[House Report 111-81]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-81
======================================================================
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT ACT
_______
April 21, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 1747) to authorize appropriations
for the design, acquisition, and construction of a combined
buoy tender-icebreaker to replace icebreaking capacity on the
Great Lakes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
H.R. 1747, the ``Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act'',
authorizes $153 million for the design and construction of a
new icebreaker for service on the Great Lakes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 1747, the ``Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act'',
recognizes the need to provide an additional Coast Guard
icebreaker on the Great Lakes and authorizes appropriations for
this Coast Guard project. Executive Order No. 7521, dated
December 21, 1936, states ``the Coast Guard . . . is hereby
directed to assist in keeping open to navigation by means of
ice-breaking operations . . . channels and harbors in
accordance with the reasonable demands of commerce.'' Five of
the Coast Guard's icebreakers on the Great Lakes are nearing
the end of their useful lives and two of the buoy tenders that
the Coast Guard uses to break ice cannot handle heavy ice
conditions. As a result, in the spring of 2008, U.S.-flag ships
on the Lakes sustained $1.3 million in damage to their hulls
because the Coast Guard was unable to keep the channels open.
Ice starts to form on the Great Lakes in early December and
normally lasts until mid-April. During ``ice season'' alone, 20
percent of the iron ore needed for the nation's manufacturing
heartland is carried by Great Lakes vessels. In the 2006-2007
ice season, 10.4 million tons of iron ore were moved on the
Great Lakes and supported 100,000 jobs at steel mills and
300,000 jobs at supplier industries.
Electrical power generation in the region is also supported
by icebreakers as they ensure that commercial vessels can move
over 6.4 million tons of coal to power plants in the region.
Manufacturing and power industries cannot stockpile their
inventories for the winter and the mines do not have the
capacity to produce extra materials during the summer to last
these industries through the winter. Therefore, they depend on
the icebreaking capacity of the Coast Guard to keep shipping
lanes open during these winter months just as snow plows keep
highways open for surface transportation.
The Coast Guard also uses icebreakers on the Great Lakes to
assist the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in clearing ice from
rivers and harbors to prevent storm and flood damage from ice
that forms dams leading to flooding in local communities.
In 2006, the Coast Guard accepted delivery of the Coast
Guard icebreaker MACKINAW. This icebreaker has proven extremely
capable of breaking ice on the Lakes during the past two
winters. The Coast Guard could use this design to build a
sister ship that could set and maintain buoys during the
spring, summer, and fall and then break ice to keep shipping
channels open for commercial vessels during the winter months.
SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION
H.R. 1747 authorizes $153 million for the design,
acquisition, and construction of a combined buoy tender-
icebreaker to replace icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On March 26, 2009, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced
H.R. 1747, the ``Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act''. This
bill has not been introduced in a previous Congress. On March
2, 2009, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
ordered the bill reported favorably to the House by voice vote
with a quorum present.
RECORD VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. There
were no recorded votes taken in connection with consideration
of H.R. 1747 or ordering the bill reported. A motion to order
H.R. 1747 reported favorably to the House was agreed to by
voice vote with a quorum present.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
COST OF LEGISLATION
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office
included in the report.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objective of this legislation are to
provide funding for the design and construction of a new
replacement ice-breaker for the Great Lakes.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1747
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 15, 2009.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1747, the Great
Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Aurora
Swanson.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1757--Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement Act
Summary: H.R. 1747 would authorize the appropriation of
$153 million to construct an icebreaker ship for the Coast
Guard to use on the Great Lakes. Assuming appropriation of the
authorized amount, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1747
would cost $135 million over the 2010-2014 period. Enacting the
legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.
H.R. 1747 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no cost on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1747 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400
(transportation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level..................................... 153 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays....................................... 18 38 34 28 17 135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes H.R. 1747
will be enacted late in fiscal year 2009 and that the entire
amount authorized by the bill will be appropriated in fiscal
year 2010. The outlay estimate is based on historical spending
patterns for similar Coast Guard acquisitions. The icebreaker
Mackinaw, commissioned in 2006 for use on the Great Lakes, took
about six years to build. CBO assumes that the new icebreaker
would require the same length of time to complete.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1747
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis and
Aurora Swanson; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:
Ryan Miller; Impact on the Private Sector: Jacob Kuipers.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, H.R. 1747 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character shall include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 1747 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H.R. 1747 makes no changes in existing law.