79–006 

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
2 

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
3 

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
4 

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). 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
5 

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. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS