The study should be submitted
to the Committee no later than September 30, 2005.
The conference report on H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-774 of October 9, 2004) stated:
As discussed in the Senate report and the Coast Guard authorization bill for fiscal year 2005, the
conferees require the National Academy of Sciences to study the role of Coast Guard icebreakers.
The earlier House report on H.R. 4567 (H.Rept. 108-541 of June 15, 2004) contained language directing a similar
report from the Coast Guard rather than the National Academies. (See the passage in the House report under the header
“Icebreaking.”)
Congressional Research Service
14

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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 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.
Congressional Research Service
15

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

• 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.29
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.”30
Cost Estimates for Certain Modernization Options
New Replacement Ships
The Coast Guard estimated in February 2008 that new replacement ships for the Polar Star and
Polar Sea might cost between $800 million and $925 million per ship in 2008 dollars to
procure.31 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.32

29 National Research Council, Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World, An Assessment of U.S. Needs, Washington,
2007, pp. 2-3.
30 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.
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.
Congressional Research Service
16

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

The Coast Guard further stated that this notional new ship would be designed for a 30-year
service life.
The High Latitude Study provided to Congress in July 2011 states that the above figure of $800
million to $925 million in 2008 dollars equates to $900 million to $1,041 million in 2012 dollars.
The study provides the following estimates, in 2012 dollars, of the acquisition costs for new polar
icebreakers:
• $856 million for 1 ship;
• $1,663 million for 2 ships—an average of about $832 million each;
• $2,439 million for 3 ships—an average of $813 million each;
• $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.”33
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 the two ships by 25 years might cost
roughly $400 million per ship. This figure, the Coast Guard said, is based on assessments made
by independent contractors for the Coast Guard in 2004. The service life extension work, the
Coast Guard said, would improve the two icebreakers’ installed systems in certain areas.
Although the work would be intended to permit the ships to operate for another 25 years, it would
not return the cutters to new condition.34
An August 30, 2010, press report stated that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert
Papp, estimated the cost of extending the lives of Polar Star and Polar Sea at about $500 million
per ship; the article quoted Papp as stating that Polar Star and Polar Sea “were built to take a
beating. They were built with very thick special steel, so you might be able to do a renovation on
them and keep going…. I think there are certain types of steel that, if properly maintained, they
can go on for an awful long time. What the limit is, I’m not sure.”35
Reactivate Polar Sea for Several Years
Regarding the potential cost to repair Polar Sea and return it to service, at a December 1, 2011,
hearing that focused on the polar icebreaker fleet (see “December 1, 2011, Hearing” below), Dave
Whitcomb, the chief operating officer of Vigor Industrial—the owner of the shipyard that has

33 United States Coast Guard High Latitude Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary, July 2010, p. 13.
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.
Congressional Research Service
17

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

conducted maintenance and repair work on Polar Sea and Polar Star for many years—testified
that Polar Sea
can be restored to full mission readiness with a comparable longevity [to that of Polar Star]
at relatively modest cost and in a reasonably short period of time. Vigor Industrial estimates
that bringing the Polar Sea up to an operationally capable condition would require
approximately 11 million dollars. We base this on the fact that we have done comparable
work on the Polar Star already and are well aware of what is required.… This work would
require approximately two years to complete and might well be finished faster depending on
availability of key components.36
Whitcomb further testified that the above estimated cost of $11 million includes overhauling the
ship’s diesel engines ($5 million), replacing the ship’s obsolete cranes ($3 million), and upgrading
the ship’s propellers ($3 million).
Whether the work described above includes everything that would be needed to return Polar Sea
to service is not clear, particularly given that the Coast Guard is transferring certain major
equipment from Polar Sea to Polar Star to facilitate Polar Star’s return to service.37
At a March 7, 2012, hearing before the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee
of the House Transportation and Infrastructure on the proposed FY2013 budgets for the Coast
Guard and maritime transportation programs, Representative Rick Larsen asked Admiral Papp
about the possibility of returning Polar Sea. Papp replied:
ADMIRAL PAPP:
I don’t have room in my budget regardless of what it [the cost to repair Polar Sea] is. I think
a lot of people underestimated how much it would cost to reactivate the Polar Sea. We’re
actually having to use parts of Polar Sea...
REPRESENTATIVE LARSEN:
Right.
ADMIRAL PAPP:
...to reactivate Polar Star. So I think there are some people who are enthusiastic about the
potential for getting Polar Sea back out there, but the fact of the matter is I don’t have the
money to operate it. And I think it’s much more expensive to reactivate it than some people
are giving in terms of estimates. I would say it’s probably an [sic: in] excess of what we’re
spending on Polar Star right now would be to get her back out there.38

36 Testimony [prepared statement] of Dave Whitcomb, Chief Operating Officer, Vigor Industrial, [before the] House
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, December 1, 2011, p. 3.
37 Testimony [prepared statement] of Dave Whitcomb, Chief Operating Officer, Vigor Industrial, [before the] House
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, December 1, 2011, p. 5.
38 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
18

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Funding in FY2013 Budget for New Polar Icebreaker
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2013 budget includes $8 million in acquisition funding to initiate
survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker. The Coast Guard’s Five Year Capital
Investment Plan includes an additional $852 million in FY2014-FY2017 for acquiring the ship.
This funding is located in the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
(AC&I) appropriation account.
The Coast Guard anticipates awarding a construction contract for the ship “within the next five
years” and taking delivery on the ship “within a decade.” The project to design and build a polar
icebreaker is a new acquisition project initiated in the FY2013 budget.
Table 3 shows funding in the Coast Guard’s FY2013-FY2017 Five Year Capital Investment Plan
for the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker. This funding, which totals $860 million, does not
necessarily represent the entire acquisition cost of the ship; some additional funding might be
required after FY2017. Prior estimates for the acquisition cost of a new polar icebreaker (see
“Cost Estimates for Certain Modernization Options” above) and the bell-curve-like funding
profile shown in Table 3 suggest that if any additional funding is required after FY2017, the
amount might be less than the FY2017 figure of $82 million.
As shown in Table 3, the Coast Guard is proposing to fund the acquisition of this ship using
incremental funding (i.e., through a series of annual funding increments).
Table 3. Funding for Acquisition of New Polar Icebreaker, FY2013-FY2017
Millions of then-year dollars
Total
acquisition
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 cost
8 120 380 270 82 TBD
Source: Coast Guard FY2013-FY2017 Five Year Capital Investment Plan, as shown in U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Annual Performance Report, Fiscal Years 2011 – 2013, p. CG-AC&I-12 (pdf page 1,749 of
3,134).
Regarding the $8 million requested for FY2013, the Department of Homeland Security, the parent
department of the Coast Guard, states:
This funding will initiate survey and design activities for a new Coast Guard polar
icebreaker, intended to provide continued U.S. Arctic icebreaking capability following the
projected end of service life of the CGC POLAR STAR on or about 2022. This effort will
build upon requirements analyses undertaken within the past three years, including the High-
Latitude Mission Analysis Report, and the Polar Icebreaker Business Case Analysis.
In recognition of emerging operational risks in the Arctic regions, the Coast Guard is
committed to developing and implementing an acquisition plan that will ensure seamless and
expeditious availability of icebreaking capacity to meet its missions. Specifically, the Coast
Guard will deliver a fully operational polar icebreaker within a decade.
This funding will be used to develop programmatic planning documents required under the
USCG Major Systems Acquisition Manual, including an Analysis of Alternatives, a Life
Cycle Cost Estimate, a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), modeling simulation and testing (as
Congressional Research Service
19

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

required) to build a modern polar icebreaker. These efforts will lead to development of a
formal icebreaker acquisition project, with the award for construction anticipated within the
next five years.
As conditions in the Arctic evolve, and maritime activity grows, the requirement for
sustained surface presence, capable of operating in the ice-covered waters of the Polar
regions remains critical. This project will maintain a National icebreaking capability through
an efficient, timely and cost effective acquisition.39
December 1, 2011, Hearing
On December 1, 2011, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing entitled “Protecting U.S.
Sovereignty: Coast Guard Operations in the Arctic.” The primary (though not only) topic
discussed at the hearing was the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaker fleet. Witnesses included the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, the lieutenant governor of Alaska, a director from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), a deputy director from the NSF, the chief operating
officer of a shipyard that has conducted maintenance and repair work on Polar Sea and Polar Star
for many years, and a retired Coast Guard admiral who spent much of his career on Coast Guard
polar icebreakers. The prepared statements of the witnesses and the subcommittee’s background
memorandum for the hearing are available from the committee’s website.40
Issues for Congress
The issue of Coast Guard polar icebreaker modernization presents several potential issues for
Congress, including but not necessarily limited to those discussed below.
Impact of Currently Having No Operational Heavy
Polar Icebreakers

One potential issue for Congress concerns the impact of currently having no operational heavy
polar icebreakers. Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
• What are the mission impacts of currently having no operational heavy polar
icebreakers?
• Did the removal of Polar Star from operational status in 2006 result in heavier
use of Polar Sea, and if so, did this heavier use make Polar Sea’s engine casualty
more likely?
• Did the rehabilitation project on Polar Sea that was completed in 2006 and which
extended the ship’s estimated service life to 2014 include work on the ship’s
engines? Why did the ship experience an engine casualty reportedly involving

39 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).
40 As of December 5, 2011, the materials were posted online at http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/
hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1458.
Congressional Research Service
20

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

excessive wear on engine cylinder assemblies four years after the completion of
the rehabilitation project?
• How much would it cost to repair Polar Sea’s engines and return the ship to
operational status?
A July 12, 2010, press report states that with neither Polar Sea and Polar Star in operational
status, the Coast Guard may seek assistance from polar icebreakers operated by other countries:
“There are a number of our allies that have that [polar icebreaking] capability,” [Dana]
Goward [director of Coast Guard Office of Assessment, Integration and Risk Management],
said. “They’re not necessarily positioned optimally for support of U.S. missions in our
waters, but if push comes to shove we’re sure that we can make arrangements with our allies
to support the nation’s interests while we get the Polar Sea back in operation. We have very
strong relationships with other coast guards and other navies, and at the moment I don’t see
that we would have much choice.”
The press report states that Healy may be shifted between missions, but that the ship “will not
likely spend more days than usual at sea.”41
Number and Capabilities of Future Polar Icebreakers
Factors to Consider
Another potential issue for Congress is how many polar icebreakers, with what capabilities, the
Coast Guard will need in the future. In assessing this issue, factors that Congress may consider
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• current and projected mission demands for Coast Guard polar icebreakers as
analyzed in the High Latitude Study and other recent studies, including an
assessment of how those demands might be affected by NSF decisions on how to
acquire icebreaking services to support its research activities;
• the potential for various mission demands (not just those conducted in support of
NSF research activities) to be met by non-Coast Guard icebreakers, including
leases or charters of icebreakers owned by foreign governments or private firms;
and
• the Coast Guard’s overall missions-vs.-resources situation, which includes the
Coast Guard’s requirements to perform many non-polar missions and the Coast
Guard’s desire to fund programs for performing these non-polar missions.42
Regarding the first factor above, the NSF states that although Coast Guard polar icebreakers are
very capable, the NSF is mandated by presidential directive to perform its research activities in
the most cost-effective way possible, and that it can be more expensive for NSF to support its
research activities with Coast Guard polar icebreakers than with charters of icebreakers crewed

41 Cid Standifer, “Coast Guard Looks To Fill Icebreakers Capability Gap With Polar Sea Out,” Inside the Navy, July
12, 2010.
42 For more on some of these other programs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast Guard Deepwater Acquisition
Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress
, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
21

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

by contractor personnel. Although Coast Guard polar icebreakers in the past have performed the
annual McMurdo break-in mission, the NSF in recent years has chartered Russian and Swedish
contractor-operated icebreakers to perform the mission (with a Coast Guard polar icebreaker
standing ready to assist if needed). The NSF has also noted that Healy, though very capable in
supporting Arctic research, operates at sea for about 200 days a year, as opposed to about 300
days a year for foreign contractor-operated polar icebreakers.
Regarding the second factor above, issues to consider would include, among other things, the
potential availability of ships for lease, leasing costs, regulatory issues relating to long-term
leases of capital assets for the U.S. government, and the ability of leased ships to perform the
missions in question, including the mission of defending U.S. sovereignty in Arctic waters north
of Alaska, the challenging McMurdo resupply mission, or missions that emerge suddenly in
response to unexpected events.43
Regarding the first two factors above, some observers note the size of the polar icebreaking fleets
operated by other countries. Countries with interests in the polar regions have differing
requirements for polar icebreakers, depending on the nature and extent of their polar activities.
Table 4 shows a Coast Guard summary of major icebreakers around the world.

43 The potential for using leased ships, and the possible limitations of this option, are discussed at several points in the
2007 NRC report. The report argues, among other things, that the availability of icebreakers for lease in coming years
is open to question, that leased ships are not optimal for performing sovereignty-related operations, and that some
foreign icebreakers might be capable of performing the McMurdo resupply mission. See, for example, pages 80-81 of
the NRC report. See also Jennifer Scholtes, “In Search of Frozen Assets,” CQ Weekly, October 10, 2011: 2074.
Congressional Research Service
22

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 4. Major Icebreakers Around the World
As of September 10, 2012
Total all
In inventory, government owned or
In inventory, privately owned and
types, in
operated
operated
inventory
(+ under
10,000 to
20,000 to
45,000 or
10,000 to 20,000 to
45,000
construction
19,999
44,999
more
19,999
44,999
or more

+ planned)
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
BHP
Russia
34 (+ 4 + 9)
5
6
6 (al
8 9
nuclear
powered; 5
operational)
Sweden 7

4
3
Finland 8 2 3 3
Canada
6 (+0 +1)
4 (3
2
operational)
United
5 (+0 +1)

1 (Healy)
2 (Polar Sea
1 (Palmer)
1 (Aiviq –

States
and Polar
built for
Star –
Shell Oil))
neither
operational)
Denmark 4



4


Norway
1 (+0 +1)
1





China
1 (+0 +1)
1





Argentina 1
1
(not




operational)
Australia 1
1





Chile 1 1
Estonia 1
1

Germany
1 (+0 +1)

1




Japan 1 1
South
1 1

Korea
South
1 1

Africa
Latvia 1 1
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Coast Guard chart showing data compiled by the Coast Guard as
of September 10, 2012, accessed online October 26, 2012, at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg552/ice.asp.
Notes: Includes some icebreakers designed for use in the Baltic Sea. BHP is 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.
Notional Arguments for Various Numbers
Advocates of a Coast Guard polar icebreaker fleet that includes two ships—Healy plus one heavy
polar icebreaker—might argue that the Coast Guard operated with such a force from July 1, 2006,
Congressional Research Service
23

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

when Polar Star went into caretaker status, until June 2010, when Polar Sea suffered an engine
casualty and was removed from service, and that a force with Healy plus one heavy polar
icebreaker would cost less than a larger polar icebreaker fleet and thereby permit the Coast Guard
to better fund programs for performing its various non-polar missions.
Advocates of a Coast Guard fleet that includes three ships—Healy plus two heavy polar
icebreakers—might argue that the 2007 NRC report recommended a polar icebreaking fleet of
three multimission polar icebreakers (i.e., Healy plus two additional polar icebreakers), that the
Coast Guard operated with such a force from 2000, when Healy entered service, until July 1,
2006, when Polar Star went into caretaker status, that the 2006-2010 force of Healy and one
heavy polar icebreaker made it more difficult for the Coast Guard to perform the McMurdo
resupply mission using its own assets, that a force that includes two heavy polar icebreakers
rather than one would provide more flexibility for responding to polar contingencies or dealing
with mechanical problems on a heavy polar icebreaker, and that such a force would still be
sufficiently affordable to permit the Coast Guard to adequately fund programs for performing
non-polar missions.
Advocates of a Coast Guard fleet that includes Healy plus three heavy polar icebreakers might
argue that the High Latitude Study found that the Coast Guard requires three heavy (and three
medium) icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions, that a force with three heavy polar
icebreakers would provide additional capability for responding to potentially increased
commercial and military activities in the Arctic, that it would more strongly signal U.S.
commitment to defending its sovereignty and other interests in the region, and that while such a
force would be more expensive than a smaller polar icebreaker fleet, the added investment would
be justified in light of the growing focus on U.S. polar interests.
Disposition of Polar Sea
Another potential issue for Congress concerns the disposition of Polar Sea. The Coast Guard has
not announced its preferred plan for the ship’s disposition; options include the following, among
others:
• keeping the ship in preservation status in the Maritime Administration’s
(MARAD’s) National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) for potential reactivation at
a later point to meet increased polar icebreaking needs or to replace Polar Star,
should that ship be removed from service before the end of its anticipated 7- to
10-year post-reactivation service life due to an accident or the failure of critical
equipment that cannot be cost-effectively repaired;
• selling or transfer the ship to another government or to a private owner; and
• dismantling the ship and recycle its scrap metal.
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
• When does the Coast Guard plan to announce its preferred plan for the
disposition of Polar Sea?
• What are the Coast Guard estimates of the potential costs and benefits of various
disposition options, including those listed above?
Congressional Research Service
24

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Incremental Funding vs. Full Funding
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Coast Guard’s proposal to fund the
acquisition of a new icebreaker using incremental funding (i.e., a series of annual funding
increments—see “Funding in FY2013 Budget for New Polar Icebreaker” in “Background”) rather
than full funding (i.e., placing most or all of the ship’s acquisition cost into a single year). Section
31.6 of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-1144 normally requires executive
branch agencies to use full funding for acquiring capital assets such as a new ship. The Coast
Guard appears to have received permission from OMB to propose the use of incremental funding
for acquiring a new polar icebreaker; Congress may choose to approve, reject, or modify this
proposal.
Supporters of using incremental funding to acquire a new polar icebreaker could argue that
funding this ship in a single year would create a one-year “spike” in Coast Guard funding
requirements that could require offsetting and potentially disruptive one-year reductions in other
Coast Guard programs, and that using incremental funding mitigates the spiking issue by
spreading the ship’s cost over several years. Supporters could argue that avoiding such budget
spikes is a principal reason why the Navy in recent years has been given permission by OMB and
Congress to use incremental funding to procure aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships,45
and that a polar icebreaker is analogous to an aircraft carrier or an amphibious assault ship in
being a very expensive (for the Coast Guard) ship that is procured once every several years.
Supporters of using full funding to acquire a new polar icebreaker could argue that the acquisition
cost of a polar icebreaker (roughly $900 million), though large by Coast Guard standards, is much
less than that of an aircraft carrier (more than $11 billion) or an amphibious assault ship (more
than $3 billion). They could argue that OMB believes using full funding reduces risks in the
acquisition of capital assets,46 and that permitting the use of incremental funding for the
procurement of a polar icebreaker could weaken adherence to the policy by setting a precedent
for using incremental funding for acquiring other capital assets costing less than $1 billion.

44 The text of OMB Circular A-11 is available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
circulars_a11_current_year_a11_toc.
45 See. for example, CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and
Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
46 Appendix J to OMB Circular A-11 states, in explaining the requirement for using full funding, that
Good budgeting requires that appropriations for the full costs of asset acquisition be enacted in
advance to help ensure that all costs and benefits are fully taken into account at the time decisions
are made to provide resources. Full funding with regular appropriations in the budget year also
leads to tradeoffs within the budget year with spending for other capital assets and with spending
for purposes other than capital assets. Full funding increases the opportunity to use performance-
based fixed price contracts, allows for more efficient work planning and management of the capital
project (or investment), and increases the accountability for the achievement of the baseline goals.
When full funding is not followed and capital projects (or investments) or useful segments are
funded in increments, without certainty if or when future funding will be available, the result is
sometimes poor planning, acquisition of assets not fully justified, higher acquisition costs,
cancellation of major investments, the loss of sunk costs, or inadequate funding to maintain and
operate the assets.
Congressional Research Service
25

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

The issue of incremental funding as an alternative to full funding in the acquisition of Navy ships
is discussed at length in other CRS reports.47
Funding Ships in Coast Guard Budget or Elsewhere
Another potential issue for Congress, if it is determined that one or more new icebreakers should
be procured by the government through a traditional acquisition, is whether the acquisition cost of
those ships should be funded entirely through Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and
Improvements (AC&I) account, or partly or entirely through other parts of the federal budget,
such as the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, the NSF budget, or both.48 Within the DOD
budget, possibilities include the Navy’s shipbuilding account, called the Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy (SCN) account, and the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF), which is an
account where DOD sealift ships and Navy auxiliary ships are funded.
There is precedent for funding Coast Guard icebreakers in the DOD budget: The procurement of
Healy was funded in FY1990 in the DOD budget—specifically, the SCN account.49 Advocates of
funding new icebreakers partly or entirely through the SCN account or the NDSF might argue
that this could permit the funding of new icebreakers while putting less pressure on other parts of
the Coast Guard’s budget. They might also argue that it would permit the new icebreaker program
to benefit from the Navy’s experience in managing shipbuilding programs. Opponents might
argue that funding new icebreakers in the SCN account or the NDSF might put pressure on these
other two accounts at a time when the Navy and DOD are facing challenges funding their own
shipbuilding and other priorities. They might also argue that having the Navy manage the Coast
Guard’s icebreaker program would add complexity to the acquisition effort, and that it is unclear
whether the Navy’s recent performance in managing shipbuilding programs is better than the
Coast Guard’s, since both services have recently experienced problems in managing shipbuilding
programs—the Coast Guard with the procurement of new Deepwater cutters, and the Navy in the
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and the LPD-17 class amphibious ship program.50
The prepared statement of the GAO witness at the December 1, 2011, hearing states:
Another alternative option addressed by the Recapitalization report would be to fund new
icebreakers through the NSF. However, the analysis of this option concluded that funding a
new icebreaker through the existing NSF budget would have significant adverse impacts on

47 See CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for
Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett, and CRS Report RL32776, Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative
Funding Approaches—Background and Options for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
48 For more on the NSF, whose budget is normally funded through the annual Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill, see CRS Report 95-307, U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview, by Christine
M. Matthews.
49 The FY1990 DOD appropriations act (H.R. 3072/P.L. 101-165 of November 21, 1989) provided $329 million for the
procurement of Healy in the SCN account. (See pages 77 and 78 of H.Rept. 101-345 of November 13, 1989). The
NDSF was created three years later, in FY1993, as a fund for procuring DOD sealift ships, among other purposes, and
since FY2001 has been used to fund Navy auxiliary ships as well.
50 For more on Deepwater acquisition programs and the LCS and LPD-17 programs, see CRS Report RL33753, Coast
Guard Deepwater Acquisition Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress
, by Ronald
O’Rourke; CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress,
by Ronald O'Rourke; and CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues,
and Options for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
26

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

NSF operations and that the capability needed for Coast Guard requirements would exceed
that needed by the NSF.
The Recapitalization report noted that a funding approach similar to the approach used for
the Healy, which was funded through the fiscal year 1990 DOD appropriations, should be
considered. However, the report did not analyze the feasibility of this option. We have
previously reported that because of the Coast Guard’s statutory role as both a federal
maritime agency and a branch of the military, it can receive funding through both the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOD. For example, as we previously
reported, although the U.S. Navy is not expressly required to provide funding to the Coast
Guard, the Coast Guard receives funding from the Navy to purchase and maintain
equipment, such as self-defense systems or communication systems, because it is in the
Navy’s interest for the Coast Guard systems to be compatible with the Navy’s systems when
the Coast Guard is performing national defense missions in support of the Navy. However,
according to a Coast Guard budget official, the Coast Guard receives the majority of its
funding through the DHS appropriation, with the exception of reimbursements for specific
activities. Also, as the Recapitalization plan acknowledges, there is considerable strain on the
DOD budget. A recent DOD report on the Arctic also notes budgetary challenges, stating
that the near-term fiscal and political environment will make it difficult to support significant
new U.S. investments in the Arctic. Furthermore, DOD and the Coast Guard face different
mission requirements and timelines. For example, DOD’s recent report states that the current
level of human activity in the Arctic is already of concern to DHS, whereas the Arctic is
expected to remain a peripheral interest to much of the national security community for the
next decade or more. As a result, the Coast Guard has a more immediate need than DOD to
acquire Arctic capabilities, such as icebreakers. For example, with preliminary plans for
drilling activity approved in 2011, the Coast Guard must be prepared to provide
environmental response in the event of an oil spill. Similarly, as cruise ship traffic continues
to increase, the Coast Guard must be prepared to conduct search and rescue operations
should an incident occur. For these reasons, it is unlikely that an approach similar to the one
that was used to build the Healy would be feasible at this time.51
At a March 6, 2012, hearing on the Coast Guard’s proposed FY2013 budget before the Homeland
Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Admiral Robert Papp, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, stated:
But [would] I like to make a case, and this is just Papp’s opinion[,] that an icebreaker ought
to be a shared cost across the government. The National Science Foundation needs it, the
Department of Defense from time to time needs it. Yes, the Coast Guard needs it. But this is
something that really begs for an across-government response, and I would say sharing as
well.52
New Construction vs. Service Life Extension
Another potential issue for Congress is whether requirements for polar icebreakers over the next
25 to 30 years should be met by building new ships, by extending the service lives of existing
polar icebreakers, or by pursuing some combination of these options. In assessing this question,

51 Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:] Observations on Arctic Requirements, Icebreakers, and
Coordination with Stakeholders, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell,
Director, Homeland Security and Justice
, GAO-12-254T, December 1, 2011, pp. 24-25.
52 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
27

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

factors to consider include the relative costs of these options, the capabilities that each option
would provide, the long-term supportability of older ships whose service lives have been
extended, and industrial-base impacts.
Regarding relative costs, as discussed in the “Background” section, the Coast Guard estimates
that new icebreakers with a 30-year design life might cost $800 million to $925 million per ship
in 2008 dollars, while a 25-year service life extension of Polar Star and Polar Sea might cost
about $400 million per ship in 2008 dollars. (As mentioned earlier, an August 30, 2010, press
report stated that the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, estimated the cost
of extending the lives of Polar Star and Polar Sea at about $500 million per ship.)53 These
estimates, however, should be compared with caution: the estimate for building new ships
depends in part on the capabilities that were assumed for those ships, and estimates for service-
life extension work can be very uncertain due to the potential for discovering new things about a
ship’s condition once the ship is opened up for service-life-extension work.
Regarding capabilities provided by each option, the new-construction option would provide
entirely new ships with extensive use of new technology, while the service-life-extension option
would provide ships that, although modernized and reconditioned, would not be entirely new and
would likely make less extensive use of new technologies. Among other things, new-construction
ships might be able to make more extensive use of new technologies for reducing crew size,
which is a significant factor in a ship’s life cycle operating and support costs.
Regarding long-term supportability of older ships, the Coast Guard has expressed concern about
the ability to support ships whose service lives have been extended after FY2014, because some
contracts that currently provide that support are scheduled to end that year.54
Regarding potential impact on the industrial base, 25-year service life extensions would likely
provide shipyards and supplier firms with less work, and also exercise a smaller set of shipyard
construction skills, than would building new ships.
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 that focused on the polar icebreaker fleet (see “December 1,
2011, Hearing” in “Background”), Admiral Robert Papp, the Commandant of the Coast Guard,
stated:

53 Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Hulls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010. Ellipsis as in original.
54 CRS discussion with Coast Guard officials, January 30, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
28

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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.55
At another point in the hearing, Admiral Papp stated:
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.56
At another point in the hearing, he stated:
As I said, sir, I am truly ambivalent to this except from what I experienced. I do have now
two points, yes the Navy leases some ships, but we've got a Navy that has well over 300
ships.
So if they lose a leased vessel or something is pulled back or something happens, they have
plenty of other ships they can fall back upon. Right now, all I am falling back on is the Coast
Guard cutter Healy. And it feels good to know that we own that and that is our ship for 30 or
40 years and we can rely upon it.
In terms of leasing, I don't know. My personal experience is I lease one of my two cars and I
pay a lot of money leasing my car. But at the end of the lease period, I have no car and I've
spent a lot of money. So I don’t know if that’s directly applicable to ships as well, but right
now I got half my garage is empty because I just turned one in.57

55 Source: Transcript of hearing.
56 Source: Transcript of hearing.
57 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
29

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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.58
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.59
Another witness at the hearing—Jeffrey Garrett, a retired Coast Guard admiral who spent much
of his career on polar icebreakers—stated:
The perspective I could offer was when I was a member of the Cameron [sic:
Commandant’s?] staff back in the last ‘80s here in Washington, we were directed to pursue
exactly the same sort of lease versus buy analysis, and in fact, the Coast Guard had a two
track procurement strategy to compare leasing a new Polar icebreaker or buying it.
And after over a year of analysis, studies, discussion with other agencies looking around,
what became clear was, number one, there was no off-the-shelf asset readily available. And
secondly, that in the long run, if you—when you cost it all out and the value of the stream of
payments, leasing would actually cost more.
And when we did the recapitalization analysis recently, we also reviewed leasing again, and
the I think the findings in that report indicate more expensive over the life of the vessel by
about 12 percent.60
When asked why this was the finding, Garrett stated:
A couple of technical things. First of all, whoever builds the ship—and again, this will have
to be ship built for the Coast Guard since there’s not something off-the-shelf out there that
you could lease. Whoever builds it has to raise capital, and nobody can raise capital more
inexpensively than the federal government.
Secondly, whoever leases the ship is obviously going to make—want to make a profit on that
lease. So just like as Admiral Papp referred to leasing your car, you know, there’s going to
be a profit involved. And so, if you take the net present value of all of those, of those
payments, you got come out with the more expensive package for the same, if you're
comparing the same vessel.

58 Source: Transcript of hearing.
59 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.
60 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
30

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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.61
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 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.62
Legislative Activity Following Submission of
Proposed FY2013 Budget

FY2013 Funding Request
The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2013 budget includes $8 million in acquisition funding to initiate
survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker. The Coast Guard’s Five Year Capital
Investment Plan includes an additional $852 million in FY2014-FY2017 for acquiring the ship.
The Coast Guard anticipates awarding a construction contract for the ship “within the next five
years” and taking delivery on the ship “within a decade.” The project to design and build a polar
icebreaker is a new acquisition project initiated in the FY2013 budget.

61 Source: Transcript of hearing.
62 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
31

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 2838)
House
On December 5, 2012, the House agreed to Senate amendments to H.R. 2838 with an amendment
pursuant to H.Res. 825. Section 222 of H.R. 2838 as agreed to by the House on December 5,
2012, states:
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-
(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
Congressional Research Service
32

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

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 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.
Congressional Research Service
33

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5887)
House
Section 304 of H.R. 5887 as introduced on June 1, 2012, states:
SEC. 304. USCGC `POLAR SEA’.
(a) In General- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating 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 report providing a business-case
analysis of the options for and costs of reactivating and extending the service life of the
USCGC Polar Sea until the estimated date on which a new polar-class icebreaker is
commissioned. The Secretary shall include in the report—
(1) an assessment of the current condition of the USCGC Polar Sea and a determination of
the vessel’s operational capabilities with respect to fulfilling the Coast Guard’s high latitude
operating requirements;
(2) a detailed estimate of costs with respect to reactivating and extending the service life of
the USCGC Polar Sea to a condition at least comparable to the condition of the USCGC
Polar Star when it enters service in 2013; and
(3) a life cycle cost estimate with respect to operating and maintaining the USCGC Polar Sea
for the duration of its extended service life.
(b) Restriction- The Secretary shall not remove any major equipment, systems, or other
appurtenances from the USCGC Polar Sea for planned or potential work to refurbish the
USCGC Polar Star until the Secretary submits the report required under subsection (a).
FY2013 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
(H.R. 5855/S. 3216)

House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 112-492 of May 23, 2012) on H.R.
5855, recommends approving the Coast Guard’s request for $8 million in FY2013 acquisition
funding to initiate survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker. (Pages 84 and 90)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 112-169 of May 22, 2012) on S.
3216, recommends approving the Coast Guard’s request for $8 million in FY2013 acquisition
funding to initiate survey and design activities for a new polar icebreaker. (Page 83) The report
states:
POLAR ICEBREAKER
Congressional Research Service
34

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

The recommendation includes $8,000,000, as requested, to initiate survey and design
activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker. The Coast Guard’s two heavy polar
icebreakers (Polar Star and Polar Sea), the only U.S. vessels that have the capability to
perform year-round operations in the polar regions, are currently inoperable, with the Polar
Sea
set to be decommissioned and Polar Star set to be reactivated in 2013 for an additional 7
to 10 years of service life. Both the Polar Sea and Polar Star were commissioned in the late
1970’s and have exceeded their expected service life of 30 years. The Coast Guard’s high
latitude study, which was completed in 2010, concluded that additional icebreaking assets
are necessary in the polar regions. This followed a National Academy of Science study that
made similar conclusions. The Coast Guard has indicated that its mission needs statement
[MNS] for this acquisition is to be completed by June 2012. The Coast Guard shall submit
this document to the Committee no later than 30 days after it receives Departmental approval
and brief the Committee on its timeline for completing a concept of operations, market
research, specification development, and other acquisition milestones leading to a request for
proposal and contract award. (Pages 87-88; material in brackets as in original)



Congressional Research Service
35

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix A. Coast Guard Activities Since 2008 To
Assess Requirements and Options for Polar
Icebreakers

This appendix presents information on Coast Guard activities since 2008 to assess requirements
and acquisition options for polar icebreakers.
The Coast Guard stated in February 2008 that it
is awaiting the identification and prioritization of U.S. national policy in the Polar Regions in
order to identify and develop the appropriate capability. In the meantime, the CG is
proceeding with pre-acquisition activities, starting with project identification, to assess
current capability gaps in Coast Guard mission performance in the high latitudes regions.63
In connection with this statement, it can be noted that a document establishing U.S. national
policy in the Arctic—National Security Presidential Directive 66/Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 25 (NSPD 66/HSPD 25)—was issued by the George W. Bush Administration on
January 12, 2009.64
A March 24, 2008, press report stated that
[Coast Guard] Commanders in Alaska plan to conduct an unprecedented expedition to the
Arctic this summer, including a trip already underway by the Healy, to get a clear sense of
their capabilities and problems operating above the Bering Strait. When that survey is
finished, probably by August [2008], [then-Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad] Allen
and the commander of District 17, Rear Adm. Arthur “Gene” Brooks, will be able to make
their case to Congress for funding and new gear, Allen said.65
On July 16, 2008, then-Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, testified that
Today, our nation is at a crossroads with Coast Guard domestic and international icebreaking
capabilities. We have important decisions to make. And I believe we must address our
icebreaking needs now, to ensure we will continue to prosper in the years and decades to
come, whether on the Great Lakes, the critical waterways of the East Coast or the harsh
operating environments of the polar region.66
An August 17, 2008, press report quoted Admiral Allen as stating that, in light of the time
required to build a new polar icebreaker, “I think we’re at a crisis point on making a decision.”67

63 Coast Guard point paper provided to CRS on February 12, 2008, op cit.
64 For more on NSPD 66/HSPD 25, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for
Congress
, coordinated by Ronald O'Rourke.
65 Philip Ewing, “CG Steps Up Bid to Rescue Icebreaker Funding,” Navy Times, March 24, 2008.
66 Transcript of spoken remarks of Admiral Allen at July 16, 2008, hearing on Coast Guard icebreaking needs before
the Coast Guard and Maritime transportation subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
67 Andrew C. Revkin, “A Push To Increase Icebreakers In The Arctic,” New York Times, August 17, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
36

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Almost two years later—on May 10, 2010—a press report quoted him as stating, “We need to be
able to project U.S. sovereignty up there [i.e., the Arctic] and do the missions that we need to do.
We need to have a serious discussion about icebreakers. It has not concluded. It’s not even started,
and you can see me be a little more vocal on that on the 26th of May [2010] because my change of
command [i.e., the end of his term in office as Commandant of the Coast Guard] is the 25th of
May.”68
An August 30, 2010, press report stated that the current Commandant of the Coast Guard,
Admiral Robert Papp,
has not yet discussed the matter [of polar icebreakers] with Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano because he has been focused on dealing with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill since he took the helm of the Coast Guard in May.
“I will have to make the case with my secretary on what I think the best way ahead [for
icebreakers] is,” he said. “I’ve got my staff looking at those options and what we might do,
and then once we discern what the best way ahead is, then we’re going to have to sell that to
the administration and hopefully get the funding from Congress.”69
A September 2010 GAO report on the Coast Guard’s efforts to identify Arctic requirements in
general stated:
The Coast Guard has taken specific action to identify Arctic requirements and gaps while
also collecting relevant information from routine operations. The High Latitude Study is the
centerpiece of the agency’s efforts to determine its Arctic requirements. The Coast Guard has
also established temporary operating locations in the Arctic and conducted biweekly Arctic
overflights to obtain more information on the Arctic operating environment. In addition,
information gathered during the Coast Guard’s routine missions––ice breaking, search and
rescue, and others––also informs requirements. The agency’s preliminary efforts to identify
its Arctic requirements generally align with key practices for agencies defining missions and
desired outcomes.
The Coast Guard faces Arctic challenges including limited information, minimal assets and
infrastructure, personnel issues, and difficult planning and funding decisions, but is taking
initial steps to address these challenges. Specifically, the Coast Guard does not currently
have Arctic maritime domain awareness––a full understanding of variables that could affect
the security, safety, economy, or environment in the Arctic––but is acquiring additional
Arctic vessel tracking data, among other things, to address this issue. In addition, the Coast
Guard’s Arctic assets and infrastructure are limited and not suitable for the harsh
environment, but the agency is testing equipment and using alternative options to mitigate
gaps. Finally, the Coast Guard faces uncertainty over the timing of predicted environmental
changes in the Arctic, as well as over future funding streams. To address these challenges the

68 Cid Standifer, Dan Taylor and Zachary M. Peterson, “Notes From The Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Conference
And Exhibition, May 3-5, 2010, National Harbor, MD,” Inside the Navy, May 10, 2010. On May 1, 2010, Janet
Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, announced that Allen would serve as the National
Incident Commander for the Administration’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Allen
stepped down as Commandant on May 25, 2010, and retired from active duty service in the Coast Guard on June 30,
2010, but continued as a civilian in his role as the National Incident Commander for the oil spill. A September 27,
2010, press report states that Allen would step down as National Incident Commander on September 30, 2010. (Rick
Jervis, “BP Spill Shapes Allen’s Legacy,” Navy Times.com, September 27, 2010.
69 Cid Standifer, “Papp: Refurbished Icebreaker Julls Could Last ‘An Awful Long Time,’” Inside the Navy, August 30,
2010.
Congressional Research Service
37

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Coast Guard obtains scientific data on Arctic climate change and is studying its Arctic
resource requirements to support potential future funding needs.70
The report also stated:
The Coast Guard has multiple efforts underway to better understand the agency’s future
requirements and gaps in both the Arctic and Antarctic with its primary effort being the High
Latitude Study, an effort undertaken in response to congressional direction. In August 2009,
the Coast Guard contracted out the development of the High Latitude Study with the goal of
producing three related mission analyses related to (1) Polar icebreaking needs, (2) all 11
Coast Guard missions in the Arctic region, and (3) all 11 Coast Guard missions in the
Antarctic region. In carrying out the study, contractors have conducted literature reviews,
held workshops to obtain Coast Guard stakeholder input, and conducted site visits and
interviews with Coast Guard units in Alaska as well as with other stakeholders, including
private sector, federal, state, local, Alaska Native, and international interest groups. Coast
Guard officials estimate the study’s cost at $1.7 million and that all three volumes will be
ready for Coast Guard internal review in summer 2010; however, they won’t be released
publicly until a later date.
The Arctic mission analysis piece of the High Latitude Study is expected to include
• an analysis of the functional requirements to carry out the Coast Guard’s existing
missions in the Arctic,
• an analysis of how the Coast Guard might close any operational gaps,
• solutions for a range of future demand scenarios such as a mass search and rescue
incident or an Arctic oil spill (including looking at partnerships and opportunities to
leverage resources), and
• a rough order of magnitude cost estimate.
According to Coast Guard officials, the High Latitude Study is not expected to detail specific
recommended solutions or assets, but rather identify the types of capabilities needed in the
Arctic. In addition, while not Arctic-specific, DHS and the Coast Guard have begun a
comprehensive Fleet Mix Analysis—an analysis of the capabilities, number, and mix of
assets it needs to fulfill the agency’s missions. According to Coast Guard officials, this
analysis is due to be completed in December 2010 and is expected to include more specific
fleet requirements for surface operations in the Bering Sea region of the Arctic but not above
the Arctic Circle.71
The Coast Guard provided the above-cited High Latitude Study to Congress in July 2011. The
study, dated July 2010 on its cover, analyzes and makes a series of findings relating to U.S. needs
for polar icebreakers. (See “Coast Guard High Latitude Study Provided to Congress in July 2011”
in “Background.”)

70 Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:]Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but More
Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial
, GAO-10-870, September 2010, summary page.
71 Government Accountability Office, Coast Guard[:]Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but More
Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial
, GAO-10-870, September 2010, pp. 24-26.
Congressional Research Service
38

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix B. Legislative Activity in 111th and
110th Congresses

This appendix presents information on legislative activity regarding polar icebreakers in the 111th
and the 110th Congresses, beginning with legislative activity for FY2011 and working backwards.
Headings below that lack Public Law (P.L.) numbers indicate bills that were not enacted into law
by the end of the 111th and 110th Congresses. Details on the final legislative actions taken on these
bills are available from the Legislative Information System (LIS).
FY2011 DOD and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R.
1473/P.L. 112-10)

The text of the FY2011 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act
(H.R. 1473/P.L. 112-10 of April 15, 2011) does not provide any funding specifically identified as
being for polar icebreaker sustainment or refurbishment, or for acquisition of new polar
icebreakers.
FY2011 DHS Appropriations Bill (S. 3607)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-222 of July 19, 2010) on S. 3607
of the 111th Congress, did not recommend any funding in the Coast Guard’s AC&I account for
polar icebreaker sustainment or refurbishment, or for acquisition of new polar icebreakers (pages
82-83). The report states:
POLAR ICEBREAKER SUSTAINMENT
The Coast Guard shall continue to periodically brief the Committee on progress made to
reactivate CGC Polar Star. According to the Coast Guard, reactivation work will be
completed by 2013, increasing the fleet of operational polar icebreakers to three. As
discussed in the “Operating Expenses” section of this report, the Committee expects
sufficient funding to be requested in fiscal year 2012 to field a crew for the vessel.
The Committee recently learned that the Polar Sea has been unexpectedly taken out of
service due to excessive wear in its main diesel engines and will likely be in a maintenance
status and unavailable for operations until at least January 2011. As a result of this situation,
the scheduled fall 2010 Arctic patrol will be cancelled as will an Antarctic Operation Deep
Freeze standby period (December 2010-January 2011). The Committee is aware of a root-
cause failure-analysis into the underlying cause of the engine wear. The Committee is to be
briefed on its results upon its completion and the Coast Guard’s plans to address them. (Page
86)
Congressional Research Service
39

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

The report also states:
POLAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING
The Committee notes the budget request once again does not transfer operating and
maintenance funds for the polar icebreakers from the National Science Foundation [NSF] to
the Coast Guard despite congressional direction to the contrary. P.L. 111-117 transfers
$54,000,000 from the NSF to the Coast Guard for icebreaking services to cover all
anticipated operation and maintenance costs for fiscal year 2010.72 For fiscal year 2012, the
Committee expects the operating and maintenance budget authority and associated FTE to be
included in the Coast Guard’s budget request.
The Coast Guard expects the Polar Star to be reactivated in fiscal year 2013. In keeping with
the standard practice of crewing ships in advance to ensure appropriate training and
readiness, fielding a crew for the Polar Star is required in fiscal year 2012. The Committee
expects sufficient funding to be included in the Coast Guard’s fiscal year 2012 request for
this purpose.
The Committee also notes that the Coast Guard’s analysis of national mission needs in the
high latitude regions has yet to be completed. This effort was funded in fiscal year 2009 to
inform the national polar policy debate. The results of this study are to be submitted
expeditiously and include projected assets and resources necessary to address identified
requirements. (Page 80; material in brackets as in original)
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619/P.L. 111-281)
H.R. 3619 was passed by the House on October 23, 2009, and by the Senate on May 7, 2010. The
Senate-passed version substituted the text of S. 1194 as reported by the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee (see below), with modifications. The House and Senate
resolved their differences and passed the final version of the bill on September 29 and 30, 2010.
The bill was presented to the President on October 4, 2010, and signed into law as P.L. 111-281
on October 15, 2010.
House
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619) as reported by the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure (H.Rept. 111-303, Part 1, of October 16, 2009) contains two
provisions relating to polar icebreaking—Section 311 and Section 1316.

72 The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3288/P.L. 111-117 of December 16, 2009) states, in the
paragraph that appropriates funds for NSF research and related activities, that the funds are made available provided,
among other things, “That from funds specified in the fiscal year 2010 budget request for icebreaking services,
$54,000,000 shall be transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard ‘Operating Expenses’ within 60 days of enactment of this
Act….” The conference report on H.R. 3288 (H.Rept. 111-366 of December 8, 2009) states:
The conference agreement transfers $54,000,000 from NSF to the United States Coast Guard
(USCG) for icebreaking services to cover all anticipated operation and maintenance costs for fiscal
year 2010. The conferees expect that in future years all operation and maintenance budget authority
for these USCG icebreakers will be requested by the Department of Homeland Security. (Page 766)
Congressional Research Service
40

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Section 311 states:
SEC. 311. ARCTIC MARINE SHIPPING ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to ensure safe, secure, and reliable maritime
shipping in the Arctic including the availability of aids to navigation, vessel escorts, spill
response capability, and maritime search and rescue in the Arctic.
(b) International Maritime Organization Agreements- To carry out the purpose of this
section, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall work
through the International Maritime Organization to establish agreements to promote
coordinated action among the United States, Russia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark
and other seafaring and Arctic nations to ensure, in the Arctic—
(1) placement and maintenance of aids to navigation;
(2) appropriate icebreaking escort, tug, and salvage capabilities;
(3) oil spill prevention and response capability;
(4) maritime domain awareness, including long-range vessel tracking; and
(5) search and rescue.
(c) Coordination by Committee on the Maritime Transportation System- The Committee on
the Maritime Transportation System established under a directive of the President in the
Ocean Action Plan, issued December 17, 2004, shall coordinate the establishment of
domestic transportation policies in the Arctic necessary to carry out the purpose of this
section.
(d) Agreements and Contracts- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may, subject to the availability of appropriations, enter into cooperative
agreements, contracts, or other agreements with, or make grants to individuals and
governments to carry out the purpose of this section or any agreements established under
subsection (b).
(e) Icebreaking- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
promote safe maritime navigation by means of icebreaking where needed to assure the
reasonable demands of commerce.
(f) Demonstration Projects- The Secretary of Transportation may enter into cooperative
agreements, contracts, or other agreements with, or make grants to, individuals to conduct
demonstration projects to reduce emissions or discharges from vessels operating in the
Arctic.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated—
(1) to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating—
(A) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015 for seasonal operations in the
Arctic; and
(B) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to carry out agreements
established under subsection (d); and
Congressional Research Service
41

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

(2) to the Secretary of Transportation $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015
to conduct demonstration projects under subsection (f).
(h) Icebreakers-
(1) ANALYSES- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of
completion of the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess Arctic polar ice-breaking mission
requirements, which ever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall—
(A) conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis of—
(i) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of icebreakers for operation by the
Coast Guard,
(ii) constructing new icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard, and
(iii) any combination of the activities described in clauses (i) and (ii), to carry out the
missions of the Coast Guard; and
(B) conduct an analysis of the impact on mission capacity and the ability of the United States
to maintain a presence in the Arctic regions through the year 2020 if recapitalization of the
icebreaker fleet, either by constructing new icebreakers or rebuilding, renovating, or
improving the existing fleet of icebreakers, is not fully funded.
(2) REPORTS TO CONGRESS-
(A) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of completion of
the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess Arctic ice-breaking mission requirements, which
ever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a report containing the
results of the study, together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate
under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(B) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall
submit reports containing the results of the analyses required under subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (1), together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate
under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(i) Arctic Definition- In this section the term ‘Arctic’ has the same meaning as in section 112
of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4111).
Section 1316 states:
SEC. 1316. ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL COAST GUARD
PRESENCE IN HIGH LATITUDE REGIONS.
Within 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives assessing the need for additional Coast Guard
prevention and response capability in the high latitude regions. The assessment shall address
Congressional Research Service
42

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

needs for all Coast Guard mission areas, including search and rescue, marine pollution
response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime commerce. The Secretary shall
include in the report—
(1) an assessment of the high latitude operating capabilities of all current Coast Guard assets,
including assets acquired under the Deepwater program;
(2) an assessment of projected needs for Coast Guard forward operating bases in the high
latitude regions;
(3) an assessment of shore infrastructure, personnel, logistics, communications, and
resources requirements to support Coast Guard forward operating bases in the high latitude
regions;
(4) an assessment of the need for high latitude icebreaking capability and the capability of
the current high latitude icebreaking assets of the Coast Guard, including—
(A) whether the Coast Guard’s high latitude icebreaking fleet is meeting current mission
performance goals;
(B) whether the fleet is capable of meeting projected mission performance goals; and
(C) an assessment of the material condition, safety, and working conditions aboard high
latitude icebreaking assets, including the effect of those conditions on mission performance;
(5) a detailed estimate of acquisition costs for each of the assets (including shore
infrastructure) necessary for additional prevention and response capability in high latitude
regions for all Coast Guard mission areas, and an estimate of operations and maintenance
costs for such assets for the initial 10-year period of operations; and
(6) detailed cost estimates (including operating and maintenance for a period of 10 years) for
high latitude icebreaking capability to ensure current and projected future mission
performance goals are met, including estimates of the costs to—
(A) renovate and modernize the Coast Guard’s existing high latitude icebreaking fleet; and
(B) replace the Coast Guard’s existing high latitude icebreaking fleet.
Senate
On May 7, 2010, the Senate passed S.Amdt. 3912, which amended H.R. 3619 by substituting the
text of S. 1194 as reported by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (see
below), with modifications. The Senate then passed H.R. 3619 the same day. Section 603 of the
Senate-passed version of H.R. 3619 states:
SEC. 603. ICEBREAKERS.
(a) ANALYSES- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of
completion of the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess polar ice-breaking mission
requirements, whichever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall require a
nongovernmental, independent third party (other than the National Academy of Sciences)
which has extensive experience in the analysis of military procurements to—
Congressional Research Service
43

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

(1) conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis, taking into account future Coast Guard
budget projections (which assume Coast Guard budget growth of no more than inflation) and
other recapitalization needs, of—
(A) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers for operation
by the Coast Guard,
(B) constructing new polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard,
(C) construction of new polar icebreakers by the National Science Foundation for operation
by the Foundation,
(D) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers by the
National Science Foundation for operation by the Foundation, and
(E) any combination of the activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) to carry
out the missions of the Coast Guard and the National Science Foundation;
(2) conduct an analysis of the impact on mission capacity and the ability of the United States
to maintain a presence in the polar regions through the year 2020 if recapitalization of the
polar icebreaker fleet, either by constructing new polar icebreakers or rebuilding, renovating,
or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers, is not fully funded; and
(3) conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact on all Coast Guard activities, including
operations, maintenance, procurements, and end strength, of the acquisition of polar
icebreakers described in paragraph (1) by the Coast Guard or the National Science
Foundation assuming that total Coast Guard funding will not increase more than the annual
rate of inflation.
(b) Reports to Congress-
(1) Not later than one year and 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of
completion of the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess polar ice-breaking mission
requirements, whichever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a
report containing the results of the study, together with recommendations the Commandant
deems appropriate under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
(2) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall
submit reports containing the results of the analyses required under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a), together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate under
section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
Final Version
Section 307 of H.R. 3619/P.L. 111-281 states:
SEC. 307. ARCTIC MARINE SHIPPING ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
Congressional Research Service
44

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to ensure safe and secure maritime shipping in the
Arctic including the availability of aids to navigation, vessel escorts, spill response
capability, and maritime search and rescue in the Arctic.
(b) International Maritime Organization Agreements- To carry out the purpose of this
section, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating is encouraged
to enter into negotiations through the International Maritime Organization to conclude and
execute agreements to promote coordinated action among the United States, Russia, Canada,
Iceland, Norway, and Denmark and other seafaring and Arctic nations to ensure, in the
Arctic—
(1) placement and maintenance of aids to navigation;
(2) appropriate marine safety, tug, and salvage capabilities;
(3) oil spill prevention and response capability;
(4) maritime domain awareness, including long-range vessel tracking; and
(5) search and rescue.
(c) Coordination by Committee on the Maritime Transportation System- The Committee on
the Maritime Transportation System established under a directive of the President in the
Ocean Action Plan, issued December 17, 2004, shall coordinate the establishment of
domestic transportation policies in the Arctic necessary to carry out the purpose of this
section.
(d) Agreements and Contracts- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may, subject to the availability of appropriations, enter into cooperative
agreements, contracts, or other agreements with, or make grants to individuals and
governments to carry out the purpose of this section or any agreements established under
subsection (b).
(e) Icebreaking- The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
promote safe maritime navigation by means of icebreaking where necessary, feasible, and
effective to carry out the purposes of this section.
(f) Independent Ice Breaker Analyses-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall require a
nongovernmental, independent third party (other than the National Academy of Sciences)
that has extensive experience in the analysis of military procurements, to—
(A) conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis, taking into account future Coast Guard
budget projections (which assume Coast Guard budget growth of no more than inflation) and
other recapitalization needs, of—
(i) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers for operation
by the Coast Guard;
(ii) constructing new polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard;
Congressional Research Service
45

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

(iii) construction of new polar icebreakers by the National Science Foundation for operation
by the Foundation;
(iv) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers by the
National Science Foundation for operation by the Foundation; and
(v) any combination of the activities described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) to carry out the
missions of the Coast Guard and the National Science Foundation; and
(B) conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact on all Coast Guard activities, including
operations, maintenance, procurements, and end strength, of the acquisition of polar
icebreakers described in subparagraph (A) by the Coast Guard or the National Science
Foundation assuming that total Coast Guard funding will not increase more than the annual
rate of inflation.
(2) REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit a report containing the
results of the analyses required under paragraph (1), together with recommendations the
Commandant considers appropriate under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code,
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
(g) High-Latitude Study- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the
date of completion of the ongoing High-Latitude Study to assess polar icebreaking mission
requirements for all Coast Guard missions including search and rescue, marine pollution
response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime commerce, whichever occurs
later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a report containing the results of the
study, together with recommendations the Commandant considers appropriate under section
93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives.
(h) Arctic Definition- In this section the term ‘Arctic’ has the same meaning as in section
112 of the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4111).
FY2010 and FY2011 Coast Guard Authorization Bill (S. 1194)
Senate
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee reported S. 1194 on October 30,
2009 (S.Rept. 111-95 of October 30, 2009). Section 604 of S. 1194 as reported by the committee
states:
SEC. 604. ICEBREAKERS.
(a) ANALYSES- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of
completion of the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess polar ice-breaking mission
requirements, which ever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall—
(1) conduct a comparative cost-benefit analysis of—
(A) rebuilding, renovating, or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers for operation
by the Coast Guard,
Congressional Research Service
46

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

(B) constructing new polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard for operation by the
Coast Guard, and
(C) any combination of the activities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), to carry out the
missions of the Coast Guard; and
(2) conduct an analysis of the impact on mission capacity and the ability of the United States
to maintain a presence in the polar regions through the year 2020 if recapitalization of the
polar icebreaker fleet, either by constructing new polar icebreakers or rebuilding, renovating,
or improving the existing fleet of polar icebreakers, is not fully funded.
(b) Reports to Congress-
(1) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act or the date of completion of
the ongoing High Latitude Study to assess polar ice-breaking mission requirements, which
ever occurs later, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a report containing the
results of the study, together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate
under section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(2) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commandant shall
submit reports containing the results of the analyses required under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a), together with recommendations the Commandant deems appropriate under
section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
S.Rept. 111-95 summarizes Section 604 on pages 24-25.
On May 7, 2010, the Senate passed S.Amdt. 3912, which amended H.R. 3619 (see above) by
substituting the text of S. 1194 as reported by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee, with modifications. The Senate then passed H.R. 3619 the same day.
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Implementation Act of 2009
(H.R. 2865/S. 1514/S. 1561)

House
H.R. 2865 was introduced on June 12, 2009. Section 8(1)(A) would authorize appropriations of
$750 million per year in FY2011 and FY2012 for the construction of two polar capable
icebreakers.
Section 2 states that Congress finds and declares several things, including the following:
The United States has continuing research, security, environmental, and commercial interests
in the Arctic region that rely on the availability of icebreaker platforms of the Coast Guard.
The Polar Class icebreakers commissioned in the 1970s are in need of replacement.
and
Congressional Research Service
47

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Building new icebreakers, mustering international plans for aids to navigation and other
facilities, and establishing coordinated shipping regulations and oil spill prevention and
response capability through international cooperation, including the approval of the
International Maritime Organization, requires long lead times. Beginning those efforts now,
with the completion of an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment by the eight-nation Arctic
Council, is essential to protect United States interests given the extensive current use of the
Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas by vessels of many nations.
Section 3 states:
To carry out the purpose of this Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating shall work through the International Maritime Organization to establish
agreements to promote coordinated action among the United States, Russia, Canada, Iceland,
Norway, and Denmark and other seafaring and Arctic nations to ensure, in the Arctic....
(2) appropriate icebreaking escort, tug, and salvage capabilities.
Section 6 states, in its entirety:
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall promote safe
maritime navigation by means of icebreaking where needed to assure the reasonable
demands of commerce.
Senate
S. 1514 was introduced on July 24, 2009. Section 8(1)(A) would authorize appropriations of $750
million per year in FY2011 and FY2012 for the construction of two polar capable icebreakers.
Section 2 states that Congress finds and declares several things, including the following:
The United States has continuing research, security, environmental, and commercial interests
in the Arctic region that rely on the availability of icebreaker platforms of the Coast Guard.
The Polar Class icebreakers commissioned in the 1970s are in need of replacement.
and
Building new icebreakers, mustering international plans for aids to navigation and other
facilities, and establishing coordinated shipping regulations and oil spill prevention and
response capability through international cooperation, including the approval of the
International Maritime Organization, requires long lead times. Beginning those efforts now,
with the completion of an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment by the eight-nation Arctic
Council, is essential to protect United States interests given the extensive current use of the
Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas by vessels of many nations.
Section 3 states:
To carry out the purpose of this Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating shall work through the International Maritime Organization to establish
agreements to promote coordinated action among the United States, Russia, Canada, and
other seafaring and Arctic nations to ensure, in the Arctic…
(2) appropriate icebreaking escort, tug, and salvage capabilities….
Congressional Research Service
48

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Section 6 states, in its entirety:
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall promote safe
maritime navigation by means of icebreaking where needed to assure the reasonable
demands of commerce.
S. 1561 was introduced on August 3, 2009. Section 11(a)(1) would authorize appropriations of
$40 million in FY2011 for the design of a new polar class icebreaker. Section 11(a)(2) would
authorize appropriations of $800 million per year in FY2011 and FY2012 for the construction of
two polar capable icebreakers.
Section 2 states that Congress finds several things, including the following:
The United States has continuing research, security, environmental, and commercial interests
in the Arctic region that rely on the availability of polar class icebreakers of the Coast Guard
that were commissioned in the 1970s and are in need of replacement.
and
Building new icebreakers, forward operating bases, aids to navigation, and other facilities,
and establishing coordinated shipping regulations and oil spill prevention and response
capability through international cooperation requires long lead times.
Section 5 states:
It is the sense of Congress that, to carry out the purpose of this Act, the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commandant of
the Coast Guard, should work to establish agreements to promote coordinated action among
the United States, Russia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark and other seafaring and
Arctic nations with respect to…
(4) appropriate icebreaking escort, tug, and salvage capabilities….
Section 6 states:
(a) Submission of Report Analysis to Congress-
(1) REQUIREMENT FOR SUBMISSION- Not later than 90 days following the completion
of the High Latitude Polar Ice-Breaking Mission Analysis Report, the Commandant of the
Coast Guard shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress—
(A) such report; and
(B) consistent with section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, any recommendations
of the Commandant related to such report.
(2) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DEFINED- In this subsection, the
term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
(b) Mission Requirements Analysis-
Congressional Research Service
49

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

(1) MISSION REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS- Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall, subject to the availability
of appropriations, execute a contract with an independent entity to—
(A) conduct an analysis of future mission requirements of the Coast Guard in the Arctic and
Antarctic; and
(B) estimate the necessary resources to provide for such requirements.
(2) SUBMISSION OF ANALYSIS AND ESTIMATE- Not later than 120 days after the date
that the contract described in paragraph (1) is executed, the analysis and estimate described
in subparagraph (A) and (B) of that paragraph shall be submitted to—
(A) the appropriate committees of Congress;
(B) the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and
(C) the Comptroller General of the United States.
(3) ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS- Not later than 90 days after the submission of
the analysis and estimate described in paragraph (2)—
(A) the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress, consistent with section 93(a)(24) of title 14, United States Code, any
recommendations of the Commandant related to such analysis and estimate; and
(B) the Comptroller General shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress any
recommendations of the Comptroller General related to such analysis and estimate.
(4) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DEFINED- In this subsection, the
term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means—
(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
Section 10 states, in its entirety:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of the National Science Foundation
shall transfer all amounts provided pursuant to any Act for the procurement of polar
icebreaking services to the United States Coast Guard Appropriation Accounts, and such
amounts shall remain available until expended for operating expenses, renovation, and
improvement.
Congressional Research Service
50

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

FY2010 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 2892/P.L. 111-83)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-157 of June 16, 2009) on H.R.
2892, did not recommend any funding in the Coast Guard’s AC&I account for polar icebreaker
sustainment or acquisition of new polar icebreakers. The report stated:
POLAR ICEBREAKING OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND
FUTURE POLAR NEEDS
The Committee continues to be concerned about Coast Guard’s ability to meet its polar
operations mission requirements and provide the United States with the capability to support
national interests in the polar regions. These interests extend well beyond the realm of
scientific research. As such, last year the Committee directed the Coast Guard and the
National Science Foundation (NSF) to renegotiate the existing agreement on polar
icebreaking in order to return the budget for operating and maintaining these vessels to the
Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010, and to provide a new joint plan for Coast Guard support of
scientific research by NSF and other Federal agencies, which was to be included in the 2010
budget request. No agreement was reached, and no plan was submitted. Negotiations are
apparently underway between the Coast Guard and NSF, but the budget has yet to be
returned to the Coast Guard accounts. Therefore, the Committee directs the Coast Guard to
continue negotiating the agreement for the return of icebreaking in the 2011 budget, and to
provide the joint plan for Coast Guard support as soon as possible.
The Committee further directs the Coast Guard to use existing appropriations to continue its
analysis of national mission needs in the high latitude regions to inform national polar
policy. (Pages 78-79)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-31 of June 18, 2009) on the
FY2010 DHS appropriation bill (S. 1298), recommended $32.5 million in the Coast Guard’s
AC&I account for the reactivation and service life extension of Polar Star. Of this amount, $27.3
million is in an AC&I line item for polar icebreaker sustainment, and the remaining $5.2 million
is included within a line item for AC&I direct personnel costs (page 76). The Senate included the
provisions of S. 1298 in an amendment to H.R. 2892.
The committee’s report on S. 1298 stated:
POLAR ICEBREAKER SUSTAINMENT
The Committee recommends $32,500,000 above the budget request to complete the
reactivation and service life extension of Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star. Of this amount,
$5,200,000 is funded in the AC&I direct personnel costs PPA [program, project, or activity].
Returning Polar Star to operational status is vital to ensuring the U.S. Government has the
ability to project U.S. sovereignty and protect the broad range of security, economic, and
environmental interests in the Arctic and Antarctic. Within this amount, the Coast Guard
shall begin survey and design and conduct a business case analysis for either a new heavy
polar icebreaker class or a major service life extension project for existing heavy icebreakers.
The only existing heavy polar class icebreaker, the Polar Sea, has only 7 years remaining in
its useful life. (Page 78)
Congressional Research Service
51

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

The report also stated:
POLAR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING
The Committee notes the budget request did not include transfer of operating and
maintenance funds for the polar icebreakers from the National Science Foundation [NSF] to
the Coast Guard as directed in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 110–329). For fiscal year 2011,
the Committee expects the operating and maintenance budget authority and associated FTE
to be included in the Coast Guard’s request. The two agencies shall update the existing
Memorandum of Agreement to reflect the change in budget authority. (page 73; material in
brackets as in original)
Conference
The conference report (H.Rept. 111-298 of October 13, 2009) on H.R. 2892/P.L. 111-83 of
October 28, 2009, provided $32.5 million to complete the reactivation and service life extension
of Polar Star. Of this total, $27.3 million was provided in the AC&I account in a line item
entitled “Polar Icebreaker sustainment” (Page 87). The conference report stated:
Polar Icebreaker Sustainment
The conference agreement provides an additional $32,500,000 to complete the reactivation
and service life extension of the Coast Guard Cutter POLAR STAR as proposed by the
Senate. No additional funding for this activity was proposed by the House. Of this amount,
$5,200,000 is provided in the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements direct personnel
costs PPA [program, project, or activity]. Funds shall be applied as specified in the Senate
report. The conferees believe returning POLAR STAR to operational status is vital to
national interests in the polar regions. According to the Coast Guard the only existing
operational heavy icebreaker, the POLAR SEA, has only five years of service life remaining.
The absence of requested funding to complete fiscal year 2009 efforts to reactivate POLAR
STAR, combined with the lack of compliance with standing Congressional direction on the
polar icebreaking budget, implies a broader lack of commitment to sustaining polar
capabilities and achieving longterm, strategic objectives in the Arctic. The conferees direct
the Coast Guard to brief the Committees no later than December 15, 2009, on the program
execution plan for reactivation of POLAR STAR and the status of resources required to
achieve mission requirements for polar operations. (Page 89)
The conference report also stated, the section on the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses (OE)
account:
Polar Icebreaking Operations and Maintenance Funding
The conferees expect polar icebreaking operations and maintenance budget authority and
associated FTE to be included in the Coast Guard’s budget request for fiscal year 2011. The
National Science Foundation and Coast Guard shall update the existing Memorandum of
Agreement to reflect the change in budget authority as proposed by the Senate. Furthermore,
the conferees direct the Coast Guard to follow the direction regarding the high latitude study
as outlined in the House report. (Page 85)
Congressional Research Service
52

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(H.R. 1/P.L. 111-5)

A Senate version of H.R. 1 (amendment in Senate, January 30, 2009) stated, in the section on the
Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) account, that of the funds
provided in the bill for the AC&I account, “$87,500,000 shall be for the design of a new polar
icebreaker or the renovation of an existing polar icebreaker, and major repair and maintenance of
existing polar icebreakers.” The provision was not included in other House and Senate versions of
the bill, or in the conference version of the bill, which was signed into law on February 17, 2009.
FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 2638/P.L. 110-329)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 110-862 of September 18, 2008) on
the FY2009 DHS appropriations bill (H.R. 6947), stated:
POLAR ICEBREAKING OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND
FUTURE POLAR NEEDS
The Committee is concerned about Coast Guard’s ability to meet its polar operations mission
requirements and provide the United States with the capability to support national interests in
the polar regions. The Committee provides $200,000, as requested, to conduct an analysis of
national mission needs in the high latitude regions to inform the national polar policy debate.
In fiscal year 2006 the Committees on Appropriations approved an Administration request
for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the primary user of the three Coast Guard polar
icebreaker vessels, to fund the costs of operating and maintaining these aging vessels.
Because it has become more apparent that the national interest in the polar regions extends
beyond scientific research, the Committee questions whether this arrangement should
continue. Accordingly, the Committee directs Coast Guard and NSF to renegotiate the
existing agreement in order to return the budget for operating and maintaining these vessels
to Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010. This change is consistent with a new joint plan for Coast
Guard support of scientific research by NSF and other Federal agencies, which also is to be
included in the 2010 budget request. NSF shall retain responsibility for the contracting of
scientific support services that Coast Guard does not have the capability to perform or cannot
perform on a cost-competitive basis. The Committee is aware of a $4,000,000 funding
shortfall related to the caretaker status of the POLAR STAR, and directs Coast Guard to
address this shortfall within the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2009. (Page 82)
Senate
The FY2009 DHS appropriations bill (S. 3181) as reported by the Senate appropriations
committee would make available about $6.28 billion for the Coast Guard’s Operating Expenses
(OE) account, provided, among other things, “that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$4,000,000 of the amounts made available under this heading may be available to maintain the
USCGC POLAR STAR in caretaker status.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 110-396 of June 23, 2008) on S.
3181, stated:
Congressional Research Service
53

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

POLAR ICEBREAKERS
The Committee reiterates its concern with the Coast Guard’s ability to meet its current and
projected polar operations responsibilities. According to correspondence from the
Commandant on May 23, 2008, the Coast Guard will submit a report on polar mission
requirements no later than August 31, 2008. The Committee expects this report to address
the concerns detailed in the explanatory statement accompanying the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008. The Committee also expects all costs to
operate the polar icebreakers for National Science Foundation [NSF] research, including
unanticipated maintenance, will be reimbursed by NSF. However, the Committee notes that
the NSF budget request states, “Effective with the fiscal year 2009 budget, NSF will no
longer provide funds to maintain the USCGC Polar Star in caretaker status because NSF
does not envision current or future use of this vessel in support of its mission.” Due to the
changing environmental conditions and increased activity in the polar regions, as well as the
Coast Guard’s multi-mission responsibilities in the polar regions that are not science related,
the Committee includes statutory language making an additional $4,000,000 available to
maintain the USCGC Polar Star in caretaker status. The Committee also notes that the
forthcoming report on Coast Guard polar mission requirements will address the sustainability
of the current operations and maintenance cost sharing arrangement between the Coast
Guard and the NSF to support both current and projected polar icebreaker operations. (Page
81)
Compromise
The FY2009 DHS appropriations bill became Division D of H.R. 2638/P.L. 110-329 of
September 30, 2008, a consolidated appropriations act. H.R. 2638 began as a DHS appropriations
act and was then amended to become a consolidated appropriations act that contained that
includes, among other things, the FY2009 DHS appropriations act. In lieu of a conference report,
there was a compromise version of H.R. 2638 that was accompanied by an explanatory statement.
Section 4 of H.R. 2638 stated that the explanatory statement “shall have the same effect with
respect to the allocation of funds and implementation of this Act as if it were a joint explanatory
statement of a committee of conference.”
H.R. 2638 provided $30.3 million for polar icebreaker sustainment. The funding was provided in
a new line item in the surface ships section of the Deepwater portion of the Coast Guard’s
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) appropriation account. The explanatory
statement stated:
Polar Icebreakers
One of the Coast Guard’s missions is to provide the United States with the capability to
support national interests in the polar regions. In a report recently submitted, the Coast Guard
stated that the United States will need a maritime surface and air presence in the Arctic
sufficient to support prevention and response regimes as well as diplomatic objectives.
However, no funding has been requested for the Coast Guard’s aging icebreakers despite its
inability to meet current and projected polar operations mission responsibilities. The Coast
Guard is directed to follow House report direction regarding the polar icebreaking operating
budget. The Coast Guard should work with the National Science Foundation in the coming
year to renegotiate the existing polar icebreaking agreement in order to return the budget for
operating and maintaining its polar icebreakers to the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2010. The
AC&I appropriation includes $30,300,000 to reactivate the USCGC POLAR STAR for an
additional 7-10 years of service life.
Congressional Research Service
54

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Coast Guard Authorization Act For FY2008 (H.R. 2830/S. 1892)
House
Section 422 of H.R. 2830 as passed by the House stated:
SEC. 422. ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL COAST GUARD PRESENCE
IN HIGH LATITUDE REGIONS.
Within 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives assessing the need for additional Coast Guard
prevention and response capability in the high latitude regions. The assessment shall address
needs for all Coast Guard mission areas, including search and rescue, marine pollution
response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime commerce. The Secretary shall
include in the report—
(1) an assessment of the high latitude operating capabilities of all current Coast Guard assets,
including assets acquired under the Deepwater program;
(2) an assessment of projected needs for Coast Guard forward operating bases in the high
latitude regions;
(3) an assessment of shore infrastructure, personnel, logistics, communications, and
resources requirements to support Coast Guard forward operating bases in the high latitude
regions;
(4) an assessment of the need for high latitude icebreaking capability and the capability of
the current high latitude icebreaking assets of the Coast Guard, including—
(A) whether the Coast Guard’s high latitude icebreaking fleet is meeting current mission
performance goals;
(B) whether the fleet is capable of meeting projected mission performance goals; and
(C) an assessment of the material condition, safety, and working conditions aboard high
latitude icebreaking assets, including the effect of those conditions on mission performance;
(5) a detailed estimate of acquisition costs for each of the assets (including shore
infrastructure) necessary for additional prevention and response capability in high latitude
regions for all Coast Guard mission areas, and an estimate of operations and maintenance
costs for such assets for the initial 10-year period of operations; and
(6) detailed cost estimates (including operating and maintenance for a period of 10 years) for
high latitude icebreaking capability to ensure current and projected future mission
performance goals are met, including estimates of the costs to—
(A) renovate and modernize the Coast Guard’s existing high latitude icebreaking fleet; and
(B) replace the Coast Guard’s existing high latitude icebreaking fleet.
Congressional Research Service
55

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Senate
Section 917 of S. 1892 as reported in the Senate stated:
SEC. 917. ICEBREAKERS.
(a) IN GENERAL—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
shall acquire or construct 2 polar icebreakers for operation by the Coast Guard in addition to
its existing fleet of polar icebreakers.
(b) NECESSARY MEASURES—The Secretary shall take all necessary measures, including
the provision of necessary operation and maintenance funding, to ensure that—
(1) the Coast Guard maintains, at a minimum, its current vessel capacity for carrying out ice
breaking in the Arctic and Antarctic, Great Lakes, and New England regions; and
(2) any such vessels that are not fully operational are brought up to, and maintained at full
operational capability.
(c) REIMBURSEMENT—Nothing in this section shall preclude the Secretary from seeking
reimbursement for operation and maintenance costs of such polar icebreakers from other
Federal agencies and entities, including foreign countries, that benefit from the use of the
icebreakers.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS—There are authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2008 to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
such sums as may be necessary to acquire the icebreakers authorized by subsection (a), as
well as maintaining and operating the icebreaker fleet as authorized in subsection (b).
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 110-261 of
February 5, 2008) on S. 1892, stated:
Section 917 would require the Secretary to acquire or construct two new polar icebreakers
for operation by the Coast Guard. It also would instruct the Coast Guard to maintain their
existing polar icebreakers and return them to operational status, if not operational already.
This section would authorize such sums as are necessary to carry out this section. Currently,
the Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet is funded by the National Science Foundation. However,
the funding for these vessels has been inconsistent, allowing the Polar Star to fall behind on
the maintenance necessary to keep the vessel in operating condition. With some climate
models predicting an ice-free Arctic summer in the future, more international expeditions
will be headed to the region to examine newly revealed oil and gas reserves and other natural
resources. Canada, Russia, and other countries will begin to compete with the United States
over jurisdiction and, without a strong polar icebreaker fleet, our Nation will suffer a severe
disadvantage. A recent 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that the
United States needs to maintain polar icebreaking capacity and construct at least two new
polar icebreakers. This provision follows those recommendations. (Page 29)
In presenting the CBO’s estimate of the cost of Section 917 of S. 1892 as reported, the report
stated:
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that the USCG would
spend about $1.4 billion over the next five years to purchase two icebreakers. (Costs to
operate and maintain the two new vessels would total about $50 million a year beginning in
2013.) We estimate that an additional $50 million would be spent over the 2008-2010 period
Congressional Research Service
56

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

to recondition an existing USCG icebreaker, which is currently out of operation. Operating
and maintaining that vessel would cost about $10 million in 2010 and about $25 million
annually thereafter. This estimate is based on information provided by the Coast Guard
regarding the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining such vessels to agency
specifications. (Page 8; see also pages 6 and 7)
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161)
FY2008 funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes the Coast
Guard, was provided in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161 of
December 26, 2007). The explanatory statement for H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161, which is intended to
be the equivalent of a conference report for the bill, stated the following in its discussion of
Division E (the FY2008 DHS appropriations act):
National Interests in the Polar Regions
The Committees on Appropriations are concerned about Coast Guard’s ability to meet its
polar operations mission requirements and provide the United States with the capability to
support national interests in the polar regions. These mission requirements include, but are
not limited to: global reach to the North and South poles; monitoring of U.S.-bound vessel
traffic transiting international waterways in the far north; support of the International Ice
Patrol; and support of other governmental and scientific organizations in pursuit of marine
and atmospheric science activities in the polar regions. The Committees on Appropriations
are specifically concerned whether Coast Guard’s aging polar icebreaking fleet can meet
current mission performance goals and whether this fleet and the service’s small cadre of
specialized polar operations personnel are capable of meeting projected mission performance
goals in light of changing environmental conditions and increased activity in the polar
regions. The National Academy of Sciences made several recommendations in this regard in
September 2006, but the Administration has taken no action to implement those
recommendations.
Therefore, the Commandant is directed to submit a comprehensive polar operations report
that fully assesses the Coast Guard’s ability to meet current and projected polar mission
requirements and includes an evaluation of how Coast Guard’s current capabilities and
resources must be adapted or enhanced to account for changing environmental conditions
and increased activity in the polar regions. This report is to include an analysis of the need
for any permanent, forward operating presence in the polar regions in order to meet mission
requirements and an assessment of the Coast Guard’s ability to meet the requirements of
partner agencies operating in the polar regions, such as the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and the Departments of Commerce and Defense, under current and projected
environmental conditions. Finally, this report should include an appraisal of the
sustainability of the current operations and maintenance cost sharing arrangement between
the Coast Guard and NSF to support both current and projected polar icebreaker operations.
Congressional Research Service
57

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix C. Bill and Report Language Relating to
Study of High-Latitude Operations

This appendix presents examples of bill and report language in recent years relating to the study
of Coast Guard missions and capabilities for operations in high-latitude areas. These examples,
which are taken from Appendix B, include the following:
• The explanatory statement for the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161 of December 26, 2007), which included FY2008
funding for DHS, stated: “Therefore, the Commandant is directed to submit a
comprehensive polar operations report that fully assesses the Coast Guard’s
ability to meet current and projected polar mission requirements and includes an
evaluation of how Coast Guard’s current capabilities and resources must be
adapted or enhanced to account for changing environmental conditions and
increased activity in the polar regions. This report is to include an analysis of the
need for any permanent, forward operating presence in the polar regions in order
to meet mission requirements and an assessment of the Coast Guard’s ability to
meet the requirements of partner agencies operating in the polar regions, such as
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Departments of Commerce and
Defense, under current and projected environmental conditions. Finally, this
report should include an appraisal of the sustainability of the current operations
and maintenance cost sharing arrangement between the Coast Guard and NSF to
support both current and projected polar icebreaker operations.”
• Section 422 of the FY2008 Coast Guard Authorization Act (H.R. 2830) as
passed by the House stated: “Within 270 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
submit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives assessing the need for additional Coast Guard prevention and
response capability in the high latitude regions. The assessment shall address
needs for all Coast Guard mission areas, including search and rescue, marine
pollution response and prevention, fisheries enforcement, and maritime
commerce. The Secretary shall include in the report ... an assessment of the need
for high latitude icebreaking capability and the capability of the current high
latitude icebreaking assets of the Coast Guard.... ”
• The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 110-862 of
September 18, 2008, page 82) on the FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R.
2638/P.L. 110-329 of September 30, 2008), stated: “The Committee provides
$200,000, as requested, to conduct an analysis of national mission needs in the
high latitude regions to inform the national polar policy debate.”
• The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 110-396 of June 23,
2008, page 81) on the FY2009 DHS Appropriations Act (S. 3181), stated:
“According to correspondence from the Commandant on May 23, 2008, the
Coast Guard will submit a report on polar mission requirements no later than
August 31, 2008. The Committee expects this report to address the concerns
detailed in the explanatory statement accompanying the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008.”
Congressional Research Service
58

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

• The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-157 of June 16,
2009, pages 78-79) on the FY2010 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 2892/P.L.
111-83 of October 28, 2009), stated: “The Committee further directs the Coast
Guard to use existing appropriations to continue its analysis of national mission
needs in the high latitude regions to inform national polar policy.”
• The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-31 of June 18,
2009, page 78) on the FY2010 DHS Appropriations Act (S. 1298), stated:
“Within this amount, the Coast Guard shall begin survey and design and conduct
a business case analysis for either a new heavy polar icebreaker class or a major
service life extension project for existing heavy icebreakers.”
• The conference report (H.Rept. 111-298 of October 13, 2009, page 85) on the
FY2010 DHS Appropriations Act (H.R. 2892/P.L. 111-83 of October 28,
20097), stated: “Furthermore, the conferees direct the Coast Guard to follow the
direction regarding the high latitude study as outlined in the House report.”
• Sections 311(h) and 1316 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R.
3619) as reported by the House Committee on transportation and Infrastructure
(H.Rept. 111-303, part 1, of October 16, 2009) (see Appendix B for the full texts
of these sections).
• Section 603 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619) as
passed by the Senate (see Appendix B for the full text of this section).
• Sections 307(f) and 307(g) of the final version of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619/P.L. 111-281 of October 15, 2010) (see
Appendix B for the full texts of these sections).
• The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-222 of July 19,
2010, page 80) on the FY2011 DHS Appropriations Act (S. 3607), stated: “The
Committee also notes that the Coast Guard’s analysis of national mission needs
in the high latitude regions has yet to be completed. This effort was funded in
fiscal year 2009 to inform the national polar policy debate. The results of this
study are to be submitted expeditiously and include projected assets and
resources necessary to address identified requirements.”
The High Latitude Study has a cover date of July 2010. The study was provided to Congress in
July 2011. The Coast Guard states that the study was provided to Congress in response to the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 3619/P.L. 111-281), which was enacted into law on
October 15, 2010.73

73 Source: Email from Coast Guard Congressional Affairs office to CRS, August 1, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
59

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix D. May 2008 Memorandum from DOD
Combatant Commanders

This appendix reprints the text of a May 21, 2008, memorandum for the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff on the topic of icebreaker support signed by three DOD combatant commanders,
each a 4-star general or flag officer.74
MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
FROM: CDR USPACOM / CDR USTRANSCOM / CDR USNORTHCOM
SUBJECT: Icebreaker Support
1. The United States has enduring national, strategic, and economic interests in the Arctic
and Antarctic. In the north, the United States is an Arctic nation with broad and fundamental
national security interests. In addition to the essential requirements for homeland security
and maritime domain awareness, the effects of climate change and increasing economic
activity require a more active presence in this maritime domain. In the south, the United
States maintains three scientific stations. While the mission of the stations is largely
scientific, their presence secures the United States’ influential role in the Antarctic Treaty
decision making process and maintains the balance necessary to maintain our position on
Antarctic sovereignty.
2. To assert our interests in these regions, the United States needs assured access with
reliable icebreaking ships. Today, however, two of the three Coast Guard icebreakers are
nearing the end of their service lives, with one relegated to caretaker status. Over the past 10
years some routine maintenance has been deferred and there is no service life extension
program for these ships. As a result, the nation’s icebreaking capability has diminished
substantially and is at risk of being unable to support our national interests in the Arctic
regions. An example of our reduced icebreaking capability is last season’s McMurdo Station
resupply mission where USNS GIANELLA spent 50 hours in pack-ice awaiting escort from
a leased Swedish icebreaker.
3. In summary, icebreakers are essential instruments of United States policy in the polar
regions. We therefore recommend Joint Chiefs of Staff support for the following:
—A program for the construction of new polar icebreakers to be operated by the Coast
Guard.
—Coast Guard funding to keep existing icebreakers viable until the new ships enter service.
—Sufficient Coast Guard operations funding to provide increased, regular and reliable
icebreaker presence in the polar regions.

74 Memorandum for Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, from CDR USPACOM / CDR USTRANSCOM / CDR
USNOTHCOM, Subject: Icebreaker Support. The Navy Office of Legislative Affairs provided CRS with a copy of the
memorandum on September 11, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
60

Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

[signed]
Victor E. Renuart
Norton A. Schwartz
Timothy J. Keating
General, USAF
General, USAF
Admiral, USN
Commander
Commander
Commander
U.S. Northern
U. S. Transportation
U.S. Pacific Command
Command
Command
cc :
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

Author Contact Information

Ronald O'Rourke

Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610


Congressional Research Service
61