Counterplans General Stuff

Military CP

Navy CP

CP Solves – Navy overseas all icebreaker development

Perera 4/7/14 – MA in International and Public Affairs at Columbia, Politico Reporter (David, “Coast Guard authorization bill sent to Senate”) http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/story/coast-guard-authorization-bill-sent-senate/2014-04-07 //Laura T

A bill authorizing Coast Guard discretionary spending for two years at $8.7 billion annually sailed through the House of Representatives – to the chagrin of some on the House Homeland Security Committee. The House approved the reauthorization bill (H.R. 4005) by a voice vote April 1. It would cap annual Coast Guard spending on acquisition at $1.54 billion for the next and subsequent fiscal years and reduce to 6,700 from 7,200 the number of commissioned officers on the active duty promotion list. The actual amount of acquisition spending, which is controlled by lawmakers on the appropriations committees, could fall short of the caps by hundreds of millions, if recent years' enacted amounts constitute a trend. The bill went directly from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in late March to the House floor after the chairmen of the House Homeland Security and Armed Services committees waived jurisdiction over it – something that previous committee chairmen have also done for Coast Guard authorization legislation. During floor debate, House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) criticized the lack of referral to his committee, saying that its members "could inform the bill's security-related provisions in an open markup setting." He cited as an example of an unaddressed security provision a concern voiced earlier by Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) that the bill doesn't require port authorities to account for cybersecurity in the five year security plans they submit for Coast Guard review. "The House has before it a bill that does not fully take into account the statutory mission of the Department of Homeland Security component it authorizes," Thompson charged. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee from where the bill originated said he will work to include cybersecurity as an element of port facility security plans. "We need to figure out who is the best at it, who can do it," he said, suggesting that the Navy might be the best authority. The Coast Guard is a military service but forms a part of the Homeland Security Department; occasionally in its history, it's been a part of the Navy but has mostly been overseen by civilian federal departments. Among the bill's provisions is one that would authorize the Coast Guard to enter into a multiyear contract for building Offshore Patrol Cutters. The statute permitting multiyear procurement within the Homeland Security Department requires that the thing being bought have "a stable design." Chuck Hill, a close Coast Guard observer, notes that "in the case of shipbuilding, this usually means that the first ship is at least complete" and adds that by then, at least three OPCs could be under contract. The bill also would prevent the Coast Guard from dismantling Long Range Navigation – better known as LORAN – infrastructure for a year or until the departmental secretary sends written notice that the system isn't required as a backup to the satellite-based GPS system. LORAN towers that pose a hazard to human life would be exempted from the delay in the planned dismantling; one such 650 foot tower in Florida reportedly is without warning lights due to a failed electrical system.

Navy Fund and Build CP

The Navy can build and fund Icebreakers for the Coast Guard to use

Dickie 13 – Seattle Times editorial columnist (Lance, “Spend money on needed Arctic icebreakers to assert U.S. interests,” The Seattle Times, http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022405103_lancedickiecolumnicebreakers06xml.html)BC

Epic changes in the Arctic climate and landscape are seemingly unstoppable. Environmentalists concerned about what comes next should rally support for new U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers. That might sound like quirky advice, but global excitement about a coveted maritime passage reinforces the need for a vigilant U.S. presence. U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, has renewed efforts, along with Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, to point Congress toward spending money on four heavy polar icebreakers. At more than $850 million apiece, this proposal will take some patient politicking. Larsen explained in a Wednesday phone call the approach for now is to support putting money in the Pentagon budget for the Navy to use its acquisition and procurement skills to get the icebreakers built. The Navy would transfer the icebreakers to the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Larsen is intent on not only properly equipping the Coast Guard for its role, but also raising the priority and visibility of the assignment within Congress. Getting lawmakers to pay attention to the changes in the Arctic and address the new reality is a challenge well beyond Capitol Hill. Michael Byers, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, sees the same pattern. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has talked about a stronger Canadian naval presence in the Arctic, but has done little to make it happen, Byers said in a Tuesday phone interview. Canada is spending money expanding its fleet of offshore patrol ships, but they are not designed for the rigors of polar duty. Byers wonders if Harper’s skepticism about climate change explains his reluctance to move ahead in the Arctic. Canada currently chairs the Arctic Council, an association of nations — Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and the United States — that oversee policy. Six international organizations representing Arctic Indigenous People have permanent observer status. Byers gives the Obama administration credit for raising the visibility of the council. Larsen notes the Obama White House picked up on efforts started by the Bush administration. Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton elevated the importance of the council for foreign ministers by being the first senior foreign-policy official to attend a session. The U.S. will take over the council gavel in 2015. Playing against Cold War stereotype, Russia makes a point about promoting international cooperation. Byers quotes a 2010 speech by Vladimir Putin who said, “It is well known that if you stand alone, you cannot survive in the Arctic. It is very important to maintain the Arctic as a region of peace and cooperation.” Other nations watching the ice melt are as eager as the Russians to take thousands of miles off trade routes. China, Japan, South Korea, India, Italy and Singapore have observer status on the council. China has an enormous modern icebreaker of its own. Byers ticks off a compelling environmental checklist of issues to monitor: Are tankers double-hulled? What is the status of weather- and ice-forecasting capabilities and the adequacy of refuge, and search-and-rescue facilities? Security issues, including smuggling and human-trafficking, loom with increases in shipping. Byers also points to oversight of future oil and gas exploration in exclusive economic zones. U.S. interests must be articulated in the international arena, and represented in the Arctic. This country lags far behind, and suffers from, oh, let’s call it an icebreaker gap. The Coast Guard reported the icebreaker USCGC Polar Star left Seattle Tuesday for Antarctica to resupply the research station at McMurdo. “Safe journey” to the crew of 140. The Polar Star was fresh from Arctic sea trials after a three-year, $90 million overhaul at Vigor Shipyards in Seattle. The USCGC Polar Sea, a mothballed heavy icebreaker, awaits a decision on refurbishing, that Larsen estimates at $100 million. The Arctic summer ice is melting, but through the darkness from fall to spring the Arctic will be frozen solid. The U.S., and Canada, must be present and equipped to assert their national interests, and enforce maritime protocols in a fragile environment. Icebreakers are a pragmatic investment to protect the Arctic. Spend the money.

AT: Coast Guard key

Icebreakers themselves solve – the Coast Guard doesn’t need to operate them as long as they are US-owned

Jones ’06 – Ph.D, Carnegie Mellon, Director of Defense Research and Engineering for the U.S. Department of Defense 93-97, researcher and director at National Academmy of Sciences, Professor at the University of Virginia (Anita, “POLAR ICEBREAKERS IN A CHANGING WORLD: AN ASSESSMENT OF U.S. NEEDS”, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/polar_icebreakers_final.pdf, Congressional Testimony) //J.N.E


Renewal of the Nation’s Polar Ice - breaking Fleet Based on the current and future needs for icebreaking capabilities, the Committee concludes that the nation continues to require a polar ice - breaking fleet that includes a minimum of three multi-mission ships and one single-mission ship. The Committee finds that although the demand for icebreaking capability is predicted to increase, a fleet of three multi-mission and one single-mis - sion icebreakers can meet the nation’s future polar icebreaking needs through the application of the latest technology, creative crewing models, wise management of ice conditions, and more efficient use of the icebreaker fleet and other assets. The na - tion should immediately begin to program, design, and construct two new polar icebreakers to replace the POLAR STAR and POLAR SEA. Building only one new polar class icebreaker is insufficient for several reasons. First, a single ship cannot be in more than one location at one time. No matter how technologically advanced or efficiently operated, a single polar icebreaker can operate in the polar regions for only a portion of any year. An icebreaker requires regular maintenance and technical support from shipyards and industrial facilities, regular reprovisioning, and periodic crew change- outs. A single icebreaker, therefore, could not meet any reasonable standard of active and influential presence, and reliable, at-will access throughout the polar regions. A second consideration is the potential risk of failure in the harsh conditions of polar operations. Despite their intrinsic robust - ness, damage and system failure are always a risk and the U.S. fleet must have enough depth to provide back-up assistance. Having only a single icebreak - er would necessarily require the ship to accept a more conservative operating profile, avoiding more challenging ice conditions because reliable assis - tance would not be available. A second capable icebreaker, either operating elsewhere or in home - port, would provide assured back-up assistance and allow for more robust operations by the other ship. From a strategic, longer-term perspective, two new polar class icebreakers will far better position the nation for the increasing challenges emerging in both polar regions. A second new ship would al - low the U. S. Coast Guard to re-establish an active patrol presence in U.S. waters north of Alaska to meet statutory responsibilities that will inevitably derive from increased human activity, economic development, and environmental change. It would allow response to emergencies such as search and rescue cases, pollution incidents, and assistance to ships threatened with grounding or damage by ice. Moreover, a second new ship will leverage the possibilities for simultaneous operations in widely disparate geographic areas (such as concurrent op - erations in the Arctic and Antarctic), provide more flexibility for conducting Antarctic logistics, allow safer multiple-ship operations in the most demand - ing ice conditions, and increase opportunities for international expeditions. Finally, an up-front deci - sion to build two new polar icebreakers will allow economies in the design and construction process, and provide a predictable cost reduction for the second ship. For the purposes of the single mission of resup - plying McMurdo Station, the icebreakers do not nec - essarily need to be operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, but to best meet mission assurance requirements they should be U.S. flagged, U.S. owned, and U.S. oper - ated. While that ship might be leased commercially through a long-term lease/build arrangement, from a total fleet perspective it may be more cost-effective if science mission users only pay incremental costs and if the U.S. Coast Guard provides McMurdo resup - ply support from the multi-mission icebreaker fleet. Lease arrangements do not assure that the United States could assert its foreign policy will at times and places of its choosing. The Committee concludes that the research support mission and other U.S. Coast Guard missions can be, in many cases, compatibly performed with a single ship. The Committee believes that it is ad - vantageous to configure the U.S. Coast Guard ships with appropriate science facilities as well as for the U.S. Coast Guard’s more general missions. In the long run, constituting the nation’s icebreaking fleet as a single fleet of complementary ships will yield more capability and should be more cost-effective than if each agency independently acquires icebreak - ing ships. This approach is in line with the long held belief that the nation can gain the greatest economy from the sharing of assets across agencies and programs when appropriate and feasible and those users should share in the incremental increase in cost associated with directed usage of national assets. Transition to a New Fleet Given the length of time needed to program, budget, design, construction, and test a new ship, it is expected that the new polar icebreakers will not enter service for another 8 to 10 years. During this time the nation needs a transition strategy to assure a minimum level of icebreaker capability. A continuing maintenance and repair program for the POLAR SEA, building on the work recently completed, is needed to keep it mission capable until at least the first new polar ship enters service. The cost to keep the POLAR SEA mission capable will be much less than a full service life extension program. The resulting capability, an upgraded POLAR SEA together with a fully capable HEALY, is less than the nation needs, but a cost-effective strategy should emphasize new construction rather than maintenance of aging ships. The Committee also advises that the POLAR STAR continue to be kept in caretaker status, indefinitely moored at the U.S. Coast Guard pier. If the POLAR SEA has catastrophic problems, the POLAR STAR could be reactivated and brought back into service. The nation may need to charter supplemental ship services during the transition to new ships. This transition strategy carries risk, but due to the long lead-time for new ships there are no alternatives. Conclusions and Recommendations The Committee finds that both operations and maintenance of the polar icebreaker fleet have been underfunded for many years, and the capabilities of the nation’s icebreaking fleet have diminished substantially. Deferred long-term maintenance and failure to execute a plan for replacement or refurbishment of the nation’s icebreaking ships have placed national interests in the polar regions at risk. The nation needs the capability to operate in both polar regions reliably and at will. Specifically , the Committee recommends: • The United States should continue to project an active and influential presence in the Arctic to support its interests. This requires U.S. government polar icebreaking capability to assure year-round access throughout the region.