Description
acquire a new icebreaker, let alone a fleet of them.
Congress will have to think “outside of the box” to
increase this budget.
com/2015/09/01/reuters-america-huntington-ingallscites-interest-in-building-new-us-icebreakers.html.
Conclusions
Options for Funding New Icebreakers and
U.S. Capacity to Build the Same
At a November 17, 2015, joint hearing held by the
Subcommittees on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging
Threats and the Western Hemisphere of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee
Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) suggested
that the Coast Guard consider leasing an icebreaker
or acquiring one from Finland. Leasing icebreakers
has been considered several times in the last couple
of decades, but the lack of legal authority and
opposition from industry and labor have quashed
any real consideration of this alternative.
In the final hours of the first session of the
114th Congress, Congress passed an omnibus
appropriations bill that increased the planning budget
for new Coast Guard icebreakers to six million dollars
for FY2016. Both the House and the Senate passed
Coast Guard authorization bills, and final passage
occurred on February 1, 2016.
The final bill will permit the Coast Guard to use “incremental funding” for the acquisition of icebreakers. But even with incremental funding, it would take five to ten years to fully fund a new icebreaker, and this could require a significant increase to the Coast Guard’s acquisition budget. To fulfill the Coast Guard’s mission and allow the United States to build new icebreakers, funding cannot just come from the Coast Guard’s budget, but also from other agencies that rely on the Coast Guard for research and logistical assistance in the Arctic and Antarctic, including the U.S. Navy, NSF (with its base in McMurdo), and NOAA.
Keeping a presence in the Arctic is critical for national security as well as for the conduct of oceanic and atmospheric research in the Arctic and Antarctic. U.S. shipyards have the capacity to build the icebreakers. For example, Huntington Ingalls Industries in Mississippi expressed an interest in building polar icebreakers.
See Andrea Shalal, Huntington Ingalls Cites Interest in Building New U.S. Icebreakers, REUTERS, Sept. 1, 2015, http://www.cnbc. 16 The United States has taken the first steps toward acquiring at least one new icebreaker, but this should not be the end of the story. To accomplish the tasks that Congress and the administration have set for it, and to protect our vital interests in the Arctic—and Antarctic—the Coast Guard needs at least two new icebreakers.
Congress must find a way to fund them through incremental funding, borrowing from other agencies, and/or creative budget scoring. In any case, our national interest demands that Congress and the administration find the funding to build icebreakers, even if it means “breaking the mold” in providing the appropriations to do so. The construction of new icebreakers will provide excellent work for the U.S.
shipbuilding industry, allow it to upgrade its capabilities, enable the United States to compete with Russia in the Arctic, and protect our national security interests in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Joan Bondareff, Of Counsel at Blank Rome, represents a wide range of industry clients as well as state and local governments in matters related to maritime regulations and public policy, environmental law, government relations, international law, federal grants, and port security. She previously served as Chief Counsel and Acting Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and as former Majority Counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
She is a current appointee to the Pool of Experts of the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including socioeconomic aspects. Jim Ellis, Of Counsel at Blank Rome, is an experienced negotiator in both the public and private sectors who focuses on complex corporate transactions and regulatory matters for clients in the global maritime and transportation industry. Mr. Ellis previously served in the U.S. Coast Guard, rising to the rank of commander, and served as Deputy U.S.
Representative to the UN Law of the Sea Conference for transportation issues. He also served as Senior Legal Counsel for the Coast Guard in Alaska, and currently serves as a Fellow for the Center for Arctic Study and Policy at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. International Environmental and Resources Law Committee, March 2016 .
The final bill will permit the Coast Guard to use “incremental funding” for the acquisition of icebreakers. But even with incremental funding, it would take five to ten years to fully fund a new icebreaker, and this could require a significant increase to the Coast Guard’s acquisition budget. To fulfill the Coast Guard’s mission and allow the United States to build new icebreakers, funding cannot just come from the Coast Guard’s budget, but also from other agencies that rely on the Coast Guard for research and logistical assistance in the Arctic and Antarctic, including the U.S. Navy, NSF (with its base in McMurdo), and NOAA.
Keeping a presence in the Arctic is critical for national security as well as for the conduct of oceanic and atmospheric research in the Arctic and Antarctic. U.S. shipyards have the capacity to build the icebreakers. For example, Huntington Ingalls Industries in Mississippi expressed an interest in building polar icebreakers.
See Andrea Shalal, Huntington Ingalls Cites Interest in Building New U.S. Icebreakers, REUTERS, Sept. 1, 2015, http://www.cnbc. 16 The United States has taken the first steps toward acquiring at least one new icebreaker, but this should not be the end of the story. To accomplish the tasks that Congress and the administration have set for it, and to protect our vital interests in the Arctic—and Antarctic—the Coast Guard needs at least two new icebreakers.
Congress must find a way to fund them through incremental funding, borrowing from other agencies, and/or creative budget scoring. In any case, our national interest demands that Congress and the administration find the funding to build icebreakers, even if it means “breaking the mold” in providing the appropriations to do so. The construction of new icebreakers will provide excellent work for the U.S.
shipbuilding industry, allow it to upgrade its capabilities, enable the United States to compete with Russia in the Arctic, and protect our national security interests in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Joan Bondareff, Of Counsel at Blank Rome, represents a wide range of industry clients as well as state and local governments in matters related to maritime regulations and public policy, environmental law, government relations, international law, federal grants, and port security. She previously served as Chief Counsel and Acting Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and as former Majority Counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
She is a current appointee to the Pool of Experts of the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including socioeconomic aspects. Jim Ellis, Of Counsel at Blank Rome, is an experienced negotiator in both the public and private sectors who focuses on complex corporate transactions and regulatory matters for clients in the global maritime and transportation industry. Mr. Ellis previously served in the U.S. Coast Guard, rising to the rank of commander, and served as Deputy U.S.
Representative to the UN Law of the Sea Conference for transportation issues. He also served as Senior Legal Counsel for the Coast Guard in Alaska, and currently serves as a Fellow for the Center for Arctic Study and Policy at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. International Environmental and Resources Law Committee, March 2016 .
