U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–754 PDF 2008

COAST GUARD ICEBREAKING 

(110–154) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 16, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York, Vice Chair 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TED POE, Texas 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Allen, Admiral Thad, Commandant, United States Coast Guard ....................... 6 

Bement, Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation .................................. 40 

Treadwell, Mead, Chairman, Arctic Research Commission ................................. 40 

Weakley, James H.I., President, Lake Carriers’ Association ............................... 40 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland ............................................................... 58 

Stupak, Hon. Bart, of Michigan .............................................................................. 71 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Allen, Admiral Thad W. .......................................................................................... 76 

Bement, Jr., Arden L. .............................................................................................. 216 

Treadwell, Mead ...................................................................................................... 227 

Weakley, James H.I. ................................................................................................ 238 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Allen, Admiral Thad, Commandant, United States Coast Guard: 

Insert for the record ............................................................................................. 13 

Insert for the record ............................................................................................. 24 

Insert for the record ............................................................................................. 26 

Insert for the record ............................................................................................. 28 

Insert for the record ............................................................................................. 32 

Insert for the record ............................................................................................. 38 

U.S. Coast Guard East Coast Domestic Icebreaking: A Capability Assessment, January 2002 ......................................................................................... 82 

U.S. Coast Guard East Coast Domestic Icebreaking: Mission Analysis Report - Part 1, executive summary, January 1997 .......................................... 134 

Great Lakes Icebreaking Mission Analysis Report, June 5, 1997 ................... 139 

Bement, Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation, letter to the President of the United States from Sarah Palin, Governor, State of Alaska ........ 224 

Treadwell, Mead, Chairman, Arctic Research Commission, memorandum for 

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, from Victor E. Renuart, Commander, U.S. 

Northern Command, Norton A. Schwartz, Commander, U.S. Transportation 

Command, and Timothy J. Keating, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, 

regarding icebreaker support .............................................................................. 237 

vi 


43754.001
vii 


43754.002
viii 


43754.003
ix 


43754.004
x 


43754.005
xi 


43754.006
xii 


43754.007
xiii 


43754.008
xiv 


43754.009
xv 


43754.010
xvi 


43754.011
xvii 


43754.012
(1) 

HEARING ON COAST GUARD ICEBREAKING 

Wednesday, July 16, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:01 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elijah E. Cummings 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. [Presiding.] Ladies and gentlemen, we will call 

this hearing into order. This Subcommittee convenes today to consider our nation’s icebreaking needs, as well as the resources available to meet these needs. 

We convene this hearing at a critical time in history, when the 

continued use of fossil fuels is contributing to changes in the 

world’s climate that appear, in turn, to be causing rapid melting 

of polar ice—an occurrence that will likely have significant consequences for the United States and, indeed, for the world. 

I want to thank Congressman Larsen, who specifically requested 

that we hold this hearing, for his dedication to ensuring that we 

are prepared to meet America’s interest in the polar regions. 

The Coast Guard’s icebreaking responsibilities can be divided 

into two categories: polar icebreaking and icebreaking along domestic waterways, particularly on the Great Lakes and along the East 

Coast. Today’s hearing will examine anticipated needs and current 

capabilities in both areas. 

In the Arctic, the melting of polar ice packs is accelerating to the 

point that the National Snow and Ice Data Center has reported 

that, by September of this year, the North Pole may briefly be icefree. The melting of polar ice is a catalyst for what appears to be 

increasing interest in the creation of new shipping passages, particularly in the Arctic, as well as the new scramble for the assertion of national control over natural resources. 

As shipping traffic increases in the polar regions, the Coast 

Guard may need to expand its presence to provide many of its traditional services, including search and rescue operations. Additionally, icebreaking capacity is required to resupply the Antarctic, the 

research station in McMurdo. 

Unfortunately, the Coast Guard currently has more limited polar 

icebreaking capacity than at any time since World War II. The 

service’s two heavy icebreakers, the POLAR STAR and the POLAR 

SEA, have now both exceeded their intended 30-year service lives. 

The POLAR STAR has been placed on caretaker status. The 

2 

POLAR SEA is scheduled to undergo a major maintenance. Both 

vessels will need hundreds of millions of dollars of repairs and upgrades, if they are to continue in service. 

The Coast Guard’s only other polar icebreaker, the cutter 

HEALY, was commissioned in 2000, and has many years of service 

left. Unfortunately, the HEALY does not offer the same icebreaking 

capabilities as the POLAR STAR or the POLAR SEA. 

In preparation for the opportunities and challenges that will be 

created by the rapid changes occurring in the polar regions, Congress must take a comprehensive look at our nation’s entire range 

of polar mission needs. 

We look forward to the testimony of Admiral Thad Allen, the 

commandant of the Coast Guard, regarding the Coast Guard’s specific mission priorities in the Arctic and the Antarctic. I know traditionally, the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking missions have been 

conducted largely in support of the National Science Foundation, 

which now pays the HEALY’s operating and maintenance costs. 

However, the foundation has suggested that alternatives not involving the use of military vessels may potentially meet its research needs in a more cost-effective and efficient manner. 

If that is the case, we must carefully examine whether the 

United States should build new icebreakers, and, if so, what specific purposes they should be built to serve. Further, we must assess how all of the parties that would benefit from the construction 

of new icebreakers can participate equitably in their capital costs. 

The other critical icebreaking missions performed by the Coast 

Guard involve breaking ice on the Great Lakes and along the East 

Coast of the United States. From Maine as far south as the Chesapeake Bay, the Coast Guard relies on 140-foot icebreaking tugboats 

and coastal and seagoing buoy tenders to conduct icebreaking operations. 

Put simply, these operations are essential to ensure that the 

heating fuel that keeps millions of East Coast residents warm in 

the winter reaches them as needed. 

Icebreaking on the Great Lakes is currently conducted by the 

Mackinaw, a 240-foot dual-purpose buoy tender, two 225-foot buoy 

tenders and five 140-foot icebreaking tugboats. Unfortunately, 

these vessels do not appear to be providing all needed icebreaking 

services on the Lakes, across which extensive shipments of coal 

and other raw materials are moved, even in the dead of winter. As 

a result, during last winter, several vessels on the Great Lakes suffered ice-related damage. 

Today’s witnesses include Mr. James Weakley, president of the 

Lake Carriers’ Association, who will speak in more detail about our 

icebreaking needs on the Great Lakes. 

Additionally, we will hear from the National Science Foundation 

and the Arctic Research Commission regarding their specific research support needs, as well as the growth being observed in shipping and other activities in the polar regions. 

We have joined these three organizations on a single panel in an 

effort to hear the unique perspectives of the agencies and commercial interests that are in essence consumers of the icebreaking services provided by the Coast Guard, and we look forward to their tesVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:01 Jun 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43754 JASON
3 

timony to help inform our understanding of the multiple facets of 

our nation’s icebreaking needs. 

And with that, I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member of 

this Subcommittee, Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you for having this hearing. And thanks also to Chairman Oberstar, who has a great interest in this issue, as well. 

The Subcommittee is meeting this afternoon to continue its oversight of the Coast Guard’s icebreaking program and to examine the 

current icebreaking fleet and the assets level necessary to meet 

forecasted missions needs in this area. Coast Guard icebreakers 

allow the winter movement of maritime commerce through the 

Great Lakes and into ports of the Northeast. 

I am concerned, however, that the current icebreaking fleet is 

unable to carry out the full mission load in heavy ice years like we 

have experienced in the last several years in the Great Lakes. Several Members, including Chairman Oberstar, have requested that 

the Coast Guard consider transferring an additional icebreaking 

tug to the Lakes. However, at this moment in time, that request 

has been refused. 

I would urge the service to conduct a review of icebreaking needs 

to determine how the Coast Guard can best carry out icebreaking 

missions nationwide. I am mostly concerned about the service’s 

three Polar class icebreakers and the continued transfer of budgetary authority for these vessels to the National Science Foundation. This arrangement leaves the Coast Guard crews and operations dependent on decisions that are made outside of the service. 

This year, the NSF has informed the Coast Guard that it does 

not plan to utilize the POLAR SEA for the annual breakout of the 

McMurdo Station in Antarctica, and that it does not plan to provide funding to keep the POLAR STAR in caretaker non-operational status. Further, the NSF has contracted with a vessel 

owned and operated by the Swedish government to carry out missions in Antarctica this winter. 

I hope that the witnesses will share with the Subcommittee how 

such a contract provides a better deal to the American taxpayers 

than does the use of the POLAR SEA. 

The continued availability of Coast Guard icebreakers is necessary to protect American national security and economic interests, both domestically and in the Arctic and Antarctic. As such, it 

is extremely important that the administration develop a comprehensive plan to meet the current and future mission needs. 

I hope that the witnesses will update the Subcommittee on the 

development of such plans. I look very much forward to hearing 

from all of our witnesses—in particular, Admiral Allen, who is first 

up. And I see that he has come prepared with a map that looks 

familiar to me. And he gave us a little presentation on his kind 

visit to northeastern Ohio a little while ago, and I found it to be 

more than informative, and I am sure the other Members of the 

Subcommittee will, as well. 

I thank you, Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. LaTourette. 

4 

Again, I want to now recognize Mr. Larsen. Again, Mr. Larsen, 

I want to thank you for requesting this hearing and all that you 

have been doing in regard to this issue. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by thanking you, as well, for holding this hearing. 

As you know, I requested that the Committee hold the hearing 

on the Coast Guard’s polar icebreaking fleet, and so, I am very interested to hear from the Coast Guard on this issue and hope that 

it will be a productive and informative hearing for everyone. 

I have serious concerns about the future of the Coast Guard’s 

polar icebreaking fleet. Two of the three multi-mission icebreakers, 

the POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR—both of which are homeported 

in Seattle—are nearing the end of their service lives. The POLAR 

STAR, as we have heard, is in caretaker status and is close to 

being decommissioned. 

Our nation’s icebreaking capability has diminished substantially 

at a time when those icebreakers are needed more than ever. It is 

expected that vessel traffic in the Arctic will increase dramatically 

as Arctic Sea ice conditions continue to change. 

More maritime traffic, especially in such challenging conditions, 

will require an increased Coast Guard presence, and I am concerned the Coast Guard does not have the resources and assets it 

needs to carry out increased operations in this region. We are in 

a five-nation race in the Arctic, and running fifth. 

I know that Admiral Allen has paid quite a bit of attention to 

this issue over the past few years, and the Coast Guard is currently conducting several Arctic initiatives, including Arctic Domain Awareness flights, testing of seasonal Arctic forward operating locations, waterways analyses and risk assessments. 

However, despite the Coast Guard’s best efforts to prepare for future operations in this region, they do not currently have the assets 

and capability necessary to perform the most basic of Arctic operations, conducting patrols and icebreaking. And as we have heard, 

the Coast Guard does not even have budgetary and management 

control over its entire fleet. 

Mr. Chairman, these are serious issues that demand our attention. And once again, I want to thank you for holding this hearing, 

and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I welcome the Admiral here and the future witnesses. 

I just hope that this Congress recognizes, although we have the 

hearing about the Coast Guard, and I hope they will bring the information to us, that they have not had the control of the 

icebreaking fleet for a period of time. I think that unfortunate. We 

put the fleet totally back within the Coast Guard, and that we recognize, as the gentleman from Washington said, we are fifth in a 

five-nation race in the Arctic. And it is our Arctic—or at least part 

of it is. 

You know, Russia has one of the largest nuclear-powered icebreakers now in the world. Finland has always been ahead of us 

with icebreaking. They recognize the importance of the Arctic for 

transportation needs. 

5 

I think we ought to address this issue on the congressional level, 

and appropriate the dollars that are necessary to build a new Arctic fleet for the future of this great nation. And I hope that this 

hearing will put a little light on this issue, and we recognize the 

importance of it, and we stop spending money in other areas and 

spend it on what is good for the domestic Coast Guard facilities in 

this nation domestically. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chairman, and I thank our witnesses. 

Commandant, good to see you again. 

Dr. Bement, as well. 

This is indeed an important issue. I have the privilege of serving 

both on this Coast Guard Committee, and also Chair the Research 

and Education Subcommittee of our Science Committee, which 

works very closely with NSF, of course. So, we have, I think, what 

could potentially be very complementary relations here, and I hope 

that will be the case. 

We clearly have a national security investment and an economic 

investment in a strong polar icebreaking fleet, and the fleet in the 

Great Lakes, as well. We also, at the same time, have strong scientific agendas in both of those areas. And my hope is that today’s 

hearing will give us an insight into how best we can meet both missions. 

I think right now, we are probably not meeting either mission as 

well as we might, and I hope that this Committee, in concert with 

the Science Committee and with NSF and the Coast Guard, can 

work together for both a near term and a long term strategy that 

preserves both missions. 

We have the practice here of introducing things into the record. 

I wish I could introduce the visual aid I asked the commandant to 

briefly loan me. This is, my understanding, part of the hull plate 

of the POLAR STAR. And lest anyone underestimate how difficult 

it must be to make and maintain and operate these ships, I lift 

weights occasionally, and I would not want to lift this very often. 

And this is just a tiny portion. 

I am not going to introduce it into the record, but I am going to 

pass it down to my colleagues, so they can have the—I am going 

to throw it to Mr. Larsen here, my good friend, and we will see the 

result. 

But the reason I raise it is because these are really extraordinary 

vessels. They are absolutely essential. They are not easy to make. 

They are not easy to operate. They are not easy to maintain. And 

they are not cheap. 

But the consequence of not making them, maintaining them and 

operating them is far more expensive. And we have to be aware of 

both ends of that cost-benefit equation. 

And I thank the Chairman for holding this, and for our witnesses 

for their service and for their time today. And I yield back as I pass 

this on to my colleagues. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Let me just, as a housecleaning matter. Congressman Stupak 

had planned to join us. He would have been on the first panel. He 

6 

would have been the first panelist. But unfortunately, he got called 

to another matter with the speaker. He may very well join us a little bit later on. 

But without objection, want to submit his statement for the 

record. I hear no objections; therefore, it is a part of the record. 

Admiral Allen, we are very pleased to have you with us again, 

and we look forward to your testimony. 

Admiral ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Good afternoon. 

TESTIMONY OF ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN, COMMANDANT, 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Admiral ALLEN. Ranking Member LaTourette and the Members 

of the Committee, it is a great pleasure for me to be here today. 

And I thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on 

this very important topic. 

Mr. Chairman, I will make brief opening remarks and ask that 

my written testimony be accepted for the record. 

I would like to acknowledge the panel that will be testifying behind me. Mr. Weakley, Mr. Treadwell and Dr. Bement are professional colleagues of mine. I value their inputs. And you are going 

to get a wide range of views, and I commend them to you, sir. 

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. 

The Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet provides a significant service 

for the American public by facilitating the nation’s ability to navigate U.S. waters, project military-economic power, and presence on 

the high seas. 

Domestically, the Coast Guard icebreakers support federal, state 

and local agencies. They maintain open waterways to ensure the 

continuous flow of commerce, patrol waterways to enforce our laws, 

and protect critical infrastructure and are available to assist mariners in distress. 

Domestic icebreaking operations, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, are accomplished by the Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw, our 

new fleet of buoy tenders, nine 140-foot icebreaking tugs and 11 65- 

foot small harbor tugs. 

Except for the Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw, which has exceeded performance expectations since its commissioning in 2006, and 

our new buoy tenders, the rest of the domestic fleet is at or past 

their designated service lives. We are focusing on critical 

sustainment projects such as a bridging strategy until these vessels 

can be replaced or modernized. 

We are also coordinating our efforts with our Canadian counterparts to share icebreaking resources in the Great Lakes and the 

Saint Lawrence Seaway. This arrangement has facilitated the 

movement of more than $334 million of cargo on the Great Lakes 

during the 2006-2007 ice season. 

7 

These strategies are working, and the Coast Guard continues to 

provide critical icebreaking services domestically. 

However, the challenges of developing and executing a long-term 

solution is looming, as the domestic icebreaking fleet approaches 

obsolescence. 

Internationally, the Coast Guard’s medium icebreaker, HEALY, 

and heavy icebreakers, POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR, primarily 

operate in support of U.S. research interests in the Arctic and help 

maintain routes to supply Antarctica’s McMurdo station, and subsequently, the South Pole. 

The newest Coast Guard cutter, HEALY, a medium icebreaker, 

was commissioned in 2000, and conducts annual deployments for 

Arctic scientific research as a priority. Operational time on HEALY 

is at a premium, and almost exclusively devoted to direct mission 

tasking of other agencies and scientific organizations. 

Science capacity on ice-capable vessels is critical to current research, as I am sure my colleague, Dr. Bement, will point out. But 

the challenge exists beyond science. Changing environmental conditions and advances in technology are expanding activity in the Arctic region, as potential access to new energy reserves and more efficient shipping routes fuel demand. 

Continued growth in commerce, ecotourism, exploratory activities 

in the Arctic is increasing risk to mariners and ecosystems and creating demand for Coast Guard operational competencies and capabilities. We are finding ourselves well beyond our traditional 

science support role in polar regions. The need for U.S. law enforcement and lifesaving presence is required there now and will increase with time. 

Without question, the U.S. Coast Guard is the agency most experienced and capable of safeguarding national interests in the maritime domain of the polar regions. 

Unfortunately, as you have noted, we are losing ground in the 

global competition. Russia completes its new generation of national 

nuclear icebreakers next year, guaranteeing Russia multiple heavy 

icebreaking platforms well past the year 2020. 

Last year, Russia completed a 10-year project, launching the icebreaker 50 Years of Victory, their largest heavy icebreaker, to ensure Russian access to natural resources located along the Arctic 

Basin. 

Like Russia, Germany, China, Sweden and Canada—they are all 

investing and maintaining and expanding their national 

icebreaking capabilities. 

My strong message to you today is that, while U.S. strategic interests in the Arctic region expand, both domestically and internationally, our polar icebreaking capability is at risk. 

Recent reports by the National Research Council and Congressional Research Service have accurately described the current situation, and I know the Committee is well aware of these reports. 

Without regard to future mission growth, we have externally validated a need for a fleet of three Coast Guard operated icebreakers. 

Further, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2008 has required 

us to report on current capabilities and resources to operate in 

polar regions. We have also included in our fiscal year 2009 approVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:01 Jun 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43754 JASON
8 

priation request funding to conduct a detailed Polar High Latitude 

Study. 

Finally, the administration is conducting an Arctic policy review. 

Interagency review and coordination are continuing. Efforts are focused on completing the policy process quickly. 

Collectively, these actions will create a solid way ahead and form 

a policy basis from which to formulate a solution to our long-term 

icebreaking needs. I support every one. 

My problem, however, is more near term and is becoming critical. 

It is imperative that we retain our current validated capability, 

pending long-range decisions, so that our growing responsibilities 

in the polar regions can be met. 

To that end, it is critical that the current funding shortfalls and 

governance issues related to the operation of our icebreakers be addressed. POLAR STAR, which has been in a caretaker status for 

several years, must be retained, pending any long-term action. 

I am anxious to work with my colleagues in the administration 

and the Congress to improve the management and governance for 

icebreaker fleet. And my intent here today is to generate light, not 

heat. 

I am concerned that we are watching our nation’s domestic and 

international icebreaking capability decline as reliance on foreign 

icebreakers grows. For Coast Guard icebreakers the time is now, 

and my responsibility is clear. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Admiral, and very pleased 

to hear your testimony. 

What are the specific Coast Guard missions? And what is the 

level of mission activity that you envision the Coast Guard needing 

to perform in the polar regions in the coming years, as human activity in these regions increase? 

Admiral ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, everywhere there is water, that 

is subject to our jurisdiction. And now, there is water where there 

did not used to be. And I will tell you, even if there was not an 

issue with receding ice, there would still be an issue. 

Any activity that requires Coast Guard regulation, law enforcement activity, search and rescue or environmental response, takes 

on a much harder, tougher dimension in polar operations. As we 

see more oil and gas exploration off the North Slope of Alaska, 

more vessel traffic through for ecotourism, cruise ships—there is 

the largest zinc mine in the world is north of Arctic Circle in the 

Bering Straits. 

All of this is increasing traffic through the Bering Straits into 

the Arctic area and creates a demand for the same services we 

would provide at lower latitudes with a degree of difficulty associated with maintaining presence and response capability up there, 

sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, it is clear to you that we now, right now, we 

are in trouble. 

Admiral ALLEN. Sir, the offshore oil and gas exploration structures off the north coast, what we need to understand is that they 

are subject to the same types of requirements as the oil and gas 

9 

exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. And we are talking about things 

like captain to port authorities, oil spill response plans. 

As this opens up and activity begins there, how are we going to 

manage oil spill response organizations and make sure that the 

plans are in place? And that is just talking about environmental 

response. The same could be said for search and rescue as well, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, the National Security Cutters, such as the 

Bertholf and others, tell me, do they—are they ice-strengthened? 

Admiral ALLEN. No, sir, they are not. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And was that ever considered when we were 

looking at creating them? 

Admiral ALLEN. No, sir, it was not, because at the time the specifications were developed, there was not a huge problem at that 

time with the U.S. icebreaker fleet. HEALY was being constructed, 

and we had stability in icebreaking program. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And at that time, these things were not—these 

problems were not—anticipated. 

Is that right? Is that what you are saying? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. That does not mean, though, that at 

some point in the future we will not move a National Security Cutter through the Bering Straits as long as it is ice-free and we can 

operate up there in the proper time of the year, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But I want to go back to what I am asking you. 

In other words, when we were coming up with the plans for Deepwater—— 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. —did that issue come up? In other words—— 

Admiral ALLEN. It did, but—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Hold on. I just want to get my whole question 

out. 

And what changed, if anything, from the time that those plans 

were being made? Because it sounded like you were saying to me 

a little bit earlier—I think you just said this about 2 minutes ago— 

was that there were certain circumstances that have changed from 

when you all were planning this. And I am just wondering what 

they might be. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

First of all, we do not routinely operate High Endurance Cutters, 

which the National Security Cutters are replacing north of the Bering Strait. It usually is not accessible. So, that was not present at 

the time. 

There was stability in the program at the time. The POLAR 

STAR and the POLAR SEA still had many years of service life left. 

And we knew that we were going to be constructing the Coast 

Guard Cutter HEALY, so we basically had separated the two programs, because they appeared to be adequately resourced at the 

time, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you believe that the United States should 

continue to meet our polar research needs through the construction 

of vessels that have a dual scientific-military mission? 

Admiral ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I think we need a mix of different kinds of vessels. As Mr. Bement will probably tell you, they 

operate leased vessels, the Nathaniel Palmer and one other vessel, 

10 

that are much more oriented towards scientific research and are 

operated by contractors. 

The issue before the Committee and before all of us, sir, is to figure out what other missions need to be performed in excess of the 

science mission, and how you capitalize that and how you create 

that presence and that mission effectiveness. And then, how can 

that also support science? 

I will tell you right up front that the POLAR STAR and the 

POLAR SEA are not optimum science platforms, and I believe Dr. 

Bement would agree with me. But they were constructed to create 

access into the polar regions for all mission sets the Coast Guard 

operates, and science was second. 

The HEALY was constructed with more science space on it, to 

carry more scientists. And I think moving forward, that is a discussion we have to have together, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is it cheaper to operate an icebreaker with a civilian crew as opposed to a Coast Guard crew? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And why is that? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, first of all, the manning is much different. 

We man our cutters to be able to handle different situations, including fire safety and military operations, the law enforcement operations. 

These other ships are built to commercial specs. They are operated by civilian crews, and they have a different approach on how 

they would defend the ship against fire and flooding, and so forth. 

So, they are more minimally staffed than our cutters, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, what you are saying is that, because of your, 

I guess your regs, your regulations and what have you, I guess you 

could—but for the regulations, I guess you could actually operate, 

say, for example, the HEALY, with fewer Coast Guard personnel, 

but because of the regulations, you have to have certain personnel 

on board. Is that it? Is that what you are saying? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. I would not say it was regulations. I 

would say it was doctrine how you operate the ship—firefighting 

teams and be able to handle emergencies. 

We did reduce the staffing on HEALY related to helicopter operations, which are needed in the polar regions, and have been contracting out helicopter services, sir. And the HEALY is more lightly 

staffed than the POLAR STAR and the POLAR SEA. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. LaTourette? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, it is nice to see you again. And thank you again for 

coming to northeastern Ohio. The Station Fairport and Station 

Ashtabula are still buzzing about your visit. So, I do not know if 

they have ordered any new uniforms yet, but they are still working 

on that. 

I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the Great Lakes. I mentioned in my opening remarks that I believe Chairman Oberstar 

had made a request that assets be transferred to the Great Lakes. 

And it is my understanding—icebreaking assets—it is my understanding that that request has not been granted. 

And then, just would like you to walk us through what process 

the service goes through in reaching the determination as to when 

11 

to move assets and the steps that you look at, and why, at least 

at this point, you have reached the conclusion that that is not a 

reasonable request. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. The current distribution of vessels, icebreakers and other on the Great Lakes and the East Coast, came 

about due to a mission analysis that the Coast Guard did in 1997 

for the Great Lakes, and then another one on the East Coast in 

2002. 

When we first started building the new buoy tender fleets that 

we have right now, our 225-foot tenders and 175-foot tenders, we 

did an analysis of the existing tenders, their speed, the new buoy 

tenders and their speed, what areas they could cover, knowing that 

they were going to be multi-missioned. They would tend buoys in 

the warm weather and help the icebreaking mission. 

Mackinaw was never an issue. There was always going to be a 

Mackinaw or a replacement for the Mackinaw. 

All that was factored into the coverage when we built the new 

buoy tender fleets in the 1990s into the early 2000s, and they were 

distributed at that point based on these mission analyses. We can 

provide all that detail for the record to the Committee. 

What we do since then, if there is a particular season, as there 

was this last year, where it was a little colder than normal and we 

needed assistance up there, as you know, we moved a 140-foot 

icebreaking tug from the East Coast around into the Great Lakes, 

which we can do in any year, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Relative to the Polar icebreakers and this issue of the National 

Science Foundation—and, again, in my opening remarks, I mentioned the contract that they have entered into with the Swedes— 

did you have an observation or an opinion as to what the impact 

of having the National Science Foundation basically have the budget authority for the icebreakers does to the service relative to dollar 

impact, administration, running of the ships? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, I have said on several occasions and in 

prior hearings, and I will restate it here, the current situation, 

while well-intended when it was created, is somewhat dysfunctional in regards to how we have to manage this, because it puts 

a huge, enormous management burden on the National Science 

Foundation, that puts almost an evidentiary responsibility on the 

Coast Guard to demonstrate what we intend to do with the vessels, 

so they can certify what the funds are being used for and they are 

adequately being spent. 

And I do not begrudge them a bit for doing that, but it is very, 

very cumbersome. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. If they, in fact, had not entered into the agreement with the Swedes, would those have been funds available to 

the Coast Guard for the use of your assets? 

Admiral ALLEN. At the start of every year, we come up with an 

operating plan. And there is a certain base amount of money that 

is provided in the National Science Foundation budget, and I will 

let Dr. Bement speak to that. 

We provide them a plan. They approve the plan. And that is the 

source of the funds that are transferred from the National Science 

Foundation to the Coast Guard. 

12 

And it varies from year to year based on the amount of operations we are conducting and the maintenance required on the 

ships. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do those funds in that budget that you lay 

out at the beginning of the year, are those funds always sufficient 

to the cost incurred by the Coast Guard for those missions? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, there has been an ongoing issue about 

whether or not, as ships get older—and this is not just to do with 

icebreakers, it could be any ship you are talking about—they become more expensive as they get older. 

There probably is an added issue of an inflation factor and the 

ability to keep up with the demands for maintenance on the ships. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And then, the last question—I think the Chairman phrased it, or asked the question—are we in trouble relative 

to our icebreaking capabilities compared to others? 

Could you just have a quick rundown of the number of icebreakers other countries operating in the Arctic region have at 

their disposal currently today? 

Admiral ALLEN. I can provide that for the record. 

[Information follows:] 

13 


43754.013
14 


43754.014
15 


43754.015
16 

Admiral ALLEN. But I know, for instance, the Russians have 

more icebreakers than anybody else. And I think it is either seven 

or eight nuclear-powered icebreakers. And they are well up into, I 

would say, between 10 and 15 icebreakers. And several of those are 

what we would call heavy icebreakers. Heavy icebreakers have 

more than 45,000 shaft horsepower. 

The only other country in the world that has icebreakers with 

that capability is the United States Coast Guard, and is the 

POLAR SEA and the POLAR STAR, which are 60,000 shaft horsepower rated. 

And when you come down from that, it would be Finland after 

that, Canada, and then Sweden. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. The issue that I think was raised earlier relative to the melting in the ice and the opening, and different territorial claims by different countries up in the Arctic region relative 

to natural resources, based upon our current level of icebreaking 

capability in the Arctic region, is the Coast Guard in a position to 

protect and project America’s interests in this regard? 

Admiral ALLEN. I think we are holding our own right now. I have 

grave concerns in future years. As the Chairman indicated and we 

found out recently ourselves, we have the possibility this year that 

the North Pole will be uncovered for the first time in recorded history. 

So you have the issue of access up there, vessels getting up there 

when it is clear. But with the oil and gas exploration, and things 

that could happen when there is ice there, the ability to have access and presence up there for an on science mission, I think is a 

significant issue moving forward, especially if there is an expansion 

of oil and gas exploration off the north coast. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And the last thing for the record, I think in a 

conversation we had, this business about the ice melting has the 

potential to open up a new shipping lane, a shorter shipping lane 

for trans-Arctic shipping, does it not? 

Admiral ALLEN. Potentially it does. There are two routes that 

could be opened up. 

One is over the top of Russia, say, from the Barents Sea around 

to Japan, so oil coming from off the Norway coast could be transported to Japan without going through the Panama Canal or the 

Suez Canal, and has the potential to shorten the trip by about 

4,000 miles and the potential to save upwards of $1 million on each 

transit. 

The Northwest Passage is a little bit more problematic. There 

are a bunch of islands, as you can see, that are in the way. And 

the ice actually accumulates in there after it drifts south in the 

summer. But I am not sure we know in the future exactly when 

that will be a reliable path. 

I met recently with the head of the A.P. Moller family that run 

the Maersk shipping line in Copenhagen. And they are not prepared yet to start putting routes in there, because they do not 

know if it is really going to be sustainable and predictable. However, the traffic in and out through the Bering Strait, no doubt that 

is going to be increasing each year. 

17 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. And with the rising price of fuel, if they 

become sustainable, based upon what you just said, the savings 

could be about $2 million a round trip? 

Admiral ALLEN. I have heard different estimates, $1 to $2 million, yes, sir. And those are estimates. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Thanks so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Allen, you have answered one of my questions about 

building trends for other countries. And it sounds like I underestimated my number being fifth in a five-nation race. It might be seventh or eighth in a seven-or eight-nation race in terms of trying to 

stay ahead of other folks, looking at their interests in the Arctic. 

But I wanted to talk to you first about the Arctic policy. We have 

had conversations about this. Both certainly agree the region holds 

an importance to U.S. national security, sovereignty and commerce. 

I understand that the Coast Guard is planning to submit a report on polar mission requirements to Congress soon. Can you give 

us a preview of some of the major conclusions of that study? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, we are still finalizing it. But what we are 

going to find out is related to some of the comments that I have 

talked about here. 

One of them is the expansion of oil and gas leases up there. The 

Minerals Management Service just did an auction up there, and 

they issued over $2 billion worth of leases—much more than they 

had expected. 

Another example is there are 10 cruise ship passages up there 

planned this summer. We have the prospect that, if the water 

warms, we may have fish stocks move through the Bering Sea, and 

there are no fisheries plans up there on how we would manage 

that. 

But collectively, though, the body of work continues to work, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. And as you pointed out in your testimony, is that 

wherever there is water that is under U.S. control, it is your job 

to be there. It is the Coast Guard’s job to be there. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. And I am not trying to be glib, because 

I know there are a lot of opinions about why what is happening is 

happening. What I tell everybody is I am agnostic to the science. 

There is water where there did not used to be, and I am responsible for it. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Which means, if you are responsible for it, we are 

going to have an expectation that you are actually doing something 

about that responsibility. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Which then gets back to Mr. Young’s comments 

about making sure that you have the assets to do just that, to exercise their responsibility. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. If I can make a quick comment. 

18 

We are taking the assets we have right now and are moving 

them up there in the summer as a risk mitigation factor. It is also 

allowing us to get feedback on how they operate. 

We are sending a vessel through the Bering Straits to look at 

navigation and communications and waterways issues. But we will 

be also reaching out to the native tribes up there, and doing some 

communication with them. 

We are going to put small boats and helicopters up on the North 

Slope. And the first week of August, I will be traveling with Secretary Chertoff up there to personally observe what is going on, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. You should go up in January with Mr. Young. 

[Laughter.] 

I understand that POLAR SEA completed a deployment to the 

waters in April and May, primarily for the purpose of renewing the 

crew’s qualifications. Can you tell us what sort of missions the 

POLAR SEA performed, what it accomplished and whether or not 

the crew was able to fully renew their qualifications? 

Admiral ALLEN. Sir, we moved out into the—through the Gulf of 

Alaska, through the Aleutian Chain up into the Bering Sea. We did 

fisheries patrols, did what we would call Arctic Domain Awareness—just up there sensing what is going on, an idea for the 

amount of vessel traffic. 

We did science of opportunity. We got into the very, very light 

ice areas there. 

It was good. We needed to do it. I am glad we did it. I appreciate 

the National Science Foundation support on doing that. 

I wish we could have done more. I wish we could have got deeper 

into the ice and spent a longer time there, because these competencies atrophy over time, and I am concerned that at a certain 

point, there will not be a baseline level of competency to operate 

these ships, which we are going to need to do in the future. 

But there are constraints put on the operation of POLAR SEA 

by the agreements with the National Science Foundation. We did 

what we could. 

Mr. LARSEN. What constraints are on it? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, we prenegotiate how much we are going to 

use the ship. There is the matter of risk, if you get into the ice and 

you have some wear and tear, or you have issue with the propeller, 

or things that need to be done, number one, that increases cost or 

the risk that the vessel might not be available next year when it 

is going to be in standby for the contracted icebreaker for the 

McMurdo breakout. 

Mr. LARSEN. So then, when the crew is not able to fully renew 

their qualifications, in your view? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, they atrophy in time. We are okay right 

now, but that is the reason I am trying to press forward with a 

sense of urgency. We kind of have to get this resolved. Otherwise, 

we are going to lose our seed corn. 

Mr. LARSEN. And so, it sounds to me like they were not able to 

fully renew their qualifications. 

Admiral ALLEN. We would have liked to have done more. Yes, 

sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. So, what does it take to do more? 

19 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, I think we need to continue to work on the 

management issues associated with it, and arrive on a consensus 

on how we can sustain the current fleet and the competencies in 

the Coast Guard and still meet the requirements of the National 

Science Foundation. It is going to have to be a collaborative effort, 

sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. It sounds like you need a collaborative effort, but 

it also sounds like those limitations are preventing you from 

achieving your mission. 

Admiral ALLEN. I am concerned about our readiness eroding. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. It sounds to me like you cannot achieve 

the mission that you want to, that you ought to be achieving and 

that we expect you to, because of the constraints. 

But thank you very much, Commandant, for answering the questions, and look forward to your answers from other Members. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commandant Allen, welcome. Good to see you. And you have 

been up-to-speed on this issue for quite a length of time. 

The POLAR STAR was originally scheduled to transit the Bering 

Sea this summer and operate in the north area. And the voyage 

was cancelled. Was that the lack of funds? Or was the vessel not 

operational? 

Admiral ALLEN. Sir, the POLAR SEA is in commission—— 

Mr. YOUNG. POLAR STAR—— 

Admiral ALLEN. —Polar Star, I am sorry, is in commission special status right now and is basically laid up at the pier. So, it 

would not have gone anywhere. 

The POLAR SEA deployed. And that was the deployment I just 

discussed, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. And now, it is not up there, or it is up there? 

Admiral ALLEN. It has returned, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. It is not in the Arctic? 

Admiral ALLEN. No, sir. But the HEALY will be operating this 

summer, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. The other one, I have been reading the testimony, and I will ask you, because you represent the administration, too, because all three witnesses note that the administration 

is conducting a comprehensive Arctic policy review. 

What is the timeframe for completing that policy review? And 

will the review include federal infrastructure and needs, such as 

the icebreakers, Coast Guard forward operating policies and facilities? And is the secretary as supportive of accompanying the commandant to the Arctic this summer? Are you going to go? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir, with Secretary Chertoff, week after 

next, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. Now, but the first part of that question, the 

timetable of the policy review. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. When is it coming out? 

20 

Admiral ALLEN. As I said in my opening statement, it is underway right now, and they are trying to get it done as quickly as they 

can, sir. And the Coast Guard has been involved in it. 

Mr. YOUNG. In all due respect, now, is there a timeframe? There 

are three agencies involved, I take it. Is that correct? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, sir, this is a complete interagency review 

through the interagency process of the entire—— 

Mr. YOUNG. What I am concerned with here—and it is not your 

fault, you know, I have dealt with agencies for a long time—that 

there is a continued, ongoing study or policy review, and no results 

for a period of time. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. I am a little bit intrigued here, because supposedly, 

the North Pole is going to be open, and the Great Lakes had three 

of the worst ice years in history. There is always an interesting factor. 

But I think we should get ahead of this now. And it is up to you 

to lead us in the sense, what does this Congress have to do? Because you cannot do it out of open sky. We have to back you up. 

But until we know the program, we will not know what to do. 

The Chairman will not know what to do. We will not know what 

to do. 

And so, I think that program, as soon as it is finalized, is a lot 

better. 

So, you do not have an answer yet. Maybe the other Members 

will—— 

Admiral ALLEN. I can tell you this, sir. I have been involved in 

the process since it was started. It has been done under the auspices of the National Security Council. I am happy with the 

progress. It will be done as soon as it can. You know, I am happy 

where we are at on it, sir. 

As the commandant, I can tell you that. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, again, I urge those that are in the administration to understand—even in the next administration—is we are 

going to have, regardless, we are going to have a transfer. And I 

do not want this thing getting behind again, because you have just 

mentioned that Russia has seven nuclear, I believe, icebreakers. 

They have one of the largest in the world now. It goes on down the 

line. 

And the Arctic is where the action is. It is not just going to the 

Bering Straits. I believe, if you will check the globe—and you have 

a picture of it here—the majority of the global resources that exist 

in the world today are in the Arctic. They are not in the Antarctic. 

They are in the Arctic. 

And that is not only going to be a shipping channel. There is 

going to be availability for the first time to have the ability to take 

those resources into the northern markets. And that is where the 

Coast Guard has to be involved, because not only oil, we have $2.6 

billion for the Chucki Sea. Now, the North Pole, you have got a picture of the North Pole, the possibility of that occurring. But you 

have all the other minerals that are going to be—there is huge 

abundance up there, but never been accessible by mankind before. 

So, you have got a big responsibility. So, I do not want this thing 

to wait for next year or year after, year after that or year after 

21 

that, because I do not think we are doing a good service, Mr. Chairman, in all their respects, to the nation as a whole. That is all that 

my interest is. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. And that is my position, and I have represented it in the interagency, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, based on your comments today and your written testimony, and that of others that we have read, as I hear it, to summarize, there are sort of three traditional missions of the Coast 

Guard: commerce, national security and public safety, sort of making sure all of those work well. And then, there is also the science 

overlay in the case of particularly the Antarctic mission, but to a 

degree, the Arctic mission as well. 

Then I am also hearing that you have got two sort of timeframes 

of problems. You have got an imminent concern that you have basically got the POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR, only one of which is 

functional now, and both of which are sort of nearing the end of 

their natural life. But you do not have a replacement for either 

that can do the heavy icebreaking mission. 

So, the first question, do you view that your traditional missions 

within the polar regions, as compatible with the science mission? 

So, can you do the icebreaking used to get into McMurdo and whatever else needs to be done up north, and still carry out your missions? 

Admiral ALLEN. They are compatible with the science mission. 

But I would tell you—and I would defer to Dr. Bement—the 

POLAR SEA and the POLAR STAR are not optimal science platforms, and we know that. They were constructed as heavy icebreakers to gain access, command and control, open up an area and 

keep it open. 

Then your ability to do science with whatever is left in terms of 

space and manning on the ship is what you do. 

So, that is true. The POLAR SEA and the POLAR STAR are 

never going to be optimal science platforms, sir. 

Mr. BAIRD. Okay. But right now, we certainly do not have an alternative. We do not have a heavy icebreaker that could do—bust 

its way into McMurdo and also serve as an optimal science platform, at least within our fleet. 

Admiral ALLEN. Right. The best hybrid we have right now is 

HEALY. But HEALY, while it is more optimally manned for scientific research, has less icebreaking capability and is not a heavyduty icebreaker. 

Mr. BAIRD. Well, let us look at the capital, the financial side of 

it. So, there are operational budgets. The current operational budget, as I understand it, for the heavy icebreakers is within NSF’s 

portfolio. 

Admiral ALLEN. That is correct. 

Mr. BAIRD. And then, there is also a need for a capital budget 

in two senses. One, short-term needs—Polar Sea, POLAR STAR, or 

at least the case POLAR STAR is—— 

Admiral ALLEN. Laid up, yes sir. 

Mr. BAIRD. Yes, the POLAR STAR is laid up. 

22 

So, if you were to try to get it operational, what are your estimates of what it would take to get the—and let me say, there are 

two timeframes. So, the short term of getting those two functional, 

and then a longer term which this Committee needs to look at, I 

think, in terms of replacing those two vessels at some point in the 

quite foreseeable future. But in the short term, we are not going 

to be able to do it. 

What are your fiscal demands in the short term in a capital 

budget to get the POLAR STAR up to steam? 

Admiral ALLEN. Sir, the sequence we would envision will be 

something like this. First of all, to keep the POLAR STAR in a laid 

up status requires approximately $3 million a year for the personnel and the maintenance that is being done on it. And even that 

does not guarantee that it is going to be ready. And I can elaborate 

on that. 

If we were asked to do it, and the POLAR STAR was brought 

back into commission, we would renovate it and get it up to speed 

for a deployment to McMurdo. We would send it down there, and 

we would basically do an operational test and evaluation. That 

would be somewhere between $8 to $10 million to get the ship 

ready to do that. 

Following that deployment, we would evaluate the condition and 

the functioning of the machinery and the systems on board, to see 

what would need to be done to extend its service life, say, seven 

to 10 years in the same range that we have done to the POLAR 

SEA. So we would have two icebreakers that are available to operate while there is a long-range decision made. That gets you up 

into the $60 million range, sir. 

Mr. BAIRD. So, I actually, I think, misspoke. I said there are sort 

of two timeframes, near term and short term. There are actually 

three. There is the immediate term of keeping the POLAR STAR 

from just, for lack of a better word, going belly up. I mean, that 

is an immediate need. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BAIRD. And then you have got a more intermediate need, and 

then the longer term need for probably a completely new capacity. 

Could you—by what timeframe—currently, from my reading of 

NSF’s testimony, they are contracted to some degree with the 

Oden, which we actually saw them, when we were down there with 

our Science Committee. We saw it starting its run into McMurdo. 

Could you provide, in your judgment—and Dr. Bement may have 

a different opinion—in your judgment by—obviously, this year 

seems committed—by the following year, would that be possible, if 

the Congress provided the necessary funds? 

Admiral ALLEN. My response to that would be that the POLAR 

SEA would be available as—it will be available as a backup in 

2009. 

Mr. BAIRD. So, the POLAR SEA could be used by 2009, even 

for—— 

Admiral ALLEN. The plans are to hold the POLAR SEA in reserve for 2009, during the austral summer. That is correct. 

Polar Sea could be available the following year in 2010, as well. 

23 

We would need to bring the POLAR STAR out and do some work 

on her. So, between 2010 and 2011, you could make that initial trip 

with the POLAR STAR, if the funding were available. 

Mr. BAIRD. And as I understand it, it is important, in your judgment, to keep these vessels operational, both because you need 

them in the interim, but also because you have got to have a crew 

that is familiar with this kind of operation. And as the vessels get 

laid up, you cannot go out and actually have people work in the 

field doing the kind of things they need to do. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. And there is no substitute for experience in the ice. 

Mr. BAIRD. So, if we were to say we want to farm out the mission 

to a foreign country, that reduces our capacity, not only in terms 

of vessels, but crew knowledge, experience, training—— 

Admiral ALLEN. It shrinks the base. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I have been back and 

forth from Judiciary, and I may have to be called back now. I feel 

like a monkey on a stick today. But I did not want to miss the admiral’s testimony. 

Admiral, good to see you again. 

As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, in 2006, Congress transferred 

budget authority for polar icebreaking to the National Science 

Foundation. And they, in turn, reimburse the Coast Guard for operations. 

It is furthermore my understanding that the NSF has begun to 

contract with foreign icebreaking companies to fulfill their needs in 

the Arctic. And I want to ask you a couple of questions in a just 

a minute, Admiral. 

But to conclude, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have a keen 

interest in icebreaking. And I am subjectively involved, because I 

used to be stationed aboard a Coast Guard cutter. I am sure, Admiral, she has long been decommissioned. I do not know where she 

is now. 

But I would like to encourage our Committee, Mr. Chairman, to 

continue to review the shared responsibilities between the National 

Science Foundation and the Coast Guard with regard to polar 

icebreaking. While I support the mission of both agencies, I question whether the current funding mechanisms best fit the respective needs of the two organizations. 

And Admiral Allen, what I want to do, I want to put a three-part 

question to you. And I am going to probably have to abruptly leave 

to go back to Judiciary. But my questions to you, Admiral, are: 

Has this procedure that I just described affected your operations 

and readiness of the polar icebreaking fleet, A? 

[Information follows:] 

24 


43754.016
25 

Mr. COBLE. B, does the current funding arrangement with the 

National Science Foundation allow for adequate maintenance of the 

polar icebreaker fleet, B? 

[Information follows:] 

26 


43754.017
27 

Mr. COBLE. And C, what are the long-term implications of continuing this funding arrangement? 

[Information follows:] 

28 


43754.018
29 

And Admiral, if you—and Mr. Chairman, if you will pardon me, 

I have got to get back to Judiciary. But if you would answer those 

for the record, Admiral, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Coble. 

Admiral? 

Admiral ALLEN. Provide for the record, sir? 

Mr. COBLE. Pardon? 

Admiral ALLEN. Was it to provide the answer for the record, sir? 

Mr. COBLE. If you would. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, we would love to hear the answer now. 

Admiral ALLEN. I can do that, too, sir. 

There is an issue with current readiness, and it is not a—let me 

say it up front here. I have all the respect in the world for Dr. 

Bement, and we are good friends and we are colleagues. I think we 

are both in a really tough situation here. 

Any time you have one of the three icebreakers that this country 

operates through the Coast Guard that have been validated by an 

external study by the National Research Council in a commission 

special status, you have a readiness problem. 

So, is there a readiness problem? Yes, there is, sir. 

That vessel is tied up. It has got a caretaker crew on it. We are 

making sure the machinery could be brought back in a year or so, 

if it was needed. 

But we have had divers down looking at the hull. We have problems with the zinc anodes that are on there that protect against 

corrosion. There is marine growth on it. 

So, even the readiness of the vessel that is laid up continues to 

be an issue with us. 

Is this adequate in the long term? Obviously, it is not. We need 

three polar icebreakers to operate in this country, and one is laid 

up. 

And in the long term, my goal is to stabilize what is going on 

right now and make sure we keep the POLAR STAR where it is 

at, pending the policy resolutions that will lead us to a long-term 

solution. 

But our readiness now is not what it should be. I do not believe 

it is adequate, and we have to have a long-term fix, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, what about the short term? I know we 

have to have the long term. And I think, as I listen to your testimony, just to follow up on what I think Mr. Coble might have 

asked—and I think Mr. Baird may have alluded to this, too. 

Where are we—I guess—you just said that we are short one. Is 

that right? But it is actually more than one, isn’t it, Admiral? In 

other words, as far as capability is concerned. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. What I am trying not to do is get ahead 

of a policy decision on what the requirements are up there. Basically—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, let me—— 

Admiral ALLEN. But there was a report issued in 2006, that validated the need for the Coast Guard to operate three icebreakers. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. And—— 

Admiral ALLEN. We are operating two. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, wait a minute. I just want to make sure 

I am clear. I am not trying to—— 

30 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. —put words in your mouth. 

I guess what I am trying to get to is, the two that we have, they 

are not at full operation, both of them. Are they? 

Admiral ALLEN. They are available for operations. They are, sir. 

The POLAR SEA and HEALY are available for—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And they can do everything that we would hope 

that they would do. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right now. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. So, we are down one. Is that right? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. And so, when you say long range—you 

said maybe we ought to have a long-range plan—I guess what I am 

trying to get to is that, in the short range, right now, we do have 

a problem then. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. And it is because the effort and the 

money that is being transferred is sized to support the science mission, not all the missions we need to do, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see. And—— 

Admiral ALLEN. I think Dr. Bement would tell you we are just 

fine where we are at, and I understand where he sits on that. But 

I have got other things I have to do out there. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You would rather not be sharing any efforts with 

the National Science Foundation. 

Admiral ALLEN. No, I would rather be supporting them completely without any money transfers—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. 

Admiral ALLEN. —and giving him what he needs, and then, with 

the capacity that I have, in addition to the science, be creating 

presence where we need to, based on the evolving mission, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. BAIRD. A clarification, if I may. My understanding from your 

written testimony and conversations that we have had in the past, 

when the Chairman asked, do we have three or two vessels that 

can do everything you want, I think there needs probably to be 

clarification. The HEALY is not interchangeable with the POLAR 

SEA. The HEALY has a much different mission. 

So, you could not say, well, we are going to dispatch the HEALY 

to bust its way into McMurdo. 

Admiral ALLEN. That is correct. 

Mr. BAIRD. Is that accurate? 

Admiral ALLEN. Thank you for the clarification. 

Mr. BAIRD. I think that is really important. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, that is where I was trying to go. But in 

courtesy to Ms. Richardson, Ms. Richardson, thank you very much. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, I am a new Member on this team here, so you will have 

to excuse if I ask a few questions that maybe you have covered in 

the past. 

31 

Upon reviewing the background information, it tells me that the 

NSF had provided funding, you know, $55 million, $53 million in 

2006, 2007. And then there was a huge drop, almost in half, for 

2008. 

Why was this done? 

Admiral ALLEN. There was not a huge drop. The difference in 

the—excuse me, I am sorry. We have had pretty much stable funding from 2006, 2007 to 2008. The 2009 request that is currently on 

the Hill is $3 million less than the prior year, which reflects the 

absence of money to maintain the POLAR STAR, ma’am. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So, I am reading a document that says funding 

NSF reimbursed Coast Guard for polar ops in 2006 was $55.8 million, 2007, $53.8 million, and in 2008, 29.8 to-date. 

Admiral ALLEN. We can update that last figure for you, because 

we had not been through the recent HEALY deployment. It was 

more than that, ma’am. I can do that for that record. 

[Information follows:] 

32 


43754.019
33 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And then, my follow-up question is, it says— 

and I realize we have a person from NSF who will be testifying 

shortly—it says here that NSF has increasingly opted to use 

icebreaking funding to contract with foreign flag vessels instead of 

utilizing Coast Guard assets. 

Why is that? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, I will let Mr.—or, excuse me—Dr. Bement 

address that. But basically, the cost per day of operating a contracted vessel is much less than a Coast Guard cutter, because you 

are buying more with a Coast Guard cutter. You are buying a 

multi-mission platform and crews that can do other things. 

If I am sitting at the National Science Foundation, I want the 

best bang for my buck, so I understand what they are doing. But 

the funding mechanism, the management structure that is in place 

right now is not conducive for the long-range health and readiness 

of the U.S. icebreaker fleet. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So, do you feel comfortable that a foreign flag 

ship has the same security that the Coast Guard would have and 

the same interests and protection of our country as a foreign flag 

vessel? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, what they are trying to do is meet the requirement to break out the channel into McMurdo Station, so vessels can come in and resupply it, for ultimately to resupply the 

South Pole and other science stations that are down there. It is basically an icebreaking function. 

I have not addressed the security dimensions of it, and I will let 

the National Science Foundation comment on that in their testimony. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay, because to me it is kind of like saying, 

you know, we have TSA at our airports, but we will allow, you 

know, someone from whatever, XYZ country to come in and to 

maintain the whole role. And I am just surprised. You do not have 

a personal opinion on the security of that? 

Admiral ALLEN. I actually do not have visibility into the contracting vehicle and what are the specifications of the contract. And 

I will leave that to Dr. Bement to comment on. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My last question is, in 2005, the National Security Research Council conducted a study, and they found 

the following things. And I would like to know if you agree with 

those recommendations. 

One, they said that the United States should continue to project 

an active and influential presence in the Arctic to support its interests. 

Yes? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The United States should continue to project 

an active and influential presence in Antarctica to support its interests. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The United States should maintain leadership 

in polar research. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. National interests in the polar regions require 

the United States immediately to program, budget, design and conVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:01 Jun 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43754 JASON
34 

struct two new polar icebreakers to be operated by the U.S. Coast 

Guard. 

Admiral ALLEN. I think we need to ultimately look at the replacement of the icebreakers, but I think we need to look at the 

changes in the Arctic and the policy associated with that as an interim step to validate that. And that is what is happening right 

now with the interagency review that is proceeding. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. To provide the continuing of the U.S. 

icebreaker capabilities, the POLAR SEA should remain mission capable and the POLAR STAR should remain available for reactivation. 

Admiral ALLEN. I would agree. And if possible—— 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And finally—— 

Admiral ALLEN. —get the POLAR STAR underway to increase 

the competency of our work force. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. And finally, the U.S. Coast Guard 

should be provided sufficient operations and maintenance budget to 

support an increase in regular and influential presence in the Arctic. 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, that is a two-part question, because currently, the maintenance money resides with the National Science 

Foundation. Without prejudice, I believe the money should be in 

the Coast Guard base, and we should operate it. But that is a policy decision to be made. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My final question, of all these recommendations, since the majority you agreed with, have you communicated this to the administration? 

Admiral ALLEN. I think my views are well known in the administration, ma’am, yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Excuse me? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes, you have. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And updated that you—— 

Admiral ALLEN. I have been involved in the interagency review 

that is going on right now as far as Arctic policy goes. And I have 

been supported by Secretary Chertoff, and our views have been 

known. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Let me just follow up, because I am just not—I do not want to— 

I know you have got things to do, but I do not want to let you go, 

because I wanted to make sure we are clear on this. 

On the POLAR STAR, it is in bad shape. Is that right? Is that 

a good description? I mean, in other words—— 

Admiral ALLEN. It is tied up in Pier 36 in Seattle and has a crew 

of about 30 on board to keep the vessel painted, keep it clean. They 

test the machinery and roll it over every once in a while. But it 

has not moved in a number of years. 

And the concern we have right now is whether or not there is 

going to be corrosion on the hull due to marine growth. And as I 

said, we put a—we attached to the hull blocks of zinc, because they 

corrode before the hull does. It keeps the hull from corroding. 

35 

They are gone. So, we are to the point now, if we are going to 

keep it even in the status that it is in, we are probably going to 

have to do something with the hull. And I have directed my engineers to take a look at that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, right now, you are waiting for a report from 

your engineers. Is that right? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, I am. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And when do you expect that report to come in? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, they are going to do an internal inspection 

of the ship and make sure that there is no corrosion taking place 

from the inside out and outside in. And that is being actively done 

right now. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But now—— 

Admiral ALLEN. I discussed it today with my chief engineer. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I understand. 

What is the worst case, Admiral, with regard to that ship, the 

POLAR STAR? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. If they come back with a report and it is the 

worst—I mean, within reason, what is the worst case? 

Admiral ALLEN. I do not think we are going to find anything catastrophic. As you saw, sir, when we passed the part of the deck 

plating along, you know, that is the kind of plating that is on that 

ship. What we need to make sure is that, if there is something 

going on, we arrest it right then and take care of it, so it does not 

degrade further, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I guess what I am trying to get to is, we have 

got a ship. We have got 30 people maintaining it. I guess that is 

a good word. Is that appropriate? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And that ship has not been out of that position 

since when? Where it is right now, how long has it been there? 

Admiral ALLEN. It has been at least 2 years. I will give you the 

exact date, sir, but at least 2 years. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But at least a year. 

Admiral ALLEN. Two. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Two years. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It is sitting there. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And you would agree with me, I think, based 

upon your testimony, that it would—that we ought to—we actually 

need three ships. Right? We need the HEALY, and we need this 

one and the other one. Is that right? 

Admiral ALLEN. The requirement was validated by the National 

Research Council in 2006, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. 

Now, has there been any—have there been any requests—I 

mean, has the administration discussed or tried to figure out how 

they want to solve this problem from a financial standpoint? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, sir, what I believe is—and I will get back 

to the question that Mr. Young asked—the imminent interagency 

report on policy will set the baseline for where the federal government goes on this, and I wholeheartedly support that, sir. 

36 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And do you know what kind of timetable we 

have on that? 

Admiral ALLEN. Very soon, sir. But again, I cannot attach a date 

to it, because I am not the controlling officer. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, you know, Admiral—— 

Admiral ALLEN. As I told Mr. Young, we have been—we have a 

very frank—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, 

and that very soon—— 

Admiral ALLEN. I am happy with the progress. I will tell you 

that, sir. And if I was not happy, I would tell you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Well, could you kind of let—could you 

give us—obviously, you are not prepared to do it today, but we 

have to deal in some kind of timetables here, or else, you know, you 

will be gone, and we will be up in heaven, and we will still be talking about this. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, I mean, I will be up there with you, but—— 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. —we will be hanging out. 

[Laughter.] 

Admiral ALLEN. We are going to know each other for a long time, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But what I am saying is, we really do need to 

try to move this along. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am not sure. Mr. Larsen, I think one of his concerns was the very issue that—and he can correct me if I am 

wrong—is the very issue that I am raising right now. And I wanted—and so, I did not want you to leave unless we kind of tried to 

get to the bottom of this as to—we have got a ship sitting there. 

It is not going anywhere. 

And it sounds like, if we were to try to use it, we are not sure 

whether it is going to—we are not sure—and correct me if I am 

wrong—whether it would be able to do all the things that we want 

it to do. And even if it were, we are not sure of how long it would 

be able to do it. Is that right? 

Admiral ALLEN. I can give you a more quantitative answer to 

that. We believe that it would take an availability and about $8.6 

million to make the POLAR SEA ready to go to sea and do a mission, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. And just one last question. 

Did I hear you correct to say that you—you, the admiral of the 

Coast Guard—you are pushing the administration to do, to get the 

resources to get it out there? I mean, to do the 8.6, at least? Is that 

an accurate statement? 

Admiral ALLEN. The current review that is going on regarding 

Arctic policy is going to address everything, including Coast Guard 

icebreaking and navigation up there. All the things that we have 

talked about are going to be addressed in this review, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do they ask your opinion? 

Admiral ALLEN. They did, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what was your opinion? 

37 

Admiral ALLEN. Sir, you know I am not shy. They have got it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what was it? 

Admiral ALLEN. Pretty much what I have said here today, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well. 

All right. Thank you very—Mr. Larsen, did you have something? 

Mr. LARSEN. Just, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the 

record a memorandum from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, signed by—or to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff— 

signed by the commander of U.S. NORTHCOM, TRANSCOM and 

PACOM, in support of a program for construction of new polar icebreakers to be operated by the Coast Guard. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have—we actually have six votes. 

Therefore, we will—we will adjourn for probably about, a little bit 

less than an hour. That is about how long it is going to take to do 

the votes. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. BAIRD. Before we adjourn, Mr. Coble said he was not sure 

where his ship that he had served on is. I think it is in a tall ship 

museum moored next to the USS Constitution. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You do not want to know. 

[Laughter.] 

Admiral ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, will this panel continue after 

the—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No. Admiral, thank you very much, and we will 

pick up—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. Taylor? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Admiral, thank you for being here. 

I am curious, what percentage of the total cost of operating an 

icebreaker during wintertime is for fuel? 

And what is leading to that is my understanding that the Soviets, 20 or 30 years ago, went to atomic, nuclear-powered icebreakers. And I guess you know I have been pushing the Navy to 

get—— 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TAYLOR. —the next generation of cruisers, next generation of 

amphibs. 

Given today’s fuel costs, has the Coast Guard run any sort of a 

comparison of—and, quite frankly, given the enormous horsepower 

needs of an icebreaker when it is in operation—have you run any 

sort of cost comparison over the projected 20-to 30-year life of an 

icebreaker? 

Admiral ALLEN. Sir, what I would like to do is take the current 

fuel price, because our projections, when we budgeted for this thing 

2 years ago, as you know, are way off the scale right now. Let us 

revise that, give you that information. And I would be happy to 

provide that for the record, if that is okay, sir. 

[Information follows:] 

38 


43754.020
39 


43754.021
40 

Mr. TAYLOR. I would—and if you need to pick a number out of 

the sky for an availability, may I suggest that you look at an A1B 

power plant, which is one of the two power plants that will go into 

the next generation of carrier. And I think for a couple of reasons, 

number one, you get standardization of crew training. And obviously, there would be some economies of scale of buying more of a 

single power plant rather than having eight or 10 different varieties out there. 

So, I am asking specifically—— 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TAYLOR. —if the Coast Guard would look at that as your 

power plant to do a cost comparison with. 

Admiral ALLEN. We will do that, sir. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

We will now adjourn for an hour. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We are very pleased to have Dr. Arden Bement, 

who is the director of the National Science Foundation. Mr. Mead 

Treadwell is the chair of the United States Arctic Research Commission. And Mr. James Weakley is the president of the Lake Carriers’ Association. And welcome. 

And we will hear from you, Dr. Bement? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

SCIENCE FOUNDATION; MR. MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIRMAN, 

ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION; MR. JAMES H.I. WEAKLEY, 

PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

LaTourette and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am pleased to appear before you again to speak on behalf of the 

National Science Foundation. NSF is an agency with an extraordinary mission of enabling discovery, supporting education and 

driving innovation—all in service to society and the nation. 

In addition, the foundation has been tasked with chairing the 

Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, created under federal statute to coordinate Arctic research sponsored by federal 

agencies. NSF also manages the U.S. Antarctic Program on behalf 

of the U.S. government, as directed by Presidential Memorandum 

6646, issued in 1982. 

The Arctic and Antarctic are premier national laboratories. Their 

extreme environments and geographically unique settings permit 

research on fundamental phenomena and processes not feasible 

elsewhere. 

Polar research depends heavily on ships capable of operating in 

ice-covered regions. They serve as research platforms in the Arctic 

and Southern Oceans, and as key components of the logistic chain 

supporting on-continent research in Antarctica. 

As a principal source of U.S. support for fundamental research 

in these regions, the NSF is the primary customer of polar icebreaker and ice-strengthened vessel services for scientific research 

purposes. 

41 

The NSF’s responsibilities take somewhat different forms in the 

Arctic and in Antarctica. My written testimony explains in detail 

how icebreaker requirements differ in each region. But in both 

cases, the question of how best to meet those responsibilities boils 

down to consideration of three factors: cost, performance and policy. 

For example, current deployment standards allow HEALY to 

spend only 200 days or less at sea annually, averaging 100 days 

less than our international partners. Additionally, the operating 

costs are significantly higher than non-military research icebreakers. As I have already stated, the HEALY is a capable ship. 

If she could be operated more cost effectively, she would be of even 

more value to the research community. 

Antarctic ship-based research and Palmer Station resupply depend primarily on two privately-owned vessels, the Laurence M. 

Gould and the Nathaniel B. Palmer. These ships are well equipped 

for their mission, and they operate at sea more than 300 days annually at a daily rate of roughly $24,000 and $54,000, respectively. 

Operation of McMurdo and South Pole Stations require the annual delivery of fuel and supplies by sea. To fulfill this requirement, NSF has long depended on the U.S. Coast Guard POLAR 

SEA and POLAR STAR to break out of the thick ice in McMurdo 

Sound. The Coast Guard has performed this icebreaking mission in 

Antarctica with distinction for many decades, but with increasing 

difficulty in recent years. 

These two ships are at or close to the end of their service life, 

and have become extremely expensive to maintain and operate. In 

the past 4 years alone, NSF has spent roughly $29 million on extraordinary maintenance. It is clear that the Polar icebreakers are 

becoming an increasingly fragile resource that could jeopardize the 

critical foreign policy and scientific objectives in the Antarctic, if we 

are unable to procure other icebreaker services. 

The overriding question is how to open the channel to McMurdo 

Station, so that year-round operations of the nation’s McMurdo and 

South Pole Stations can continue. This year-round occupation is 

center to demonstrating the active and influential presence, which 

is the cornerstone of U.S. policy in Antarctica. 

As noted in the National Academy report in 2006, meeting this 

requirement is a significant national challenge. 

Accordingly, and after consultations with officials in OSTP and 

OMB, I wrote on May 31, 2006, to Dr. Anita Jones, in her role as 

chair of the NAS icebreaker study, as follows: ′′Given the rapidly 

escalating costs of government providers for icebreaking services 

and the uncertain availability of U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers beyond the next 2 years, it is NSF’s intention to—[seek] competitive 

bids for icebreaking services that support the broad goals of the 

U.S. Antarctic Program. This competition will be open to commercial, government and international service providers.′′ 

Based on our experience of working with other foreign and domestic icebreakers, I continue to believe that this is the most costeffective means of meeting NSF’s resupply requirements. 

Mr. Chairman, NSF’s commitment to polar research, as well as 

its responsibility to manage the U.S. Antarctic Program, are unchanging. We only seek the flexibility to do so in the most cost-effective manner possible. 

42 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee, 

and would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Thank 

you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Mr. Treadwell? 

Mr. TREADWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. Good afternoon. 

On behalf of my fellow commissioners, thank you for the invitation to speak with you today. 

My testimony represents the view of the U.S. Arctic Research 

Commission, an advisory body to the executive branch and Congress. My statements here today do not necessarily represent the 

views of the administration. 

The commission establishes goals for Arctic research to be conducted by our nation and works to ensure that research programs 

and platforms, including vessels, laboratories and monitoring networks, are there to do the job. Arctic research cuts across many 

agencies, ties with many nations, advances basic knowledge, national security, human health, social and economic development 

and environmental protection. 

I could say much today about the valuable contributions our national icebreaker fleet provides to science. In fact, in this International Polar Year, there have been some significant discoveries 

and significant work done to advance American claims, sovereignty 

claims in the Arctic. 

But because we have both the director of the National Science 

Foundation and the commandant of the Coast Guard today, I am 

going to speak less about science and security needs, and I am 

going to draw from the part of my written testimony that addresses 

the economic issues we encounter, which should also be central to 

any national needs assessment on icebreaker capacity. 

As has been said, the administration is conducting a comprehensive interagency review on a wide range of Arctic issues. The tremendous homework to prepare for an accessible Arctic Ocean—the 

new Mediterranean once predicted by Arctic explorer Stefansson— 

has certainly begun. 

Mr. Chairman, the Alaska Purchase in 1867 made us an Arctic 

nation. Our ocean boundaries include more than the Atlantic and 

Pacific, and today’s Arctic infrastructure for transport, energy, 

telecom, food production and defense is global infrastructure. 

The Arctic Ocean is becoming increasingly accessible in summer, 

and ice is receding faster than our climate models predict. 

With these factors in mind, the Arctic Council’s eight nations, 

with indigenous participants and the global shipping industry, are 

conducting an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, which is due in 

2009. Our deputy director, a former Coast Guard icebreaker captain, Dr. Lawson Brigham, is chair of this effort for the eight Arctic 

nations. 

AMSA will report that Arctic shipping is not a far off, future 

thing. It is a now thing. Shipping tied to specific resource development projects, tourism and serving the needs of Arctic communities 

is significant and growing. 

Winter access, of course, remains a challenge, except for the most 

capable of icebreaking ships. The question comes up: Will transVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:01 Jun 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43754 JASON
43 

Arctic seaways be as important to global commerce as the Panama 

and Suez Canals? Or will the Arctic Ocean continue more as a 

venue for shipping in and out of the Arctic itself, for tourism, local 

needs and to bring natural resources to market? 

Our work with AMSA suggests that we have to prepare for both 

possibilities. AMSA tells us that Arctic shipping will grow further 

when rules are certain and when products can be delivered competitively with other routes. And this means on a time and cost 

basis, not just on shorter distances. 

Assistant Secretary of State Dan Sullivan said at the Arctic Energy Summit last fall that shipping in the Arctic Ocean should be 

safe, secure and reliable. And icebreakers are essential in making 

that three-part goal a reality. 

The Committee is hearing again today about the importance of 

icebreakers to commerce in the Great Lakes. The wording of President Roosevelt’s 1936 commitment to support shipping with icebreakers is not limited by geography. Icebreakers may eventually 

be needed to support commercial fishing—commercial shipping—in 

U.S. Arctic waters. 

The Arctic Research Commission has urged the government to 

move expeditiously in building and maintaining new icebreakers 

for the Arctic. That begins with a clear understanding of national 

needs and interests. 

We have been guided by the National Research Council’s conclusion that two Polar Class ships are necessary. Polar Class icebreakers are the largest and most capable of ice-going ships. 

Changing ice conditions do not obviate the advantages of having 

Polar Class icebreakers. Scientists are predicting tougher operating 

conditions and higher sea states, due to the evolving nature of sea 

ice and changing wind and weather patterns. 

Mr. Chairman, Arctic icebreakers are expensive to build and to 

operate. As the nation assesses its needs, let me conclude by listing 

some of the billion-dollar, if not trillion-dollar, national interests 

that we encounter in looking at the science agenda for the country. 

And these very expensive national interests may help balance the 

cost to taxpayers of having these icebreakers. 

Number one is security and sovereignty. Admiral Allen has 

talked about the current missions of the Coast Guard that you 

need icebreakers to meet. It should also be noted, as was put in the 

record, that an accessible Arctic means newer, expanded routes for 

U.S. military sealift. And the commission believes polar icebreakers 

are an essential maritime component to guarantee this mobility exists. 

I mentioned what icebreakers are doing to help us expand the 

territory of the United States. The estimated value of the territory 

that we stand to gain under the law of the sea is over $1 trillion, 

according to the Department of State. 

Two, energy. Close to 15 percent of America’s oil is produced on 

the North Slope of Alaska. Arctic shipping brings the infrastructure 

in, and as we move offshore and prove up close to $3 billion in recent leases, the potential need to ship oil and gas year-round from 

the American Arctic increases. 

Number three, transport and trade. If Arctic seaways become a 

venue for global trade, the economic impact, again, is in the billions 

44 

of dollars. We have just been calculating a set of statistics, Mr. 

Chairman, that reveals that approximately 7,800 ice-class ships in 

the world today, about 4.5 percent of the world shipping fleet. This 

percentage is expected to increase to 10 percent, as more ships are 

built for ice strength and polar use. 

Number four, mineral production. World-scale mines producing 

or on the drawing board in Alaska, Canada and Russia, reach that 

billion-dollar magnitude already. And some of these projects conduct, or expect to conduct, year-round Arctic shipping, and they are 

footnoted in my written testimony. 

Food production in the U.S. Arctic. The Bering Sea, where fishing vessels operate in or near the seasonal ice edge, is a billion-dollar industry. And ice-strengthened vessels are not only essential 

platforms for research into those fisheries and understanding what 

is going on in an ecosystem, but also fisheries oversight. 

Six, understanding of and response to climate change. I could 

highlight very much of the research going on with icebreakers, but 

I just want to make the point that the costs of—the cost our nation 

and other nations expect to incur in responding to climate change 

will also total in the trillions of dollars. 

Icebreaker-based research will help set and track our progress in 

meeting international climate goals. There are very many amazing 

things happening in the Arctic with the feedback loops there, 

where having this capability is a very important thing to expensive 

decisions made all over the rest of the world. 

Seven, there are Arctic values we cannot put a price tag on. 

Human lives in the Arctic and maintain a subsistence life style, 

practiced by these cultures for thousands of years. The need to understand and protect the marine mammals of this region is well established in U.S. law. And icebreakers play a key role in both objectives. 

Through support and research in all polar conditions, the U.S. 

Arctic Research Commission has urged the nation to maintain 

U.S.-owned, operated and commanded Polar Class icebreakers. And 

under the principle of freedom of navigation, global shipping can 

come to our doorstep, whether we invited it or not. 

Whether you envision the Arctic Ocean as a new seaway, or as 

simply an expansion of current shipping in and out of the Arctic, 

the time to prepare is now. We will be glad if we do, and sorry if 

we do not. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Weakley? 

Mr. WEAKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Every day, the 2,500 professional American mariners sailing on 

the Great Lakes risk their lives and their livelihoods to feed the 

economic engine that drives North America. They deserve the resources to ensure a safe and efficient passage. Without adequate 

Coast Guard resources, the gears of this economic engine come to 

a grinding halt. 

As president of the Lake Carriers’ Association and vice president 

of the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, I have the privilege of 

testifying on behalf of those mariners and U.S. flag vessel operators. We deliver iron ore, limestone, coal and jobs. 

45 

I recently retired as a Coast Guard officer with more than 23 

years of combined active and reserve service—16 years on the 

Great Lakes. I can tell you without a doubt, that some of the active 

duty, reserves and civilians from the Lakes are the most dedicated 

public servants. 

There is, however, one thing that no amount of dedication can 

overcome: a lack of resources. Sailors need ships. 

Since 2004, the Lake Carriers’ Association has asked for additional icebreaking vessels. We need one additional 140-foot-long 

icebreaking tug, homeported in Duluth, Minnesota, and an additional seagoing buoy tender stationed in Charlevoix, Michigan. 

Just as roadways need to be plowed, our waterways need sufficient icebreaking to remain conduits for commerce. Just as cities 

use snowplows, and police, cruisers, to serve the public, our Coast 

Guard uses a mix of vessels. We need to provide nautical snowplows where the ice is and waterborne squad cars elsewhere. 

The Great Lakes form a maritime highway, moving as much as 

200 million tons of cargo a year. Sixty-six U.S. flag lakers moved 

104 million tons in 2007. Of that total, 15 million tons, valued at 

$1.1 billion, were delivered during the ice season. 

The winter of 2007-2008 was considered normal. It was, nonetheless, the worst winter since 2003, and demonstrated the lack of 

icebreaking resources. Much of the Great Lakes was abandoned to 

the elements. 

The price tag for just three LCA members exceeded $1.3 million 

in vessel damages. Lives were unnecessarily risked when the Coast 

Guard failed, because of inadequate resources to answer the call. 

Six Coast Guard cutters break ice in the 150-mile stretch of the 

Hudson River. By contrast, the entire Great Lakes have six icebreakers and two buoy tenders. Lake Michigan alone boasts more 

than 1,640 miles of coastline—the distance from Maine to Miami. 

Currently, the lake is home to one 140-foot-long icebreaker, 

homeported in Green Bay. The equivalent East Coast shoreline has 

90 Coast Guard vessels. 

The Coast Guard uses East Coast icebreakers primarily for security. This is not the best solution. It is the nautical equivalent of 

putting a blue light on a snowplow. 

First District 140s will spend an average of 157 hours breaking 

ice, compared to 870 hours for the average D-9 icebreaker. Contrast 

the 101 hours the Great Lakes 140 spend on security with the 900 

hours by D-1. 

Providing the Great Lakes with one additional icebreaker and 

one additional buoy tender would have a tremendous impact on our 

ability to meet the needs of commerce and not hinder the Coast 

Guard’s performance in the rest of the country. 

I am not asking for parity, but I believe there should be more 

equity. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you all very much. 

I want to first of all go to you, Mr. Bement, and to you, Mr. 

Treadwell, regarding the POLAR SEA’s most recent mission to the 

Arctic. Can either of you comment on why the vessel did not go further north than it did? 

46 

Mr. BEMENT. Yes. Our procedure in working with the Coast 

Guard to allocate the—or not to exceed budget that we get from the 

Congress, which this past year was of the order of $54 million— 

is that we provide to the Coast Guard a set of requirements, operating requirements. 

They, in turn, take those requirements and give us an operating 

plan, plus costs, for O-and-M costs as well as normal operating 

costs. We negotiate that plan and finally come up with a settlement, which then gets transferred to the Coast Guard for operations. 

In the case of the POLAR SEA and operating in the Arctic, most 

of those operations were to requalify crewmen for certification for 

operations. 

We felt at the time of our negotiations with the Coast Guard— 

and we came to agreement—that taking the POLAR SEA into deep 

ice was risky, because of the possibility of serious damage, so that 

it seemed to be more prudent to transfer crewmen who needed to 

be certified for ice operations to the HEALY, since the HEALY was 

operating in deep ice. 

Those crewmen did achieve their service on the HEALY. They 

did get certified. So, as an alternative set of conditions, that 

seemed to be the best decision we could arrive at, at that time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So the—basically, because the POLAR SEA is 

old, you were concerned? 

Mr. BEMENT. Well, we usually have the POLAR SEA for backup 

service. And in many cases, you need two ships, because it is hard 

enough from season to season how thick the ice is going to be. And 

if the ice is sufficiently thick, you need a backup vessel. Also, if one 

of the ships gets damaged, you need the backup vessel to take over 

the operation. 

If the POLAR SEA, operating on its own in the Arctic, had gone 

into deep ice and had undergone serious damage that required 

lengthy maintenance, that would almost knock out all capability 

for icebreaking in the Antarctic for another year, or perhaps longer. 

So, we have been trying to not only deploy our assets, but also 

to protect our assets in the most prudent way, by not putting them 

in risk where other alternatives would serve. So, that was the basis 

for our decision. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Did you have a comment, Mr. Treadwell? 

Mr. TREADWELL. We have talked to the Coast Guard and we 

have talked to the National Science Foundation, and I have no contradiction with what Dr. Bement has said. 

What I will say is that, if we are in a situation where we cannot 

put our Polar Class icebreaker into the ice, because we are afraid 

we will break it, that is probably prima facie evidence that we need 

a new icebreaker. And because we probably should have two backing it up, I think that particular episode is a very good piece of evidence for Congress to take action on this issue. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, as I listen to you often say that, I 

think that there are a lot of presumptions that are made. And if 

someone were to say that we might find ourselves—and this goes 

to all of your testimony, including you, Mr. Weakley—that in the 

United States, that we would find ourselves in the situation where 

47 

we did not have the capacity that you are saying. People assume 

that we have the capacity. 

It is sort of like Hurricane Katrina. They assume a lot of assumptions. They say, this is the United States of America, the most 

powerful country in the world. And then, when something happens 

and you are waiting for the rubber to meet the road, you discover 

there is no road. 

And so, it sounds like what you all have just described—and Dr. 

Bement, I do not know whether that is your normal demeanor, but 

you look like you are very sad in giving your statement. 

[Laughter.] 

That was—— 

Mr. BEMENT. Not my normal demeanor. Just late in the day. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But I think we can—I think you all agree that 

we can do better as a country. We have got to do better. 

But let me just ask you just a few more questions. 

Mr. Bement, are the vessels currently available to the National 

Science Foundation, from the contract community and from foreign 

sources, capable of handling current ice—Europe agencies—current 

icebreaking needs to support research in the polar regions? 

Mr. BEMENT. We believe so, but we have not fully tested that. 

Two years ago, we put out a Request for Information. And as a 

matter of fact, it was through these RFIs that brought us the 

Krasin from Russia and the Oden from Sweden. And I should point 

out parenthetically, these are not agreements between the National 

Science Foundation and a private contractor. It is a governmentto-government agreement. 

And in the case of the Swedish Oden, it also carries with it a 

science agreement. It is a science exchange, because the Oden is capable of doing science, and there is a very active, collaborative activity between U.S. scientists and Swedish scientists in working 

the Southern Ocean. And so, the Oden, while it is deployed in the 

Southern Ocean, is also there for science, as well as a break-in. 

I think that if we were to put out an RFI and ask those questions, based on the responses we got in the past, we would probably 

find expressions of interest, even private interest, that would buildto-lease icebreaker services over a period of time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, is it fair to say that NSF does not care where 

it gets its icebreaking services? 

Mr. BEMENT. Our only—our only mandate, by presidential directive, is to operate in the Antarctic and in the logistics support of 

the Antarctica Program in the most cost-effective way possible. 

And, of course, the most cost-effective way carries with it a lot of 

conditions and a lot of options. So, we explore all those options in 

determining how we can operate under least cost. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But you mentioned Sweden and Russia, did you 

say? 

Mr. BEMENT. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Were they cheaper? 

Mr. BEMENT. Four years ago, we did have the problem where the 

POLAR SEA was out of operation. As a matter of fact, since that 

time, we have invested $29 million in extraordinary maintenance 

in order to get the POLAR SEA back into operation. And that is 

why we call it a fragile resource. 

48 

Now, at that time, it was agreed by the Coast Guard that we 

needed a backup vessel. And it was then that we put out an RFI 

and discovered that the Krasin was available. And so, we contracted with Russia. The Krasin is a GOCO vessel. It is government-owned, contractor-operated, as is the Oden. The Oden is also 

GOCO. It is government-owned, contractor-operated. 

So, for two seasons, we backed up the Coast Guard with the 

Krasin. And then, 2 years ago we shifted to the Oden, because 

there was an expression of interest on the part of Sweden to enter 

into a U.S.-Swedish science exchange in return for also using the 

icebreaker for break-in services. And that was a very generous offer 

that we took advantage of. 

So, that gave us the adequate primary break-in capability, and 

it allowed us to use the Coast Guard as the backup. And so, that 

is the way we have operated for the last two seasons. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Before we go to Mr. Oberstar, let me just ask you 

this. You said you spent $29 million? And over how much, over 

what course of time? 

Mr. BEMENT. It was over 4 years. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How long? 

Mr. BEMENT. Four years. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Four years. 

Mr. BEMENT. About 4 or 5 years. But I can give you more detailed information for the record, to give you all the details. 

But if you go back about 4.5 years ago, the POLAR STAR was 

operational. The POLAR SEA was not fully operational. It required 

extensive maintenance. So, we invested in getting the POLAR SEA 

back into operational capability. 

And at that time, the POLAR STAR then underwent some damage. And so, it was then that we put POLAR STAR in caretaker 

status. And it was the expectation, based on the repairs that we 

had made in the POLAR SEA, that it was good for another 7 or 

8 years, as long as we used the resource prudently. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And would you deem it prudent to contribute 

capital costs for the building of a new icebreaker? 

Mr. BEMENT. I think at this point, based on my understanding 

of the mission space, that the Coast Guard has, especially with the 

opening up of the Arctic over time, that it would be a prudent 

course of action. 

But my estimate or judgment would be that, even if the funds 

were approved tomorrow, it would take about 8 years to complete 

the construction of the vessel and make it operational. And we still 

have to—we still have to plan our course of action for the next 8 

years, and that is where we need flexibility. 

Mr. Oberstar, the Chairman of the Transportation Committee? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for enduring a long 

afternoon with interruption by votes and other diversions from our 

hearing. 

I apologize also to the witnesses for keeping you so late today. 

We have no control over the votes on the House floor. And I regret 

my own absence on other Committee business—aviation and energy for transportation, a whole host of matters that I had to attend to. 

And so, I sort of left you an orphan here, Mr. Chairman. 

49 

Mr. Cummings does a superb job as Chair of the Committee, and 

I enjoy being here with him and participating with him. And our 

Ranking Member, Mr. LaTourette, as well, who has really invested 

himself vigorously in the issues of the Committee. 

So much to start with. 

Mr. Weakley, thank you for your leadership on the Great Lakes, 

your work on behalf on Lake Carriers’ Association, advocacy for 

icebreaking services, among many other contributions that you 

have made. And I think those charts you showed on the screen are 

very compelling. 

We have at long last the replacement, Mackinaw, and in support 

from the icebreaking tugs and buoy tenders. But this past winter, 

when there was a need for icebreaking capability on Lake Superior—at the beginning of the spring shipping season there was still 

a great deal of ice, slush ice, heavy ice, shore ice—the Mackinaw 

was not available to come upstream, up-lake and serve in there. I 

know vessels were supposed to be supported by these icebreaking 

tugs, suffered $1 million, $1.5 million in damages, I recall. 

What was the problem? We had the Coast Guard here earlier 

this year, and I asked the question. They gave me this vague, nonresponsive answer, that they were busy on other business, but no 

other business that I could find from lake carriers in the lower 

lakes. 

So, what is your—and I am not putting you in a position of criticizing the Coast Guard. But what has happened there? What is 

going on? 

Mr. WEAKLEY. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. 

I think, listening to the commandant’s testimony earlier, something that he may not have mentioned is that there is a natural 

tension between icebreaking and buoy tending. As you are finishing 

your buoys, you have got to start icebreaking, and the vessels cannot do both at the same time. And equally important, they cannot 

be in two places at one time. 

As recently as the late 1980s, early 1990s, there were as many 

as five 180-foot buoy tenders on the Great Lakes. They were replaced with two 225s. If you look at their records, the Coast Guard 

claimed that that would work, because the 225s and the Mack were 

going to be more efficient. 

The fact of the matter is, the 225s, I believe, are the most unreliable platform in the Coast Guard fleet. They were not designed for 

ice operations. They have a tendency to blow hub seals and leak 

oil in the water, and quite frankly, have been an extreme disappointment. They were—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have seen those in operation, and I am disappointed with them, too. That is why I pressed Mr. Obey, my colleague to the east, advocated so vigorously for the replacement, a 

major icebreaker, the Mackinaw. But we saw how ineffective those 

harbor icebreakers are, those—they are really tugs. 

They do not have the capability to keep a lane—they might be 

able to keep it open for a short period of time, but you get a 40- 

below cold snap, as happens, and that slush ice freezes down 18, 

20 inches or more—to three feet, even. 

Mr. WEAKLEY. Yes, sir. What we have seen is, the 225s are effective at maintaining a track once the track is established by a more 

50 

capable icebreaker. They are not maneuverable. The 140s are more 

effective in the river system and at close-in support. 

And the fact of the matter is that there just are not enough vessels to go around. And even the 140s are at the end of their service 

life, and we have seen a tremendous failure rate from those in the 

past 3 to 4 years. 

I will say that the Coast Guard is on the right track at rehabbing 

some of those boards and some of the engineering plant of the 140s. 

It is a good hull. Those boats have been in fresh water most of 

their service. 

I think we could do more with as little as two more vessels. We 

have been making the argument for at least 4 years, and have been 

told that—not to worry, that the Coast Guard will be there to answer the call when we ask for the resource. 

I think this winter proved beyond anybody’s doubt, that they 

were not able to answer the call. They send one East Coast icebreaker to support Canadian operations in the Seaway, it did not 

benefit the U.S. fleet or the upper Great Lakes by moving that U.S. 

breaker into Canada. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have much more traffic on the Lakes interlake at those times of year than through the Seaway. Certain vessels need to get out there—— 

Mr. WEAKLEY. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —grain and international cargo. But—I mean, in 

international trade. 

But it seems to me, I just have this feeling, you know, looking 

at that number and security, 900 hours on security on the East 

Coast, 101 on the Great Lakes, icebreaking, 870 hours on the Great 

Lakes, 157 on the East Coast. 

I think the Coast Guard has been taken captive by the Department of Homeland Security, been taken hostage. I do not know 

what is happening, but they are messing up the resources for—in 

the name of security, and neglecting the purpose of keeping shipping lanes open for the purpose of national economic interests. 

Mr. WEAKLEY. And from my perspective, I could not think of a 

worse law enforcement platform than a tugboat. They are slow. 

They are a good communication package. They have some 

seakeeping capability. Certainly not nearly as capable as a patrol 

boat, an 87-footer, or the new Security Class Cutters. 

The Coast Guard has gotten a significant increase in the number 

of vessels since 9/11, everywhere expect the Great Lakes. I think 

we are the only area where the number of vessels is decreasing, not 

increasing. And we also have a security mission on the Great 

Lakes, where the appropriate platform there is an ice-capable vessel. 

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with what you said. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the Mackinaw a sufficient vessel for 

icebreaking duty on the Great Lakes? 

Mr. WEAKLEY. I have been surprisingly impressed with the capability of the Mackinaw. The Mackinaw cannot do it all. It cannot 

be in both—in more than one place at one time. And as the skipper 

of the Mackinaw once said to me, his biggest concern is the health 

of the 140s. 

51 

We have—for the past 3 years, up until this year, I have been 

saying we have been one casualty away, of the Coast Guard resources, of having a catastrophe. This winter proved exactly what 

I had been saying, that there are not enough resources, and they 

are inadequate to maintain shipping lanes. 

And if you look at the 30-year time span, this was a normal winter. This was not a bad winter. I fear the day when we have a winter like we did in 2003 or 1993. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Or 1964 or 1968. 

Mr. WEAKLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We may not get back to global climate change, 

but it seems to me, the glacier makes a return every November and 

December in the northland. And we need that. 

Mr. Chairman, the pressures of moving commodities from the 

upper lakes to the lower lakes are growing. We are seeing greater 

shipments, Powder River Basin low-sulfur coal by trainload to the 

lake head in Duluth and Superior, huge unloading facilities. That 

commodity has to move to lower lake ports to fuel Detroit Edison, 

Con Edison, Cleveland. 

The iron ore from the northland, from my district and from the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Mr. Stupak’s district, is in ever-increasing demand. For the first time since the 1970s, we are seeing 

a resurgence in steelmaking. 

And I know, Mr. Chairman, you recall when you had Sparrows 

Point steelmaking in Baltimore, and the shipbuilding in Baltimore. 

Well, it is coming back in this country. The price is going up. 

Shipments of iron ore are increasing in greater amounts. And we 

need that icebreaking capability. We cannot ship enough ore during 

the summer, especially with the low water levels on the Great 

Lakes. And the Corps of Engineers has not been dredging the channels and the harbors, because they have shifted their resources 

elsewhere. 

We had high water on the Great Lakes for the 20-year period 

from the early 1960s through the mid-1980s. And now, we have the 

need for dredging on the channels and the harbors, and our taconite ships are making three extra—extra voyages are going out 

7,500 tons light—making three extra voyages per vessel, per season. That is thousands and millions of additional dollars in transportation costs to the steel industry, because we do not have the 

capability on the Lakes. 

And in addition to that, we do not have icebreaking sufficiently 

up there. Our economy is hurting. We just cannot afford that. 

So, I think we need to revisit the issue of the smaller-size support icebreaking capability for the Mackinaw on the Great Lakes. 

Now, Dr. Bement, our former Chairman, Mr. Young, asked me 

to raise with you the Arctic regional research vessel that would be 

homeported in Alaska, operated by the university at Fairbanks. 

Since your 2009 budget does not include second year funding for 

the vessel, one wonders why. 

And he also asked whether final design review would be completed and approved in time for the balance of those funds to be 

included in the 2010 fiscal year. 

Mr. BEMENT. The current policy of the National Science Board is 

that projects must complete a final design review before they are 

52 

submitted for the president’s budget. Anything that can be done to 

accelerate the final design review, of course, would be very advantageous, because timing is not favorable. 

On the other hand, there is carryover for the amount of funding 

in the account. And it would be possible to expend those funds in 

2009. 

The key thing right now is to be sure that we get a healthy budget for ARRB in the 2010 budget, so that if we are able to procure 

the long lead items out of the $34 million, and at the same time 

secure a shipyard and get it scheduled in the shipyard, which is 

still yet to be determined, now, we would then be able to start construction at a full scale at the beginning of 2010, and go on a 2- 

year construction schedule and have it ready for deployment in 

2012. 

And so, that seems to be a reasonable expectation at this point. 

The main thing is that we have to continue to support the vessel 

and support the budget for the vessel, and to keep it on the track 

that we are on now. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you. I will be sure Mr. Young gets 

the transcript of—gets the transcript of your remarks. 

I noticed with interest in your submitted testimony, your delivered testimony, use of a contractual arrangement with a Swedish 

icebreaker for your—is that for the Antarctic operations? 

Mr. BEMENT. It is. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. What is the shaft horsepower of the vessel? Is it 

one icebreaker, or more than one? 

Mr. BEMENT. The actual specifications for the icebreaker I believe are in my written testimony, but we can provide it for the 

record. 

But generally speaking, the weight and the shaft horsepower for 

the Oden and POLAR SEA are comparable. The main difference is 

that the POLAR SEA also has turbine power, so that when they 

back and ram, they can develop additional horsepower—of course, 

with adequate amount of fuel, it is very fuel-intensive to do that— 

to break ice. 

Now, the Oden does it a slightly different way. They use water 

spray lubrication. They bring the nose up on the ice and use the 

weight of the vessel to crush the ice. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Crush the ice, yes. 

Mr. BEMENT. And they can also move their ballast back and 

forth, so they can rock the ship in order to deal with deep ice. So, 

it is a different design. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is there a significant difference in the quality of 

ice in the Antarctic, the Baltic and the Arctic? 

Mr. BEMENT. Well, I am not an ice expert, so I could probably 

shoot myself in the foot in answering that question. But ice has so 

many different crystalline forms, that even in any one particular 

region, depending on the depth, the pressure of the ice, the temperature record, and so forth, the ice is going to be different. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In the Bay of Bothnia, I know that vessels there, 

shipping encounters ice of 20-, 30-foot thickness or greater. 

Mr. BEMENT. Yes. 

53 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Sometimes as much as 60-foot thickness. And it 

is a harder, sharper ice, seafarers tell me, than compared to the 

Antarctic ice. And the Arctic has also different characteristics. 

The Finns built the first nuclear-powered icebreaker. They had 

to give it to the Soviet Union as war reparations after World War 

II. And then they continued to build the class of vessels. And they 

also build a standard, that is non-nuclear vessel, the most powerful 

of which is the Urho, built at the Wartsila shipyards in Helsinki. 

And that had—that has—it is still in operation—65,000 shaft 

horsepower capability. And they also developed the air skin around 

the vessel to slip more readily through the ice and the ability to 

ship 400, 500 tons of water from one side to another, to roll 

through and crush, as well as break ice. 

Did you give any consideration to working with the Finns on—— 

Mr. BEMENT. Well, let me—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —icebreaking needs? 

Mr. BEMENT. Thank you for bringing up that information. It 

turns out that the Oden was built by the Finns. So, it could be a 

sister ship to the one you are describing. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh. Oh, well, very good. They are the master 

ship—icebreaker—— 

Mr. BEMENT. That is right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —icebreaking ship builders. 

Mr. BEMENT. The difference—a major difference between the 

Oden and the POLAR SEA—and the POLAR STAR, for that matter—is that the Oden can use fresh water for ballast. 

The POLAR SEA uses fuel for ballast. That fuel has to come out 

of our McMurdo stock whenever the Sea or the Star operates in 

McMurdo, so there is a million gallons. And with the price of fuel, 

even at the pump, that is $4 million. And you can use your imagination what fuel costs after you get it all the way down to 

McMurdo. 

And that is an incremental cost that we pay to the Coast Guard 

that is over and above the appropriated funds that we provide 

them for readiness to serve and for operation and maintenance. 

So, that is where the difference really comes in, in using the 

Oden versus the POLAR SEA or the POLAR STAR. 

The other big difference is that, because the Coast Guard icebreakers are military ships and have multiple missions, they have 

a much larger crew strength. Their manning is about 134 crew, officers and crew, compared with 18 on the Oden. 

And it is important to keep in mind that, as a contractor-operated vessel, these people are career icebreakers. They have served 

for years, so they are highly professional. And that is in comparison with the crew on the POLAR SEA, where the Coast Guard has 

to spend an enormous amount of time and effort to continually requalify crew, because of the turnover in the manning of the icebreaker. 

Now, there are many other differences that make the Oden a 

very good bet for the taxpayer. First of all, it has much more scientific berthing for scientists, and it also has abundant laboratory 

space and full instrumentation for oceanographic research. And 

that is a reason why it is of great interest to us as a science vessel. 

54 

So, we not only get the service of the Oden—on a fixed-price 

basis, incidentally—if anything breaks on that ship, or any maintenance has to be done, or if there are any other operating expenses 

that were not anticipated, it is all covered under the fixed price, 

under the contract. We do not have to pay that additional cost. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. What you are really saying is, you do not really 

need to have an NSF-owned icebreaker. It is probably lower cost 

and more efficient to stay with the current arrangement. 

Mr. BEMENT. The current arrangement is a good one, because we 

are only paying for the time we use. In other words, if it is only 

in use for 2 months, we only pay for 2 months of the use of the 

vessel. 

That is much better than owning a vessel for a short season 

down in the Antarctic. And that is a reason why having flexibility 

to look at various types of icebreaking providers—and in many 

cases we will have to fall back on the Coast Guard, there is no 

doubt about it, if the need arises and we cannot get other bidders. 

But when we can get other bidders, it is much better than the 

current arrangement where we have to pay for the entire year, for 

the vessel, for the maintenance, the crew costs, the operation—I 

mean, the training of the crew, the readiness to serve—when we 

are only using it for a relatively short season. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I certainly think, Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard 

needs a replacement for the POLAR SEA and the POLAR STAR. 

I recall when the POLAR SEA was launched—I had just begun my 

service on the Coast Guard Subcommittee—put out to sea, went up 

to the ice off Alaska and got stuck. 

I actually called the chairman of Wartsila Shipyards, Tankmar 

Horn, and I said, send out the Urho and rescue our Coast Guard 

icebreaker. We had a great news story. They did not want to embarrass the Coast Guard. 

But I think they need—they, the Coast Guard—need much improved capability. We certainly need better service on the Great 

Lakes. 

I think the research work done in the Antarctic is of critical importance, especially in this era of global climate change. Many people are sticking their head in the snow, thinking it is not with us. 

It is happening. And we need to know more about the forces at 

work. And your research initiatives are leading us in that direction. 

Mr. BEMENT. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I need not prolong 

this—many more questions, as you know I always have. But I 

think we could—I could suspend there. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Richardson? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to build a little bit upon what our Chairman Oberstar was just referencing, regarding the foreign flag ships. 

You know, someone taught me an old saying. They said, if you 

have to make a decision, do the old-fashioned Ben Franklin, and 

do a positive and a negative. 

And I was just a little curious of why were we supporting really 

another country’s being able to build up their fleet, and have, as 

Mr. Oberstar has shared, you know, can do it all, when we clearly 

55 

have a fleet that is not adequate? Why wouldn’t we be putting the 

money into our own fleet? 

Mr. BEMENT. Well, I am very sensitive to that point of view. And 

I do not take any issue with the question. I just do not have a very 

good answer for it. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I would like to suggest that we may want 

to consider, when I was referencing the kind of Ben Franklin pros 

and cons, the contractor idea, you know, sure, you might save a few 

bucks. 

But for me, the plus and minuses for the Coast Guard, number 

one, we have better security, because from what I understand on 

our ships, we have more people who are actually on the vessel. And 

by having the Coast Guard, they are not only doing the 

icebreaking, but they are taking care of other tasks. 

And if we were to pay for those independently, and you include 

the cost of icebreaking, it actually ends up costing us more. 

The second point is jobs—I mean, if we are actually building 

these. 

Third would be a faster response, if we have a national disaster. 

This gentleman just talked about the fact that, you know, it was 

said, help is coming. 

Well, I have got to tell you. If someone in Finland or Sweden has 

to choose between their issue and ours, and we have a national disaster, they are going to their home first. They are not coming to 

us. 

And then, the whole building and maintenance of our own fleet. 

We need to maintain some of our own independence, because God 

forbid, we do not want to be stuck with having no fleet, or a fleet 

that is not really appropriate, if we unfortunately come into a time 

of war. And maybe now we no longer have that relationship, and 

they are not willing to work with us. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to really push back that, as 

we consider—and I have been listening to the thoughts of the discussion of the hearing thus far today. It seems like there is a will 

to have these additional fleets on our end. 

But I would just like to really push the point for the reasons that 

I just gave. We need to be more self-dependent, independent ourselves, and not relying upon some other country to bail us out. 

I do not think that that is what America is about. And I do not 

think, if you had a choice, that would be probably where you would 

want to go. 

Do you have a comment on that? 

Mr. BEMENT. Well, I think, again, that is a matter of national 

policy. And the National Science Foundation is probably the last 

agency that ought to be involved in those kind of determinations. 

Our focus is to carry on frontier science and to do it in the most 

cost-effective way possible. 

And I think you rightly pointed out that the mission space for 

icebreaking is suddenly expanded. If I look at the Congressional 

Research Service report, they had five particular missions—five 

specific missions for icebreaking—and we were bullet number one. 

But there were four bullets underneath. And those are totally out 

of the scope of the National Science Foundation. 

56 

So, that is the only way I could answer your question. But again, 

I am very sympathetic to your point of view. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, not only sympathetic. We might make a 

little money, because then we could contract ourselves. That would 

be a novel idea for us. 

Mr. BEMENT. And I might point out, incidentally—— 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I am sorry? 

Mr. BEMENT. And I might point out, incidentally, that the National Science Foundation is not the only federal agency leasing 

ships from the Swedish. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Oh, I understand. 

Mr. BEMENT. The Department of Defense is leasing—they have 

leased a submarine and they are leasing a merchant vessel from 

the Swedes to help in their operations in the Middle East. 

So, you know, the military in-service sealift command is also involved in leasing vessels from other countries in the world, and—— 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Sir, I have down to 30 seconds. I did not mean 

to insinuate that you are not the only agency that is doing it. It 

is just—it is something I do not particularly happen to agree with, 

and would prefer to see us doing less of. 

Mr. Chairman, would you allow me 30 seconds to hear Mr. 

Weakley’s comments on that question? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WEAKLEY. May I? There is no question, I represent American 

sailors. I think we have a proud tradition. We have a proud tradition, not just of going to sea, but I think we build the finest ships 

in the world. I think the U.S. Merchant Marine and our shipbuilding capability won World War II. 

I would be happy to take that mission. I think the labor unions 

that I work with sitting behind me would welcome the opportunity 

to man those ships. If it is a mission that the Coast Guard cannot 

handle and it is seen as more of a private sector, we are ready to 

step up and meet that challenge. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

I am not going to hold you all any longer. 

And I was just thinking about, just listening to all of this, 

though, and I was just saying, we can do better. As a nation, we 

can do better. And we are going to try to find—figure out, by working with the Coast Guard—trying to figure out how we can increase our capability, so that when—so that we are not in the position that we are in. 

And I think a lot of the information that you all have provided 

us is just extremely valuable. And I think, basically, you have put 

the—you sounded the alarm that we have problems. 

And I think this is our watch, all of ours. And under our watch, 

I think we can either turn our heads and act like there is not a 

problem and pass it on to somebody else, or we can try to address 

it ourselves. 

And I think it is our duty and responsibility to try to do that. 

And so, we will continue to look into this. 

But I want to thank you all for your patience. I understand you 

all have busy schedules. And again, the length of the hearing was 

57 

just totally out of our control. I try to always be very, very, very 

aware and understanding of people’s schedules. Time is valuable. 

As I often say, we have one life to live. This is no dress rehearsal. 

And this is that life. And every second is valuable. 

And so, thank you very much. We will have some follow-up questions for you. And this hearing is called to—— 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I am sorry. Could I make one other point—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. —that I think was not as clear. I apologize. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I did not in any mean want to suggest that I 

would not want the Coast Guard to continue doing the work. What 

I was saying is that we could actually get—have a great fleet ourselves and so some work for Finland and Sweden and everybody 

else. So, I wanted to make sure we kept them in the driver’s seat. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No, I—and I agree with you. I guess I just 

have—I have said it many times, that this is a great country. And 

a lot of our authority has, throughout the world, has come from our 

moral standing. But it has also come from our innovation. 

And I think when we hear all of this, it is just a reminder that 

we have got to be not only innovative, but we have got to build on 

what we already know, and not get comfortable, because I think 

one of the problems is that we are depending more and more upon 

other nations, I mean, out of necessity. And I understand that. 

And one of the things that we have constantly said to the Coast 

Guard is that we want you to be able to carry out all of your missions. And we have got to get you the resources and the personnel. 

In this past budget we increased their personnel by 1,500. There 

is only, as you well know, only about 41,000 people in the Coast 

Guard, a little bit over 41,000. So, we are trying to do that. 

But again, we have got to shed light on all of these situations 

where there may be a weak link, because keep in mind, where the 

weak link is, is where the chain breaks. And so, we do not want 

any broken chains. 

With that, this hearing is called to a close. 

[Whereupon, at 6:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

58 


43754.022
59 


43754.023
60 


43754.024
61 


43754.025
62 


43754.026
63 


43754.027
64 


43754.028
65 


43754.029
66 


43754.030
67 


43754.031
68 


43754.032
69 


43754.033
70 


43754.034
71 


43754.035
72 


43754.036
73 


43754.037
74 


43754.038
75 


43754.039
76 


43754.040
77 


43754.041
78 


43754.042
79 


43754.043
80 


43754.044
81 


43754.045
82 


43754.046
83 


43754.047
84 


43754.048
85 


43754.049
86 


43754.050
87 


43754.051
88 


43754.052
89 


43754.053
90 


43754.054
91 


43754.055
92 


43754.056
93 


43754.057
94 


43754.058
95 


43754.059
96 


43754.060
97 


43754.061
98 


43754.062
99 


43754.063
100 


43754.064
101 


43754.065
102 


43754.066
103 


43754.067
104 


43754.068
105 


43754.069
106 


43754.070
107 


43754.071
108 


43754.072
109 


43754.073
110 


43754.074
111 


43754.075
112 


43754.076
113 


43754.077
114 


43754.078
115 


43754.079
116 


43754.080
117 


43754.081
118 


43754.082
119 


43754.083
120 


43754.084
121 


43754.085
122 


43754.086
123 


43754.087
124 


43754.088
125 


43754.089
126 


43754.090
127 


43754.091
128 


43754.092
129 


43754.093
130 


43754.094
131 


43754.095
132 


43754.096
133 


43754.097
134 


43754.098
135 


43754.099
136 


43754.100
137 


43754.101
138 


43754.102
139 


43754.103
140 


43754.104
141 


43754.105
142 


43754.106
143 


43754.107
144 


43754.108
145 


43754.109
146 


43754.110
147 


43754.111
148 


43754.112
149 


43754.113
150 


43754.114
151 


43754.115
152 


43754.116
153 


43754.117
154 


43754.118
155 


43754.119
156 


43754.120
157 


43754.121
158 


43754.122
159 


43754.123
160 


43754.124
161 


43754.125
162 


43754.126
163 


43754.127
164 


43754.128
165 


43754.129
166 


43754.130
167 


43754.131
168 


43754.132
169 


43754.133
170 


43754.134
171 


43754.135
172 


43754.136
173 


43754.137
174 


43754.138
175 


43754.139
176 


43754.140
177 


43754.141
178 


43754.142
179 


43754.143
180 


43754.144
181 


43754.145
182 


43754.146
183 


43754.147
184 


43754.148
185 


43754.149
186 


43754.150
187 


43754.151
188 


43754.152
189 


43754.153
190 


43754.154
191 


43754.155
192 


43754.156
193 


43754.157
194 


43754.158
195 


43754.159
196 


43754.160
197 


43754.161
198 


43754.162
199 


43754.163
200 


43754.164
201 


43754.165
202 


43754.166
203 


43754.167
204 


43754.168
205 


43754.169
206 


43754.170
207 


43754.171
208 


43754.172
209 


43754.173
210 


43754.174
211 


43754.175
212 


43754.176
213 


43754.177
214 


43754.178
215 


43754.179
216 


43754.180
217 


43754.181
218 


43754.182
219 


43754.183
220 


43754.184
221 


43754.185
222 


43754.186
223 


43754.187
224 


43754.188
225 


43754.189
226 


43754.190
227 


43754.191
228 


43754.192
229 


43754.193
230 


43754.194
231 


43754.195
232 


43754.196
233 


43754.197
234 


43754.198
235 


43754.199
236 


43754.200
237 


43754.201
238 


43754.202
239 


43754.203
240 


43754.204
241 


43754.205
242 


43754.206
243 


43754.207
244 


43754.208
245 


43754.209
246 


43754.210
247 


43754.211
248 


43754.212
249 


43754.213
250 


43754.214
251 


43754.215
252 


43754.216
253 


43754.217
254 


43754.218
255 


43754.219
256 


43754.220
257 


43754.221
258 


43754.222
259 


43754.223
260 


43754.224
261 


43754.225
262 


43754.226
263 


43754.227
264 


43754.228
265 


43754.229
266 


43754.230
267 


43754.231
268 


43754.232
269 


43754.233
270 


43754.234
271 


43754.235
272 


43754.236
273 


43754.237
274 

Æ 


43754.238