HJR 34-COAST GUARD ICEBREAKERS & ARCTIC BASE  1:08:26 PM CO-CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34, Urging the United States Congress to fund all the facilities and vessels necessary for the United States Coast Guard to fulfill its Arctic missions, including icebreakers and an Arctic Coast Guard base. 1:08:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HJR 34, as sponsor. Representative Herron called attention to the supporting documents provided in the committee packet. He said the resolution is the result of the work Alaskans put into the Alaska Northern Waters Task Force, including testimony from throughout the state. The task force concluded that the U.S. Coast Guard needs an Arctic-capable icebreaker and a forward base located closer to the Arctic than the current base at Kodiak. The base at Kodiak is valuable to the U.S., however, a base near Nome or Barrow would protect the interests of Alaska and the nation. The task force found there is increased Arctic activity, thus an icebreaker and an Arctic base would enable the responsible development of resources, foster maritime commerce, safeguard Arctic residents and their ecosystems, provide emergency and disaster preparedness and response, and protect sovereignty. Representative Herron pointed out that Alaska is the Arctic state, and it and the Coast Guard "need the tools" to address the important resources there; even nations without an Arctic border are building icebreakers. He said the supporting documents were provided by the lieutenant governor of Alaska and others, and more expert testimony will follow this introduction. There is a zero fiscal note attached, and the resolution will be further vetted by the House State Affairs Standing Committee. He advised that U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has invited legislators and others to attend a hearing of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, U. S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, in Washington, D.C., on 3/8/12. Passage of the resolution will demonstrate serious support in Alaska for the funding of icebreakers and facilities to enhance the Coast Guard presence in the Arctic. Recent events on the seas highlight the need for the Coast Guard to be an important aspect of life in Alaska. 1:14:26 PM CO-CHAIR THOMPSON opened public testimony. 1:14:43 PM ED PAGE, Executive Director, Marine Exchange of Alaska ("marine exchange"), said the marine exchange is supported by the state, the Coast Guard, and the maritime industry to provide a marine tracking system. As personal history, he noted he retired from the Coast Guard 11 years ago as an officer with service on the East and West Coasts. Mr. Page advised that since World War II the Coast Guard has provided icebreaking support for the Great Lakes and for New York Harbor, but not for Alaska. His last tour in the Coast Guard was as Chief of Marine Safety and Environmental Protection for Alaska Region, but at that time "the Arctic wasn't on our radar screen [be]cause nothing was happening." Since then, the marine exchange vessel tracking system has revealed that passage in the Arctic has increased dramatically, by cruise ships, Chinese icebreakers, cargo ships, tugs and barges, supply vessels, and tankers from Russia traveling to the Far East. Clearly, now there is a need for a U.S. presence to establish sovereignty, emergency response, and oversight of compliance with safety and environmental regulations. Unfortunately, Coast Guard icebreakers are reaching the end of their lifespans, even though activities in the Arctic are national issues and affect the entire country. The Coast Guard is recognized worldwide as a leader in maritime safety and environmental protection, however, its present capability in the Arctic is limited. Mr. Page urged for continued support from the state for the U.S. to provide for a Coast Guard presence as required. 1:18:07 PM CO-CHAIR THOMPSON asked what Coast Guard icebreakers are available if needed on the Arctic coast. MR. PAGE said the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Healy is operational and suitable, and there are smaller icebreakers on the East Coast. However, the USCGC Healy was designed primarily as a research vessel with icebreaking capabilities. Although access to McMurdo Station in Antarctica is an important mission, he opined the Arctic mission is more pressing, and the more appropriate place to stage icebreakers. In further response to Co-Chair Thompson, he said USCGC Healy is in Seattle at this time. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked what the capabilities of a fully equipped icebreaker would be. 1:20:21 PM MR. PAGE advised a fully equipped icebreaker would have a stern configured so it could back up in ice, and it would have larger displacement and greater horsepower than the USCGC Healy. The legacy icebreakers like the USCGC Polar Star and USCGC Polar Sea have more horsepower and different hull configurations. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked how long it would take an icebreaker to get from Kodiak to the Arctic. MR. PAGE estimated one week, depending on the thickness of the ice. In further response to Representative Miller, he confirmed that the response would take days, unless the icebreaker was already in the Arctic. 1:22:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked several questions about the capabilities of an icebreaker. MR. PAGE said he has limited knowledge, but the design of an icebreaker involves the thickness and design of the hull so that it rides on top of the ice. Icebreakers have ballast systems that move water from the stern to the bow and propellers and steering gear that are well protected from ice, along with more power and displacement to break thicker ice. In further response to Representative Lynn, he said the USCGC Healy can travel through ice six feet thick. 1:24:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed her understanding that military organizations need to prepare to be ready for difficult tasks. She asked if the resolution goes far enough to support readiness. MR. PAGE said current operations are increasing - 350 vessels travelled through the Bering Strait last year - and the resolution seeks to ensure that Coast Guard capabilities grow as the pace of the traffic grows. The Coast Guard plans to go to the Arctic this summer with vessels and aircraft, and there will be challenges with equipment that may not be designed for cold weather. He opined the resolution identifies a mission: the future need for more facilities, capabilities, and icebreakers. In further response to Representative Cissna, he said HJR 34 is a good beginning and an important endorsement from the state. MR. PAGE, in response to Representative Lynn, said helicopters are standard equipment on icebreakers. 1:29:32 PM JEFFREY GARRETT, Maritime Affairs Consultant and retired Coast Guard Rear Admiral, provided a brief history of his experience serving in the icebreaker fleet. He served in both Polar Regions, and particularly in Arctic Alaska, although during his career most operations were limited to defense support and the support of science programs. However, transformational changes occurring in the Arctic affect the Coast Guard's statutory responsibilities. More recently, the Coast Guard is seeking to project an Arctic presence by deploying cutters, boats, aircraft, and specialized teams to test equipment, but during this time of growing need, its polar icebreaker capabilities are drifting into "obsolescence." He observed that the Coast Guard has been unable to deploy an icebreaker for Arctic multi-mission purposes for over two years, and plans for the USCGC Polar Sea have been canceled, forcing the U.S. to charter a Russian vessel to serve bases in Antarctica. In addition, the USCGC Healy's mission to deliver fuel to Nome this year disrupted its planned maintenance and operations schedule. Mr. Garrett commended HJR 34 and Alaska's strong call for the federal government to provide the Coast Guard with the capabilities, particularly polar icebreakers, to meet national needs in the Arctic. He was encouraged by the 2013 federal budget which contains funding to begin the acquisition of an icebreaker, and urged quick action to restore the USCGC Polar Star and the USCGC Polar Sea to full operational capabilities. 1:32:58 PM LAWSON W. BRIGHAM, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Geography & Arctic Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), informed the committee he is a former commander of the USCGC Polar Sea. Dr. Brigham raised a question of protocol regarding the resolution, noting that the draft form of the resolution was sent to Senior Arctic Officials of the Arctic states but he recommended that the resolution be sent to the Foreign Ministers of the Arctic states. On a more substantive matter, he observed the last passage of the resolution urges the U. S. Congress and the administration to consider all options to finance icebreakers, including charging fees, leasing, and giving icebreakers to the private sector. Dr. Brigham highly recommended that legislators remove that section because user fees have no place in the operation of the Coast Guard. The Congress and administration should fund the Coast Guard as it does the Navy or Air Force, and ships should not be leased for use by the Coast Guard. 1:35:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLER called attention to page 2, line 1, of the resolution which read: WHEREAS ice cover in the Arctic is at historic lows, and multiyear ice is decreasing; REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether this loss of ice will affect how many icebreakers are needed, and if this passage applies exclusively to the Arctic, or also to the Bering and Chukchi Seas. 1:36:28 PM DR. BRIGHAM said the multiyear ice will disappear in the Arctic, aiding navigation, but the retreat of ice and the thinning of ice has drawn traffic and opened sea lanes leading to more responsibility for the Coast Guard for presence, law enforcement, security, and science. It is a misconception that less ice reduces the need for icebreakers when, in fact, it is the opposite due to the greater use of the whole of the Arctic Ocean. This is related to natural resource development and the longer season of open navigation. REPRESENTATIVE MILLER surmised a less than fully-equipped icebreaker may be designed for these conditions. 1:38:11 PM DR. BRIGHAM reminded the committee the Bering Sea to the Arctic Ocean is fully ice-covered so if industry seeks to operate year around, or in the fall and spring, the need for an icebreaker with USCGC Polar Sea capability is more necessary. Operations deep in the winter season, such as exploration in the Bering Strait, would be beyond the capability of the USCGC Healy. DR. BRIGHAM, in response to Representative Lynn, estimated the time needed to build an icebreaker is eight to ten years, due to the budget process in Washington, D.C. 1:40:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON supported Dr. Brigham's recommendation on protocol. Regarding the resolve on leasing, he offered to address Dr. Brigham's concerns during the hearing process on the resolution. He then asked whether the USCGC Polar Star's return to service and its projected length of service is accurate in the resolution. DR. BRIGHAM indicated yes. The challenge is to appropriate sufficient funds to keep the ships running in the short run, with the hope of funding the acquisition of a new ship. He agreed that the costs are extraordinary and a challenging budget issue. 1:43:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired whether the action of the USCGC Healy for the community of Nome, and the fact that China is building another world-class icebreaker, will convince the administration and the Navy to invest in icebreakers. DR. BRIGHAM opined these events show the high readiness of the Coast Guard and that it only lacks assets; it has quality staff and readiness. Other less visible factors, such as offshore development, require a presence on the ice and in the shallower waters around Alaska. He suggested buoy tenders are also necessary. 1:46:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON heard the Navy has ordered 51 warships at $500 million each, and he suggested that one should be an icebreaker. DR. BRIGHAM agreed saying, "Two of them could equate to an icebreaker, [of] course that's not necessarily how Washington works." Because the U.S. has an extraordinary investment in Antarctica, he encouraged investment in America's presence in both Polar Regions by increasing the nation's icebreaker capability to support both Antarctica and the Arctic. [Although not specifically stated, public testimony was closed and HJR 34 was set aside and taken up later in the meeting.] HJR 34-COAST GUARD ICEBREAKERS & ARCTIC BASE  1:54:05 PM CO-CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the committee would return its attention to HJR 34. 1:54:55 PM CO-CHAIR THOMPSON moved Amendment 1 which read: "COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States; the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States Secretary of State; the Honorable Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; the Honorable Erkki Tuomioja, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland; the Honorable Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden; the Honorable Jonas Gahr Støre, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway; the Honorable John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada; the Honorable Össur Skarphéðinsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs and External Trade of Iceland; the Honorable Villy Søvndal, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark; the Honorable Admiral Robert J. Papp, Commandant, United States Coast Guard; Ambassador David A. Balton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries, United States Department of State; Rear Admiral Thomas F. Ostebo, Commander, United States Seventeenth Coast Guard District; the Honorable Sean Parnell, Governor of Alaska; the Honorable Mead Treadwell, Lieutenant Governor of Alaska; the Honorable Lisa Murkowski and the Honorable Mark Begich, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress; and all other members of the 112th United States Congress." 1:55:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for the purpose of discussion. CO-CHAIR THOMPSON said the amendment is in response to Dr. Brigham's testimony recommending a change in procedure to follow proper protocol on who receives the resolution. 1:55:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:55:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HJR 34, Version 27-LS1303\A, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 34(MLV) was reported out of the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs. 1:56:17 PM