WASHINGTON—Rep. Rick Larsen, WA-02, Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, today made the case to maintain the Coast Guard’s icebreaking capability at a hearing on Coast Guard operations in the Arctic.

“Icebreaking capability is critical to maintaining U.S. sovereignty in the Arctic frontier, which is increasingly important in the global economy,” Larsen said. “Unfortunately the House of Representatives recently made a misguided decision to decommission the Coast Guard’s two heavy icebreakers.  It is absurd for the majority to maintain that the Coast Guard can do ‘more with less’ when the best minds in our nation have for years recommended, if not admonished, the Congress to do one thing to protect our national interests in the Arctic—invest in new heavy icebreakers. We need to invest now in new heavy icebreakers or lose our capabilities to operate in the Arctic and Antarctic.”

The Subcommittee’s hearing on Coast Guard Operations in the Arctic included testimony from two witnesses who traveled from Washington state for the hearing:

• Retired Rear Adm. Jeffrey Garrett who served as the commanding officer of the Coast Guard icebreakers Polar Sea and Healy

• Mr. David Whitcomb, the Vice-President for Production Support at Vigor Industries

The archive of the webcast will be available at this link this afternoon: http://go.usa.gov/5KU

Larsen’s full opening statement is as follows:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this morning’s  hearing to assess the capabilities of the United States Coast Guard to maintain and protect the sovereign interests of the United States in the Arctic.  

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to take a moment to welcome two of our witnesses who have travelled from Washington State to participate this morning.  

Rear Admiral Jeffrey Garrett, United States Coast Guard (retired), served with distinction as the Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard icebreakers Polar Sea and Healy, and was involved in polar icebreaking deployments throughout the Eastern and Western Arctic and in Antarctica.  

Welcome Admiral Garrett; I am sure your many years of experience in the Arctic will shed some helpful insights.

I would also like to welcome Mr. David Whitcomb, Vice-President for Production Support at Vigor Industries. Vigor Industries recently acquired the former Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle which has for years maintained the Coast Guard’s fleet of icebreakers.  

Thank you for participating Mr. Whitcomb; I will look forward to an update from you on the status and pace of repairs to the Polar Star.

Mr. Chairman, in reflecting on this morning’s topic, it is hard for me to recall another instance where the solution to a policy problem has been so apparent, yet the reaction of the Congress so contrary or unresponsive.

I may not know the precise definition of the word, “irony”, but scheduling a hearing to discuss Coast Guard capabilities in the Arctic less than three weeks after the House passed legislation that would decommission the Coast Guard’s two heavy icebreakers, sure seems ironic to me.

It has been the policy of the United States since 1965 for the United States Coast Guard to develop, establish, maintain and operate the United States icebreaking fleet in each polar region.  Anyone who has looked at this issue over the years has come to the same conclusion: we need to invest now in new heavy icebreakers or face a sharply diminished presence in the Arctic and Antarctic.

As our nation’s primary Federal maritime agency, the Coast Guard has played — and will continue to play — a significant role in Arctic policy implementation and enforcement while also fulfilling its other mission responsibilities for search and rescue operations, maritime safety, scientific research and environmental protection.

I want to commend Commandant Papp for his efforts to “Steady the Service” and to maintain and enhance the Coast Guard’s operational capabilities in these very challenging budgetary times.  Thank you Admiral.

Due to the extreme operating environments found at high latitudes, the Coast Guard has relied on icebreakers to serve as mobile, multi-mission operating platforms.  This has enabled the Coast Guard to project U.S. global leadership and to protect our national security and economic interests in both the Arctic and Antarctic.  

And by all accounts, the Coast Guard’s use of icebreakers has served the nation very well, until recently.

As far back as the October, 1990 Polar Icebreaker Requirements Report, the handwriting has been on the wall. If we are going to maintain a reliable presence in the High North, we must make the necessary investments to sustain an icebreaker fleet.

Fortunately, the Congress responded positively to this report and provided the appropriations necessary to build and launch the Coast Guard icebreaker Healy in 1999.  

Regrettably, the declining condition of both Coast Guard heavy icebreakers, the Polar Sea and the Polar Star, each of which have exceeded its 30-year life expectancy, has failed to generate a similar response from Congress, and no new funding for recapitalization of icebreakers is on the horizon.

Instead, over the past several years the Congress has received multiple reports from the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General, the National Research Council, the Coast Guard, and others agencies, that make basically the same recommendation as in the 1990 report — we need to invest now in new heavy icebreakers or lose our capabilities to operate in the Arctic and Antarctic.

What I find especially frustrating is that this comes at precisely the same time when other nations including Russia, China, Norway, and Korea are rushing to build new icebreakers to stake their claims in the emerging area in the Arctic.

It is absurd for the majority to maintain that the Coast Guard can do “more with less” when the best minds in our nation have for years recommended, if not admonished, the Congress to do one thing to protect our national interests in the Arctic — invest in new heavy icebreakers.

Instead, as I mentioned earlier, we have passed legislation to decommission our two heavy icebreakers within the next three years, an idea which I believe is misguided, for which the administration has forcefully and rightfully stated its strong opposition.

The bottom line is that we cannot afford to “outsource” the Coast Guard’s icebreaking mission to Russia, to China, or to any other nation.

Considering that it will take anywhere between eight to ten years to plan, design and build a new heavy icebreaker, we had best initiate a discussion right now with our colleagues in the Senate, the administration, the Coast Guard, and other Federal agencies to reach agreement on a long-term strategy to provide not only new heavy icebreakers, but also the other infrastructure investments necessary to support Coast Guard operations above the Arctic Circle.  

We either choose to address this challenge or we risk losing a critical foothold necessary to maintain U.S. sovereignty in an Arctic frontier of emerging global economic importance.  Too much is at stake to remain complacent, and we need to act.