Counterplans General Stuff

Counterplans

General Stuff

Competition

The core controversy of icebreakers is who should fund the plan- proves the counterplan is legitimate

O’Rourke 14 (Ronald, Specialist in Naval Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, 6/5/14, “Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34391.pdf, JHR)

Another potential issue for Congress, if it is determined that one or more new icebreakers should be procured by the government through a traditional acquisition, is whether the acquisition cost of those ships should be funded entirely through Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) account, or partly or entirely through other parts of the federal budget, such as the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, the NSF budget, or both.54 Within the DOD budget, possibilities include the Navy’s shipbuilding account, called the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account, and the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF), which is an account where DOD sealift ships and Navy auxiliary ships are funded.

Alaska CP

1nc

Text: Alaska should fund ____

CP Solves – Alaska would willingly invest

DeMarban 12 (Alex – staff writer for the Alaska Dispatch, Parnell: AIDEA could help finance icebreaker if Feds drop ball, Alaska Dispatch, p.http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/parnell-aidea-could-help-finance-icebreaker-if-feds-drop-ball) //Laura D

Earlier this week, Alaska Dispatch published a story shining light on an exchange of letters between Gov. Sean Parnell and Rep. Don Young about how the state can help the US government beef up its Arctic icebreaking capacity. Icebreaker fans know the federal government is hobbled in the Arctic as other countries boost their presence in the resource rich -- and increasingly accessible -- Far North. But the nation's two heavy-duty icebreakers are out of commission, leaving just the medium-duty ship, Healy. Parnell's March 15 reply to Young, who had tossed out ideas on how the state could help, was succinct. Parnell lamented the federal government's shirking of its ice-breaking role in the Arctic, and said the state should not subsidize that US duty. However, he said Alaska could consider helping, including financing. He didn't provide more detail on the financing idea, and the Dispatch did not receive an immediate reply to a request seeking more detail. However Sharon Leighow, the governor’s spokeswoman, emailed a response the day after the story published on Thursday. "Before looking to the state of Alaska to fund federal infrastructure, we would suggest the president revisit his FY 12 proposed budget for the US Coast Guard, which contains $8.68 billion of discretionary funding. We think protecting the nation’s interests and the state’s interests in the Alaska offshore area is critical. The president proposes funding six fast-response cutters, 40 response boat medium-endurance cutters, and other vessels and air assets. While those are important, and we support the USCG, we think a new icebreaker is critical and should be funded by the administration. It is clearly the administration’s job to make sure the Coast Guard has the assets it needs, and an important asset is a new heavy icebreaker. "If the federal government fails to provide for this need, there may be options for a state agency like Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority to participate in some sort of arrangement, but that will be up to the AIDEA board, and the Coast Guard would have to come to AIDEA with a project proposal that met all due-diligence requirements. What exactly such an arrangement could look like would be up to the AIDEA board." The president's budget did provide about $8 million to plan and design a new icebreaker. The cost of a new icebreaker has been estimated to cost $900 million, though an official with Louisiana-shipbuilder Edison Chouest Offshore said it could be done more cheaply.

Solvency

Alaska could fund the plan

DeMarban 12 (Alex, Should Alaska take the lead in financing new icebreakers? April 11, 2012, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/should-alaska-take-lead-financing-new-icebreakers, JZG)

Gov. Sean Parnell says the state might be interested in helping finance a new icebreaker so the U.S. can make up lost ground in the race for Arctic dominance. That's the gist of the governor's response to a lengthy letter from Rep. Don Young offering ideas on how Alaska can help the cash-strapped federal government put costly new icebreakers off Alaska's increasingly busy northern coasts. With the nation's icebreaking fleet reduced to a single working ship -- its two large icebreakers are undergoing repairs or being decommissioned -- the state and U.S. government should consider sharing costs to make new icebreakers a reality, Young suggested in a Feb. 7 letter to Parnell. New or refurbished icebreakers will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. More ships are plowing through the Bering Strait as sailing seasons lengthen in the warming but often ice-choked Arctic. The U.S. Coast Guard predicts traffic will continue growing as shipping, resource development and tourism expands. But the Healy, a "medium duty" icebreaker that escorted a Russian fuel tanker to Nome this winter, is the Coast Guard's lone functioning icebreaker. 'Creative financing' "Without access to heavy icebreakers, we will be unable to adapt to historic changes in the Arctic," Young wrote. "Icebreakers are critical for ensuring safe shipping and resource operations and providing for field research opportunities." He continues: "Given the current fiscal climate in D.C., funding the acquisition of new vessels presents a significant challenge. It is clear that we must consider creative financing and ownership options to move forward." In addition to helping bankroll the project, the state should also think about owning an icebreaker with private firms. The state could refurbish the Polar Sea or the Polar Star. It could then lease its icebreakers to the Coast Guard and National Science Foundation, wrote Young. Last fall, Young introduced legislation calling on the federal government to lease two large icebreakers for at least 10 years from private entities that own and operate the ships. The ships must be built on American soil, according to the bill, which remains in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Parnell wrote Young back in a March 15 letter: "You must be as dismayed as I am to see the federal mission in the Arctic to assist marine trade, provide search and rescue, and provide law enforcement through ice-breaking services diminish so significantly." Parnell said the state won't subsidize US responsibilities such as icebreaking. But it is willing to help the federal government improve its ice-breaking capability. "We can look at all the ways the state can be supportive and helpful, such as financing," Parnell wrote. Parnell's letter didn't address the kinds of "financing" the state could provide. A request to his office seeking clarification wasn't returned Wednesday evening.

Reserve funds ensure stable funding

Epler 6/21/11 (Patti, “Should Alaska build its own Arctic icebreaker?”) Alaska Dispatch. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/should-alaska-build-its-own-arctic-icebreaker //Laura T

GIRDWOOD -- Anchorage Sen. Lesil McGuire thinks the state should build its own Polar-class icebreaker, much like the U.S. Coast Guard uses for Arctic patrols. The Coast Guard's two "heavy" icebreakers are out of commission right now, and the service is relying on one "medium" icebreaker -- primarily a scientific research vessel -- for anything that's needed in the Arctic. The problem? Repairing or retrofitting an icebreaker costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Building a new one? Even more. Congress has been reluctant to commission a new ship due to the high cost. An April report by the Congressional Research Service put the pricetag of a new icebreaker at about $1 billion, $500 million to fix up one of the existing ships enough to last another 25 years. The heavy icebreakers have been in service more than 30 years. McGuire, addressing the Arctic Imperative Conference that ended Tuesday night, called the icebreaker a "key part of the Arctic," saying the Alaska Legislature should pay for one itself, using some of the billions of dollars the state has socked away in various budget reserve accounts. The ship could be used for search and rescue operations and help in oil spill response, among other things.

Alaska has back up funding

Harris 2/29/12 – Investigative reporter and editor with specialties in consumer protection and finance for Money Magazine and Consumer Reports (Marlys, “Outlook for state budgets getting brighter, but far from rosy”) http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/02/outlook-state-budgets-getting-brighter-far-rosy //Laura T

For starters, some states' success derives less from fiscal discipline than dumb luck. The soaring price of oil has conferred on Alaska a $3.4 billion surplus, which it can add to the $11 billion the state has already stashed in a rainy day fund. Oil also bears much of the credit for putting Texas in the black by $1.6 billion -- after a $27 billion budget shortfall last year. South Dakota, home to several large credit card companies since the 1980s when it removed caps on interest rates, is enjoying a small surplus from its bank franchise tax, as the card business gradually improves. What's more, state revenues have not risen to anything near their pre-recession levels; in 2011 they were about $39 billion (or 7 percent) below their 2008 peak. State government watchers predict that in 2012 revenues will drag $20 billion behind -- better, but still awful.

Solvency – Cooperation

Global warming has increased geopolitical and economic competition in the Arctic—a strong Arctic Council can provide the leadership needed to facilitate peaceful and sustainable development

Patrick 14 – senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (Stewart, “The Unruled World,” Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs Article, http://www.cfr.org/global-governance/unruled-world/p32502)BC

Geopolitical and economic competition has also heated up in the warming Arctic, as nations wrangle over rights to extended continental shelves, new sea routes over Asia and North America, and the exploitation of fossil fuel and mineral deposits. To date, cooler heads have prevailed. In 2008, the five Arctic nations -- Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States -- signed the Ilulissat Declaration, affirming their commitment to address any overlapping claims in a peaceful and orderly manner. Some experts contend that the Arctic needs a comprehensive multilateral treaty to reconcile competing sovereignty claims, handle navigational issues, facilitate collective energy development, manage fisheries, and address environmental concerns. A more productive strategy would be to bolster the role of the Arctic Council, composed of the five Arctic nations plus Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and several indigenous peoples' organizations. Although this forum has historically avoided contentious boundary and legal disputes, it could help codify guidelines on oil and gas development, sponsor collaborative mapping of the continental shelf, create a regional monitoring network, and modernize systems for navigation, traffic management, and environmental protection.