[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10705-10707]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT ACT

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1747) to authorize appropriations for the design, 
acquisition, and construction of a combined buoy tender-icebreaker to 
replace icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1747

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Great Lakes Icebreaker 
     Replacement Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) five of the Coast Guard's Great Lakes icebreakers are 
     nearing the end of their useful lives;
       (2) two other Coast Guard icebreaking assets have 
     experienced difficulty in heavy ice conditions;
       (3) during the spring of 2008, United States-flag vessels 
     operating on the Great Lakes suffered more than $1,300,000 in 
     damages to their hulls because the Coast Guard did not have 
     enough assets available to keep Great Lakes shipping lanes 
     open;
       (4) during the 2006-2007 ice season, shipments of iron ore, 
     coal, and limestone on the Great Lakes exceeded 20,000,000 
     tons;
       (5) during the 2006-2007 ice season, the transportation of 
     10,400,000 tons of iron ore on the Great Lakes helped support 
     100,000 jobs at steel mills and 300,000 jobs at supplier 
     industries by keeping those industries working during the 
     winter season; and
       (6) the 6,400,000 tons of coal shipped on the Great Lakes 
     during the 2006-2007 ice season kept the Great Lakes region 
     supplied with electricity.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated $153,000,000 for 
     necessary expenses of the

[[Page 10706]]

     Coast Guard for the design, acquisition, and construction of 
     a combined buoy tender-icebreaker to replace icebreaking 
     capacity on the Great Lakes, to remain available until 
     expended.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1747.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Despite all of the concern about global climate change and climate 
warming and of the melting of the glaciers--and the last great glacier 
did melt and retreat some 10,000 years ago--every November, it makes a 
comeback in the northern tier States, especially on the Great Lakes. As 
the cold winds sweep down from the Arctic regions across Canada and as 
the ice gathers on the shores and extends across, still occasionally, 
although it has been several years, Lake Superior does freeze 
completely over.
  When it doesn't freeze completely over, an ice sheet extends a long 
distance out from the shoreline, clogging the navigation channels, 
making transit difficult on the Sault Sainte Marie, on the St. Mary's 
River and down into the lower lakes where, from mid-November through 
mid-January and then again in early spring, our Great Lakes' bulk 
carriers must make that transit to deliver iron ore to the steel mills 
in the lower lake ports and coal from the Potter River Basin in 
Wyoming-Montana that comes by unit train to the ports of Duluth and 
Superior; and they must transit that coal to lower lake coal 
facilities. The lowest cost, most energy-efficient and most 
environmentally friendly means of moving bulk commodities are by 
waterway, and this great waterway of the Great Lakes is absolutely 
critical.
  During the 2006-2007 winter season, 10.5 million tons of iron ore 
moved during the winter shipping season. That ore supports 100,000 jobs 
at lower lake steel mills, 300,000 jobs at associated industries. In 
the same winter months, some 6.5 million tons of coal were shipped on 
the Great Lakes to supply the power plants in lower lake communities 
with their coal facilities, but we don't have enough icebreaking 
capacity to keep those channels open, to keep the ports open, to escort 
vessels through the heavy ice era in the fall and in the early spring.
  The Coast Guard, which does its very best with the Mackinaw and with 
some smaller harbor icebreakers, has made a valiant effort, but the 
shippers on the Great Lakes, in particular in this past season, said 
they have frequently had a laker moving out but impeded by ice. The 
Mackinaw could break a channel, but then it would be on call in the 
lower lake ports, and the smaller harbor icebreakers couldn't keep the 
channel open for those 60,000-ton vessels to move iron ore or aggregate 
or sand and gravel or limestone as needed in the iron ore production 
process.
  So the clear call from Great Lakes' port and shipping and shipper 
interests has been add an icebreaker, a real companion to the Mackinaw. 
The previous Mackinaw icebreaker was built in 1940 and served 60 years 
and, finally, was gracefully retired; but its replacement simply can't 
be in two places at once. If we're going to keep our economy moving and 
our economy functioning effectively, we need that icebreaking 
capability in the upper lakes and in the lower lakes, often at the same 
time on the same days. So with two icebreakers, our Great Lakes economy 
will be able to function effectively.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, while my home State of Texas doesn't have near the 
opportunities for icebreaking that the chairman's home State of 
Minnesota has, like him, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1747 and this 
body's continued efforts to enhance the Coast Guard's operational 
capabilities in the Great Lakes and nationwide.
  A new Coast Guard icebreaker of the Great Lakes would significantly 
enhance the safety and efficiency of maritime traffic in the region. 
The Coast Guard is aware of the need for further capabilities in the 
Great Lakes.
  Earlier this winter, the Coast Guard temporarily stationed an ice-
strengthened buoy tender in the Great Lakes for the end of the 
icebreaking season. This move, while greatly appreciated, is not a 
sustainable solution. H.R. 1747, the Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement 
Act, will address future icebreaking needs by providing a fully 
capable, multimission icebreaker to the Great Lakes. In addition to its 
role as an icebreaker, the new vessel will be equipped with 
capabilities to support all of the Coast Guard's many missions, which 
will greatly enhance the service's ability to carry out search and 
rescue, fishery enforcement, and maritime homeland security missions 
throughout the year.
  I hope this bill is only the beginning of Congress' efforts to 
enhance the Coast Guard's icebreaking capability. As many Members know, 
the Coast Guard's seagoing polar icebreakers are in dire need of 
rehabilitation or of outright replacement. I would hope that we could 
address this issue through the Coast Guard reauthorization bill later 
this year.
  Historically, polar regions have been closed off to vessel traffic 
for a significant amount of time. However, in recent years, we have 
seen an increase in the amount of open time and water and a 
corresponding interest in the commercial use of these waters. We have 
extensive scientific, national security, homeland security, and 
economic interests in the Arctic; but we do not have the vessels 
necessary to project a continued maritime presence in these regions. We 
must come up with a solution to address this gap to protect our 
national interests as other Arctic nations are racing forward to 
explore and stake claim to resources in the polar regions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to the gentleman from 
Texas for his strong support and for his thoughtful statement about the 
Great Lakes icebreaker. I want to assure the gentleman, Madam Speaker, 
that we'll be happy to assure that the only ice you ever have to break 
in the Texas ports will be at cocktail hour, because you don't want to 
have to deal with the ice as we see it and as we experience it in the 
Great Lakes where I grew up and lived most of my life.

                              {time}  1530

  But I know the needs for the Houston ship channel, which I strongly 
supported. It's going to need more dredging, more improvement, as the 
Panama Canal, the second Panama Canal, is completed in the next few 
years and those 1,000-foot carriers carrying 12- to 13,000 containers 
make their way through Panama and into the gulf ports--all the ports in 
Texas and Louisiana and Alabama are going to need a channel deepening 
and port upgrades to accommodate those vessels. And we're going to 
support that activity in our committee. We're going to make sure that 
the gulf region is competitive in this ever-changing world of 
international commerce.
  With regard to the polar icebreakers, the Recovery Act stimulus 
funding has provided for refurbishing and reintroduction in service of 
one of the polar icebreakers. I would advise the gentleman, Madam 
Speaker, the Coast Guard is doing an evaluation of the costs and how 
the costs of the polar icebreaker fleet can be contained. We have 
received testimony in the 110th Congress and information updated this 
year that the cost per icebreaker might run in the range of $1 billion. 
It seems to me that the Coast Guard ought to be able to contain that 
number and bring it down to something much more manageable.

[[Page 10707]]

  Those original polar classes, the Polar Wind, the Polar Star--I 
remember very well serving with Mr. Young, our former committee 
chairman on Transportation and Infrastructure, and we both served on 
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in the seventies when those 
vessels were commissioned and then when they set out on their first 
voyage. My recollection is it was less than $100 million, and the cost 
has escalated enormously; and we have to be sure that the Coast Guard--
and they, too, want to be sure they can contain those costs and assure 
a multimission activity for those icebreakers.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all Texans, I think your 
solution to an icebreaker in Texas would be much appreciated there. And 
I want to thank you, too, for your kind and insightful remarks about 
the needs of our ports in the gulf coast, particularly the Port of 
Houston and Port of Galveston and Texas City.
  As you alluded to, the ports there, unfortunately, have a lot of silt 
coming down from the rivers above. They fill up from time to time, and 
we need to keep them dredged out. And you have eloquently made the 
point that when the Panama Canal project is completed--widened and 
deepened--the ships that are currently coming across the Pacific Ocean 
and stop at our west coast are just going to continue right on through 
and come to our heartland.
  So I look forward to working with you to make sure that the gulf 
ports are ready for that when it happens.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman will yield?
  Mr. OLSON. Yes, I will.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. It is not only the silt from the rivers but the 
hurricanes that have devastated and in the last 5 years have brought 
enormous amounts of silt into those harbors. And we have worked with 
the Corps of Engineers to accelerate dredging. We had, actually, 
funding for an accelerated dredging program for the Corps of Engineers 
in the Recovery Act, and those funds have not yet been released by the 
Office of Management and Budget, but I am very hopeful that some of 
those funds, Madam Speaker, will be directed to the gulf coast ports to 
alleviate the adverse effects of hurricane movement of sand into the 
shipping channels.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. OLSON. I appreciate the gentleman's comments on that as well.
  I was down at the Port of Texas City last month, and they brought a 
ship in early this year, as you alluded to, after the hurricane had 
come through. The way it rolled in, a lot of the way the storm was 
moving, it pushed the water, it brought the silt back towards the 
ocean, and they brought a ship in with 6 inches of clearance, a 5-, 
600-foot boat and that much clearance. And I appreciate your commitment 
to work with that.
  I see no one on my side of the aisle. I thank the chairman for his 
kind remarks.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. 
We look forward to moving the Water Resources Development Act bill 
through the committee this year and addressing in that legislation 
whatever accelerated dredging needs may be beyond those we already have 
in the recovery program to address the imminent issue facing us, and 
that is vastly increased vessel capacity and size that needs to move 
into those gulf ports. And meanwhile, maybe the Coast Guard can get 
started--if the other body will move this bill--get started on an 
icebreaker replacement.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1747, the Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act, because it is so 
important to promoting commercial activity on the Great Lakes.
  Over a billion dollars worth of commerce takes place on the Great 
Lakes during the winter months, despite the harsh conditions. Half of 
Lake Michigan, for example, is covered in ice during the winter months.
  Especially in this economy, we cannot afford to have business shut 
down simply because ice-breakers are spread to thinly across the Great 
Lakes. My State of Michigan currently has the highest unemployment in 
the country at about 12 percent, and many counties in my district are 
already near 20 percent. We need every job we can get in our State, 
including jobs that are supported by commercial activity on the Great 
Lakes.
  One of the other impacts of unbroken ice is property damage. In my 
district along the St. Clair River, we have regularly seen problems 
caused by ice jams lead to flooding for many of my constituents.
  This year, we saw a fairly spectacular occurrence in the town of 
Linwood, Michigan, when literal mountains of ice were blown up from 
Saginaw Bay and into people's yards and homes. Chunks of ice were piled 
up to 10 feet high in some places and excavators had to be brought in 
to remove the ice so that people could go about repairing damage to 
their windows and homes.
  Many of the ice-breaking ships that we do have in the Great Lakes are 
nearing the end of their useful lives and have become vulnerable to 
mechanical failure in these harsh winter conditions.
  Last fall, I was very concerned about the approaching winter and 
whether the Coast Guard would have sufficient ice-breaking capabilities 
to keep critical channels open. In fact, I joined a number of members 
in writing to Admiral Allen at the Coast Guard and urging him to 
provide additional resources to the Great Lakes to deal with the coming 
winter.
  Finally, after that incident in Linwood, the Coast Guard did respond 
and assigned an additional cutter from Maine to come over and assist 
with ice-breaking, which has been of great assistance to us as we get 
the lakes fully opened up for the summer shipping season.
  But the need for this bill has already been well established. This 
bill will authorize the Coast Guard to design and construct a new 
replacement ice-breaker for the Great Lakes. In addition to assisting 
with ice-breaking problems we have had on the Great Lakes, this bill 
will also put Americans to work building this vessel.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I commend the chairman 
for putting this legislation forward.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1747.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________