```

[House Report 111-81]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     111-81

======================================================================

 
                 GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

 April 21, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1747) to authorize appropriations 
for the design, acquisition, and construction of a combined 
buoy tender-icebreaker to replace icebreaking capacity on the 
Great Lakes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                       PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

    H.R. 1747, the ``Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act'', 
authorizes $153 million for the design and construction of a 
new icebreaker for service on the Great Lakes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    H.R. 1747, the ``Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act'', 
recognizes the need to provide an additional Coast Guard 
icebreaker on the Great Lakes and authorizes appropriations for 
this Coast Guard project. Executive Order No. 7521, dated 
December 21, 1936, states ``the Coast Guard . . . is hereby 
directed to assist in keeping open to navigation by means of 
ice-breaking operations . . . channels and harbors in 
accordance with the reasonable demands of commerce.'' Five of 
the Coast Guard's icebreakers on the Great Lakes are nearing 
the end of their useful lives and two of the buoy tenders that 
the Coast Guard uses to break ice cannot handle heavy ice 
conditions. As a result, in the spring of 2008, U.S.-flag ships 
on the Lakes sustained $1.3 million in damage to their hulls 
because the Coast Guard was unable to keep the channels open.
    Ice starts to form on the Great Lakes in early December and 
normally lasts until mid-April. During ``ice season'' alone, 20 
percent of the iron ore needed for the nation's manufacturing 
heartland is carried by Great Lakes vessels. In the 2006-2007 
ice season, 10.4 million tons of iron ore were moved on the 
Great Lakes and supported 100,000 jobs at steel mills and 
300,000 jobs at supplier industries.
    Electrical power generation in the region is also supported 
by icebreakers as they ensure that commercial vessels can move 
over 6.4 million tons of coal to power plants in the region.
    Manufacturing and power industries cannot stockpile their 
inventories for the winter and the mines do not have the 
capacity to produce extra materials during the summer to last 
these industries through the winter. Therefore, they depend on 
the icebreaking capacity of the Coast Guard to keep shipping 
lanes open during these winter months just as snow plows keep 
highways open for surface transportation.
    The Coast Guard also uses icebreakers on the Great Lakes to 
assist the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in clearing ice from 
rivers and harbors to prevent storm and flood damage from ice 
that forms dams leading to flooding in local communities.
    In 2006, the Coast Guard accepted delivery of the Coast 
Guard icebreaker MACKINAW. This icebreaker has proven extremely 
capable of breaking ice on the Lakes during the past two 
winters. The Coast Guard could use this design to build a 
sister ship that could set and maintain buoys during the 
spring, summer, and fall and then break ice to keep shipping 
channels open for commercial vessels during the winter months.

                       SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

    H.R. 1747 authorizes $153 million for the design, 
acquisition, and construction of a combined buoy tender-
icebreaker to replace icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes.

            LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    On March 26, 2009, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced 
H.R. 1747, the ``Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act''. This 
bill has not been introduced in a previous Congress. On March 
2, 2009, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
ordered the bill reported favorably to the House by voice vote 
with a quorum present.

                              RECORD VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report to include the total number of 
votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to 
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, 
and the names of those members voting for and against. There 
were no recorded votes taken in connection with consideration 
of H.R. 1747 or ordering the bill reported. A motion to order 
H.R. 1747 reported favorably to the House was agreed to by 
voice vote with a quorum present.

                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                          COST OF LEGISLATION

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee 
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office 
included in the report.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objective of this legislation are to 
provide funding for the design and construction of a new 
replacement ice-breaker for the Great Lakes.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1747 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, April 15, 2009.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1747, the Great 
Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Aurora 
Swanson.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1757--Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act

    Summary: H.R. 1747 would authorize the appropriation of 
$153 million to construct an icebreaker ship for the Coast 
Guard to use on the Great Lakes. Assuming appropriation of the 
authorized amount, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1747 
would cost $135 million over the 2010-2014 period. Enacting the 
legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 1747 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no cost on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1747 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400 
(transportation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2010     2011     2012     2013     2014   2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level.....................................      153        0        0        0        0         0
Estimated Outlays.......................................       18       38       34       28       17       135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes H.R. 1747 
will be enacted late in fiscal year 2009 and that the entire 
amount authorized by the bill will be appropriated in fiscal 
year 2010. The outlay estimate is based on historical spending 
patterns for similar Coast Guard acquisitions. The icebreaker 
Mackinaw, commissioned in 2006 for use on the Great Lakes, took 
about six years to build. CBO assumes that the new icebreaker 
would require the same length of time to complete.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1747 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis and 
Aurora Swanson; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 
Ryan Miller; Impact on the Private Sector: Jacob Kuipers.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                     COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI

    Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, H.R. 1747 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint 
resolution of a public character shall include a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                        PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 1747 does not 
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this 
legislation.

                APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    H.R. 1747 makes no changes in existing law.

                                  

```