Counterplans General Stuff

Disads

Politics

Political capital link

Plan’s a huge fight

Klotz, 12 – senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (Frank, “Trouble at the Ends of the Earth” National Interest, 10/8, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/trouble-the-ends-the-earth-7561)//DH

Needless to say, the U.S. Antarctic program would be in dire straits if the NSF were unable to arrange for icebreaking services with overseas providers. Yet, efforts to restore an American heavy-icebreaker capability have been beset by bureaucratic and congressional inaction and years of chronic underfunding.

This year, the Obama administration finally called for construction of a new American heavy icebreaker in its budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. Specifically, it requested $8 million to begin designing the new vessel and projected a total of $860 million would be spent during the first five years of the program. Even if work started right away, it would still take a decade to actually build and deliver an operational icebreaker—by which time the refurbished Polar Star would be retired, or close to it.

While support for the U.S. interests in Antarctica is clearly important, an equally if not more compelling rationale for building a new icebreaker may actually lie at the other end of the Earth. Climate changes and shrinking ice coverage during the summer months have opened up new possibilities for commercial shipping and resource exploration in the Arctic. This in turn has heightened concerns about protecting national interests in the higher latitudes. Interestingly, the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard justified a new American heavy icebreaker in recent congressional testimony solely in terms of maintaining “a surface presence in the Arctic well into the future.”

Whatever case is made, the ultimate fate of a new heavy icebreaker is by no means certain. Like many new spending proposals, it has encountered the perfect storm of the current budget-making chaos on Capitol Hill—including the looming threat of sequestration—and the need to compete with other coast-guard priorities as the service seeks to recapitalize ageing cutters and other boats critical to its wide-ranging mission.

Plan costs political capital

Smith, 14- investment columnist for The Motley Fool, an investment website that analyzes political trends for investors (Rick, The Motley Fool, “As Global Warming Melts the Arctic, Who Will Build America's New Navy?” 1/18, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/18/as-global-warming-melts-the-arctic-who-will-build.aspx)//DH

The melting of the polar ice caps presents the U.S. Navy with a crisis. But if the experts' numbers are accurate, there's upward of $16 billion in potential contract revenue to be made -- and a significant opportunity for U.S. defense contractors to help resolve this crisis.If contracts are issued for a fleet of 10 new icebreakers, Lockheed would be the logical company to turn to for construction. Similarly, shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls (NYSE: HII ) owns the shipyard that put USCGC Healy in the water, and likewise stands in good position to win contracts.

Huntington is also, along with General Dynamics (NYSE: GD ) , one of the nation's two builders of nuclear-powered submarines -- which as you can see up above, are perfectly capable of projecting power all the way up to the North Pole itself. (In fact, Huntington built the USS Hampton, pictured at the beginning of this article.)

Meanwhile, the company that spun off Huntington Ingalls three years ago, Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC ) , has already begun winning contracts to upgrade the integrated bridge systems, navigation systems, and software on both of America's remaining icebreakers. If efforts get under way to begin retrofitting more than two dozen warships for polar duty, expect Northrop Grumman to share in the revenue from this work.

Is all of this really necessary?

In an era of constrained defense spending, convincing Congress to fund additional ships for the Navy and Coast Guard to conduct Arctic missions may be a hard sell -- so none of this revenue is assured. But this mission is quite simply essential to the national interest.

Past pushes failed

Dickie ’11 – Seattle times editorial columnist (Lance, “The Coast Guard needs new icebreakers to protect U.S. interests in the Arctic”, December 8^th, http://seattletimes.com/html/editorialsopinion/2016970405_lance09.html) //J.N.E

Dramatic climate change in the Arctic is rapidly diminishing the polar ice cover, exposing serious environmental, economic and security issues across the top of the world.

Ecological upheaval is producing a long coveted Northwest Passage for shipping, with all its opportunities and complications.

U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, is working to focus congressional attention on giving the U.S. Coast Guard the ability to protect America's interests. As the ranking member of the House Transportation subcommittee on the Coast Guard, and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, he is well positioned to do so.

Icebreakers are the key to "assured access to ice-covered seas independent of ice conditions." Those words, from a 2007 National Research Council report, are reinforced by Coast Guard studies, including "The High Latitude Region Mission Analysis," and a comprehensive look at icebreaker issues and options published in November by the Congressional Research Service.

All conclude the Coast Guard lacks the icebreaker capacity to represent U.S. interests in coming years. At least two new ships are needed. In the face of such clarity, the political jumble in Congress is a bit of a puzzle. Just to be clear:

"Changing conditions in the Arctic are driving domestic and international discussions and debate on boundary claims and freedom of navigation, natural resources, scientific research, climate, homeland security, and national defense," the Coast Guard reported to Congress in 2008.

Nonetheless, the Coast Guard chose to spend its capital budget on National Security Cutters, a smaller, nimble ship for coastal security operations. Money for icebreakers went into a $61 million rehab of the Polar Star, being overhauled at Vigor Shipyards in Seattle. A second, also aged heavy-duty icebreaker, the Polar Sea, has an unknown fate.

That leaves the Coast Guard with the 12-year-old Healy, adequate for scientific research but not hefty enough for the thickest ice in the depth of winter.

House Republicans want to decommission the Polar Sea and Polar Star and lease icebreakers for the Coast Guard. Nevermind none are available. Leasing supplemental equipment — aircraft — is one thing. Owning, operating and maintaining resources fundamental to a mission is basic.

The Coast Guard said it needs three heavy-duty icebreakers and three medium-duty icebreakers. The cost for one is put at $895 million, with volume discounts.

Get started. These monster icebreakers take years to build, but have an operating life of several decades. If the Chinese will not loan us the cash, spread the cost among the Department of Defense, and other federal clients. Do not lay it all off on the Coast Guard.

Arctic conditions, and duties in Antarctica, demand the capacity to navigate year round. More shipping, ecotourism, resource extraction and transport, and fights over sovereignty require protection of basic U.S. interests very close to home.

Grab funds from Iraq and Afghanistan contingencies. Close U.S. bases in Germany. Now it's an icebreaker gap, not the Fulda Gap. Get real about the gravy in defense contracts, including the leasing of icebreakers.

Once again, spread costs and be honest about our thin capabilities and options in U.S. polar operations. Spend the money; this is like arguing about needing a fire truck.

Larsen's subcommittee recently heard temporary options from an executive with Vigor Shipping who estimated the Polar Sea could be operational with engine work for $11 million. A retired commander of the Polar Sea told the same Dec. 1 hearing the icebreaker was otherwise in decent shape.

The Navy has new combat ships designed to work close to shore around the world. Give the Coast Guard the capacity to serve and protect in all U.S. territorial waters.

Icebreaker funding is empirically contentious despite past precedent – other priorities swamp

Perera ’12 – executive editor of the FierceMarkets Government Group, which includes FierceGovernment, FierceGovernmentIT, FierceHomelandSecurity, and FierceMobileGovernment. (David, “Coast Guard faces icebreaker fudning challenges”, April 15^th, http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/story/coast-guard-faces-icebreaker-funding-challenges/2012-04-15) //J.N.E

Multi-agency funding for a new Coast Guard heavy icebreaker could be problematic despite past precedent, according to information in a Congressional Research Service report.

In an April 6 report (.pdf) posted online by Secrecy News, the CRS notes that Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Rapp has expressed a belief that other agencies besides his should help pay for a new heavy icebreaker.

"The National Science Foundation needs it, the Department of Defense from time to time needs it. Yes, the Coast Guard needs it. But this is something that really begs for an across-government response, and I would say sharing as well," Papp told a March 6 hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee on homeland security.

The Coast Guard currently has only one medium polar icebreaker in service, the USCGC Healy, which entered service in 2000. Its two heavy icebreakers, both commissioned in the late 1970s, are out of service with one of them slated for decommissioning later this fiscal year. The other, the USCGC Polar Star, is undergoing refurbishment with a plan for it to resume operations during 2013.

The Coast Guard's fiscal 2013 budget request includes $8 million to initiate survey and design activities for a new heavy icebreaker and calls on Congress to appropriate an additional $852 million for icebreaker acquisition through fiscal 2017.

The last icebreaker to be commissioned by the Coast Guard--the Healy--was built with $329 million from the Navy's shipbuilding and conversion account. Funding a new heavy icebreakers through the Navy "could permit the funding of new icebreakers while putting less pressure on other parts of the Coast Guard's budget," the CRS report says.

However, the Defense Department views the Arctic region as peripheral to national security interests for at least the next decade while the Coast Guard is already confronting now the fact of increased human activity in the area as global warming makes it more accessible. The DoD also faces its own budget pressures, as well.

Another possibility, the CRS report notes, would be to tap NSF funding, although a Coast Guard-funded study on icebreaker recapitalization concluded that option would be unlikely, since (according to a GAO summary [.pdf]) "it would have significant adverse impacts on NSF operations and that the capability needed for Coast Guard requirements would exceed that needed by the NSF."

The NSF has already looked elsewhere for icebreaker support, the CRS report says. The agency has found it cheaper to charter Russian or Swedish contractor-operated icebreaker to annually clear a path to McMurdo Station in the Antarctic, for example. (In July 2011, the Swedish government canceled the NSF icebreaker contract, citing a need for its icebreaker closer to home.)

Coast Guard officials have repeatedly stressed the fact that the service's typical annual capital expenditure budget won't support full recapitalization of the Untied State's icebreaker fleet. The Coast Guard needs at least three heavy and three medium icebreakers to fulfill its statutory requirements in polar regions, concluded a study on Coast Guard high latitude missions commissioned by the service.

The Coast Guard also may have forsaken plans to purchase two additional National Security Cutters in its fiscal 2013 budget proposal in order to fund the icebreaker. Without those two NSCs, Papp has said, the service may have to cut back operations including anti-drug smuggling activities in the Pacific and Caribbean and actions against illegal high seas drift net fishing boats.

Icebreaker funding is unpopular – current ships are perceived as sufficient

Ewing ’11 - POLITICO Pro's senior defense reporter, former managing editor for news of Military.com, edited the defense policy blog DoDBuzz.com and covered the U.S. Navy for the Military Times newspapers (Philip, “White House: We must keep our icebreakers”, November 4th, www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/04/white-house-we-must-keep-our-icebreakers/) *gender modified //J.N.E

That same day, this year’s Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act was referred to the full House, prompting this message from the Office of Management and Budget: The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2838 because it includes a provision that would require the Coast Guard to decommission the icebreaker USCGC POLAR STAR. The Administration has requested, and Congress has appropriated, funds to reactivate the USCGC POLAR STAR by December 2012 and extend that vessel’s service life for seven to 10 years. This effort will stabilize the United States’ existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking capability requirements are finalized. By directing the Commandant to decommission the USCGC POLAR STAR within three years, the bill would effectively reduce the vessel’s service life to two years and create a significant gap in the Nation’s icebreaking capacity. The Administration supports Title II (Coast Guard and Servicemember Parity), which would promote parity between the Coast Guard and the other branches of the armed forces. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to improve H.R. 2838 as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Because of the nature of the federal bureaucracy, the Coast Guard and its needs don’t enjoy the mother-hen protections of the Armed Services Committees, now in see-no-evil overdrive mode trying to protect the DoD budget. Instead, as they have for years, Transportation Committee lawmakers are looking at the bottom line and saying, well, it’s gonna cost a lot to keep the old girl ship in service, so off she it goes.

Although all the fashionable D.C. think-tanks and white-paperists love to talk about the growing importance of the melting Arctic, the discussions over the past few years have been mostly disconnected from the reality of America’s ability to operate at the top of the world. The Coast Guard has three Arctic-capable ships: The Polar Star, its sibling Polar Sea and an ice-strengthened research ship, the Healy. The Polars are purpose-built, heavy-duty icebreakers. They’re remarkable ships; they were designed with complex internal water tanks, for example, that enable them to ride up on heavy ice and rock themselves back and forth to crush it, clearing a path for other ships.

But they’re decades old and expensive to operate, and because the Coast Guard has much less throw weight than the DoD services, it got into a bind a few years ago: One of the polar rollers’ main missions was to break channels for resupply ships headed to the U.S. Antarctic research center at McMurdo Station. So the National Science Foundation paid for the icebreakers’ missions, even though they were owned and crewed by the Coast Guard. When Polar Sea and Polar Star got too expensive and NSF realized it was cheaper to charter a private icebreaker, it stopped backing the Coasties’ ships. That lack of steady funding, along with the ships’ age and condition, has put them into a slow tailspin, kept them mostly tied up in Seattle and now in Congress’ crosshairs.

(The Healy is a comparatively new and highly capable ship, but it was built for science, not the kind of heavy navigational icebreaking as the Polars.)

The Coast Guard has been caught in this vortex for years — maybe the polar rollers will go away, maybe they’ll be upgraded — and the Obama administration’s caution is just the latest delay. This was one of the things former Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen always said required a “national discussion,” because the U.S. needed to determine what exactly it was willing to do, defend and concede up in the Arctic. But as you see from OMB’s message, the Obama administration’s desire to add 10 years of life to the Polar Star is only another stopgap “until long-term icebreaking capability requirements are finalized.”

Translation: We consider this one of those nice things but not nice enough to actually deal with — and, most importantly, to fund. So file the polar icebreakers along with the Navy’s submarine tenders and amphibious command ships: Old vessels that perform critical missions, but which probably will remain low priorities in Austerity America.

Arctic interaction is unpopular

Bergh ’12 – Stockholm International Peace Research Institute with SIPRI Armed Conflict and Conflict Management Program, master’s degree in social sciences from uppsala (Kristofer, “The Arctic Policies of Canada and the United States: Domestic Motives and International Context”, July 2012, SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security, No. 2012/1) //J.N.E

Much of the United States’ ambition in the Arctic is hampered by its inability to ratify the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).a The USA played an integral part in the negotiation of UNCLOS and, although an agreement on implementation that was acceptable to the US negotiators was reached in 1994, the US Senate has since failed to ratify the convention.b While the USA did not sign the agreement at the time of its negotiation because of the Department of the Interior’s strong feelings on seabed mining rights, it managed to omit the controversial deep-sea mining clause during negotiations in 1994. As the Arctic opens up and the USA begins to look north, more attention is given to the treaty and the stipulations under it that may allow the USA to expand its maritime territory along its extended continental shelf. Today, nearly all US maritime stakeholders, including the US Navy, the US Coast Guard and industry, as well as the administration, support ratification of UNCLOS. The US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee also approves of the ratification of UNCLOS, having twice sent it to the full Senate, where the vote was blocked. Meanwhile, a handful of Republican senators oppose the convention on the grounds that it undermines US sovereignty, and they may seek to prevent the motion to ratify UNCLOS from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. Their opposition to the convention is, however, likely to be based on an ideo- logical desire to damage the current administration at any cost, rather than real concern over security or sovereignty. Even though the two-thirds majority that is needed in the Senate is likely to exist, the political costs associated with pursuing ratification are high for the already weakened administration of President Barack Obama. The ratification process for the 2010 Russian–US New START treaty proved that even a motion with broad bipartisan support can face difficulties in the current US political environment.c In May 2012, Senator John Kerry made a new push for the convention with strong support from the secretaries of State and Defense and the army chief of staff. Kerry plans to hold a series of senate hearings and hopes for a vote in the US Senate following the presidential elections in 2012. In order to achieve ratification, Democrats must emphasize the existing biparti san support for the convention and depoliticize the issue. Republicans, for their part, must show statesmanship and responsibility, even at the cost of criticism from more conservative elements of their party.

Republicans don’t want to fund the plan

Ahlers ’11 - CNN reporter (Mike, “Polar icebreaker dispute ties up Coast Guard appropriations”, November 3rd, http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/politics/congress-polar-icebreakers/index.html) //J.N.E
With the nation's only two heavy-duty polar icebreakers broken and out of service, the Obama administration and congressional Republicans are clashing on how best to put the U.S. Coast Guard back into the ice-busting business.

House Republicans, who say they want to force the administration's hand, are pushing a Coast Guard authorization bill that would decommission the icebreaker Polar Star, which is now being repaired, in just three years, saying that keeping the 35-year-old ship afloat is "throwing good money after bad."

The bill requires the administration to come up with a comprehensive plan to replace the aging icebreaker fleet.

On Thursday, the administration responded by announcing it is opposing the bill, citing the icebreaker issue.

Decommissioning the Polar Star would "create a significant gap in the nation's icebreaking capacity," the administration said. The ship is needed until long-term plans can be developed, it said.

The icebreaker issue is one that has been decades in the making, and has gained urgency with the thawing of ice in the Arctic Circle.

Diminishing ice, widely believed to be caused by global warming, may actually increase the need for icebreakers, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service. The opening of waterways could lead to expanded commercial, cruise and military ship operations, and increase exploration for oil and other resources, the report says.

The Coast Guard uses icebreakers to defend U.S. sovereignty and interests, monitor sea traffic, launch search and rescue missions, conduct fisheries and law enforcement operations, and support scientific research, including resupplying McMurdo Station in Antarctica, a mission that is now contracted to Russian and Swedish icebreakers.

Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard has only three Polar icebreakers -- the Polar Star and its sister ship the Polar Sea, and the newer but less robust medium polar icebreaker Healy. In addition, the National Science Foundation leases a smaller ship, Nathaniel B. Palmer, for research in the Antarctic.

The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Polar Sea has also exceeded its 30-year design life.

Both the Polar Star and Polar Sea have already exceeded their 30-year design life, and both have been removed from service because of breakdowns. The Polar Star was laid up in 2006, and the Polar Sea suffered unexpected engine problems in June 2010, and it has been out of service ever since.

Since mid-2010, the United States has had no heavy-duty icebreaker. Russia, which has a much larger Arctic border, has a fleet of about 20 icebreakers, including seven nuclear-powered ones.

The Coast Guard says it needs at least three heavy and three medium polar icebreakers to fulfill its statutory missions, but would require even more ships if the Coast Guard is to comply with a Naval Operations Concept issued in 2010 requiring a presence in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

The Coast Guard also has a fleet of icebreakers in the Great Lakes that keep shipping lanes open there.

The Congressional Research Service said one potential concern for Congress is the absence of a plan for replacing the Polar Star upon completion of its seven- to 10-year life after it returns to service in late 2012.

That is why Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-New Jersey, included the provision to decommission the Polar Star, said spokesman Jason Galanes. "We absolutely support the Arctic icebreaker mission," Galanes said. "We're forcing this decision rather then allowing the administration to kick the can down the road."

In a statement, the Office of Management and Budget said the administration "strongly opposes" the provision, and that the repairs to the Polar Star "will stabilize the United States' existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking capability requirements are finalized."

Regardless of the outcome of the dispute, a gap in icebreaking capabilities is almost certain, according to the CRS report. Following any decision to design and build new icebreakers, the first replacement polar icebreaker might enter service in eight to 10 years, the report says.

Icebreaker proposals breed legislative battles

Song ’11 – staff writer for Seattle Times (Kyung M., “2 parties’ icebreaker plans on collision course” November 8^th, http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2016713336_icebreaker08m.html) *modified for ableist language //J.N.E

For a pair of battered ships that in recent years have mostly sat docked in Seattle, the Coast Guard's heavy-duty icebreakers are facing roiling waters in Congress.

The Coast Guard wants to mothball the hobbled Polar Sea and scavenge the 33-year-old vessel for parts for its sister ship, the Polar Star.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., opposes the move. Last week, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed a two-year Coast Guard authorization bill that included an amendment co-sponsored by Cantwell barring the service from decommissioning the Polar Sea.

But over in the House, Republicans are pushing for the exact opposite: They want the Coast Guard to permanently mothball the Polar Sea in six months, and to decommission the Polar Star — now undergoing a $57 million overhaul near West Seattle — in three years. That measure passed a House committee in September and was scheduled for consideration by the full House on Friday before being postponed.

And on Thursday, the White House issued a statement that it "strongly opposes" the House version of the reauthorization bill on grounds that it would prematurely yank the Polar Star from service and "create a significant gap in the nation's icebreaking capability."

The legislative tussle is playing out as warming climates are opening up frozen regions to increased exploration just as the nation's two biggest icebreakers are past their original life spans. Experts say the thinning ice will increase demand for icebreakers as more people flock to the hazardous polar environs.

House Republicans are using the threat of decommissioning in an effort to push the Coast Guard and the administration to articulate its Arctic mission and just how large an icebreaker fleet is needed. Out of the Coast Guard's three general-purpose icebreakers, all based in Seattle, only the medium-duty Healy is currently operating.

The 399-foot Polar Sea was refurbished in 2006, only to be crippled debilitated by engine failure last year. The rehabbed Polar Star, the Polar Sea's twin, is slated to return to service in 2013 with hopes of squeezing an additional seven to 10 years of use out of it.

"These icebreakers have not been in regular service since 2006, but we have been spending tens of millions of dollars every year just to keep them tied to the dock," said Justin Harclerode, Republican spokesman for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Just last month, Congress received an independent analysis of whether the Coast Guard should build new icebreakers or keep going with its two aged vessels. The report has not been made public.

Rep. Rick Larsen, of Lake Stevens, the top Democrat on the House transportation panel's Coast Guard subcommittee, said it would be unwise to order the two icebreakers decommissioned before concluding a definitive study about how the United States can best maintain economic and scientific presence in the polar regions. Larsen has scheduled a hearing on Dec. 1 titled "Protecting U.S. Sovereignty: Coast Guard Operations in the Arctic."

Earlier, Larsen withdrew an amendment to block the decommissioning provision after Republicans agreed to address his concerns before the bill went up for a floor vote. But Larsen said he "couldn't convince the Republican majority" to drop the language.

The full House is expected to consider the bill after it returns from recess next week. Passage likely will put it on collision course with the Senate's Coast Guard reauthorization bill.

Larsen said he will work hard to "see the Senate version prevail."

Unpopular – no one sees the benefits

Abrams ’11 – The Associated Press (Jim, “Congress, White House differ on CG icebreakers”, November 4^th, http://www.navytimes.com/article/20111104/NEWS01/111040305/Congress-White-House-differ-CG-icebreakers) //J.N.E

WASHINGTON — The country's only two heavy-duty icebreaker ships are old and broken, and Congress and the White House are at odds over how to respond as the melting of polar ice increases the economic and security stakes in the Arctic region.

The House on Friday was working on a Coast Guard spending bill that would decommission Polar Star, slated to be the last somewhat seaworthy icebreaker after its sister ship, Polar Sea, goes out of service in the near future.

The White House, in a statement issued Thursday, said it "strongly opposes" the legislation because decommissioning Polar Star would "create a significant gap in the nation's icebreaking capacity."

In the Senate, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., is trying to block the decommissioning of either ship with a provision she added to a Coast Guard bill. The ships are based in the Seattle area and support hundreds of jobs there.

"Our nation needs icebreakers," she said at the committee meeting. "With Russia moving many troops to the Arctic and Chinese investors buying parts of Greenland, this is also a national security issue."

There's little disagreement on the need for a U.S. presence in the Arctic. The Congressional Research Service, in a report last year, said the shrinking of the icecap will result in increased commercial and military ship activity, and greater exploration for oil and other resources.

That calls into demand the functions of icebreakers: defending U.S. sovereignty and economic interests, monitoring sea traffic, law enforcement, and conducting search and rescue operations and scientific research.

"We desperately need the Coast Guard and the administration to do what we have asked them to do really now for more than 10 years — define what our mission is in the Arctic," said Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Coast Guard subcommittee.

He said it costs tens of millions of dollars a year to keep the two vessels tied up at the dock, and he hopes the House move to take them out of service will push the administration into deciding how large a fleet is needed in the future.

The lone Alaska congressmen, Republican Don Young, opposes decommissioning icebreakers and wants to increase the number of vessels in any way possible, spokesman Luke Miller said. Young has introduced a bill that would authorize the Coast Guard to enter into long-term lease agreements for two new icebreakers.

The icebreakers are supposed to have a 30-year service life. Polar Star, commissioned in 1976, is docked in Seattle, in caretaker status since 2006. Polar Sea, commissioned in 1978, suffered an engine breakdown last year and has been out of service. The Coast Guard also has a third, medium-duty icebreaker, Healy, that is used mainly for scientific research.

The White House said Congress has previously approved funds to reactivate Polar Star by the end of next year, extending the life of the ship for seven to 10 years. That, it said, "will stabilize the United States' existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking capability requirements are finalized."

Cantwell cited estimates that the Coast Guard needs a minimum of six heavy-duty icebreakers and four medium-duty icebreakers to meet Coast Guard and Navy mission requirements.

That still wouldn't match Russia. The Congressional Research Service said last year that one estimate put the Russian fleet at 25, including six active heavy icebreakers. Finland and Sweden each had seven icebreakers, and Canada six, it said.

The CRS also put the cost of extending the service life of the existing ships for 25 years at about $400 million a ship, in 2008 dollars. It said that replacement ships might cost $800 million to $925 million.

Cantwell said refurbishing a vessel would take five years and employ more than 300 workers, while rebuilding it could take eight years and employ more than 1,000 workers.