Fiercehomelandsecurity, quoting a speech the Commandant made at a Navy League event, reports that despite the efforts of three Senators to delay disposal of the ship, the CG will proceed with its decision to begin scrapping the Polar Sea by the end of the year.
Update–Quoting from a lead in to a revision to the original fiercehomelandsecurity post.
“Updated Dec. 7 to reflect that the status of the Polar Sea’s hull hasn’t been determined; as a result, the Coast Guard says the word “dismantling,” rather than “scrapping” is more accurate. Also revised to include a later statement from Adm. Papp that disposition of the heavy icebreaker is under review following House passage of a bill that would place conditions on the dismantling of the ship.”
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
At the request of the CG fiercehomelandsecurity has updated their story. This is the revised edition: http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/story/papp-polar-sea-set-scrapping-month/2012-12-06
Another update. Actually just increased equivocation and uncertainty as a result of Congressional action. http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/story/papp-polar-sea-set-scrapping-month/2012-12-06
Thanks for the update, Chuck. Why is it, when the CG is the sole govt. agency providing icebreaking services, that this isn’t a more secure part of the budget? I understand NSF provides funding for construction and ops, but it seems to me the CG should not have to beg for funding to develop, produce, maintain, and operate a reasonable “fleet” of WAGBs.
I realize budget and tax priorities a.k.a. politics, but when the US budget was a lot smaller percentage of the GDP, the CG had, what seven(?), Wind-class? (Not sure they were all operational at the same time…) And now we have TWO! If the mission need is not there, I’m all for saving money, but the WAGB program seems to be handled haphazardly. Is it just me feeling this way?
Polar Sea won’t be reactivated, but it won’t get scrapped (yet) either:
http://www.janes.com/article/67808/uscg-will-not-re-activate-polar-sea-icebreaker