[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE UNITED STATES AS AN ARCTIC NATION: OPPORTUNITIES IN THE HIGH NORTH
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 10, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-235
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S NOT AVAILALE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
91-844 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia GRACE MENG, New York
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TED S. YOHO, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
CURT CLAWSON, Florida
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
TED POE, Texas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PAUL COOK, California BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., USCG, Retired, U.S. Special
Representative for the Arctic, U.S. Department of State........ 5
Scott Borgerson, Ph.D., chief executive officer, Cargo Metrics
Technologies................................................... 32
Mr. Andrew Holland, senior fellow for energy and climate,
American Security Project...................................... 34
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., USCG, Retired: Prepared statement...... 9
Mr. Andrew Holland: Prepared statement........................... 37
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 58
Hearing minutes.................................................. 59
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe,
Eurasia, and Emerging Threats: Statement of the Honorable Don
Young, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska... 60
The Honorable Steve Stockman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas: Material submitted for the record.......... 63
THE UNITED STATES AS AN ARCTIC NATION: OPPORTUNITIES IN THE HIGH NORTH
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock
p.m., in room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana
Rohrabacher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. The subcommittee is called to
order and even though this will be the final Europe, Eurasia,
and Emerging Threats Subcommittee hearing for the 113th
Congress, we will be discussing an important topic--the Arctic
and the opportunities for America as an Arctic nation.
In 2009, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing
on the High North, which approached the Arctic through which,
of course, what has been happening since then as people have
been only seeing this through the lens of global warming.
While we all recognize that there is receding ice, the
purpose of this hearing is not to debate science. Rather, what
is taking place is part of a natural cycle as happens--as
happened so many times in the past in the Earth's history, or
it can be traced to humankind's use of CO2-producing internal
combustion engines.
The fact--whatever it is, the fact remains that the Arctic
is more accessible now than it has been in decades and Arctic
policy should not be just reduced to one particular issue,
especially a disagreement on why the climate is changing.
I am honored that today's subcommittee hearing will be the
first time Admiral Robert Papp testifies in his new role as the
U.S. Special Representative for the Arctic, and I thank you for
being with us today and look forward to hearing your testimony
and being able to get some of the strategy that you are going
to be laying down and some of your perceptions of which way we
should go.
As the Arctic geography has changed, new opportunities have
emerged and those are the opportunities to access deposits of
oil, natural gas and other minerals. Additionally, Arctic sea
lanes have become passable for increasingly longer periods of
time during the summer months, cutting around 4,000 miles off
the distance required to sail between Asia and Europe.
A version of the long-sought Northwest Passage may be
materializing right before our eyes. The increased activity has
challenged the governments of Arctic nations to effectively
govern the High North, build new infrastructure and expand
capabilities to operate in such harsh conditions.
To help realize some of these new opportunities, the eight
Arctic countries including the United States created a high-
level diplomatic forum called the Arctic Council.
In April 2015, it will be America's turn to assume the
rotating chairmanship of this council for 2 years. This will
give our Government the ability to set an agenda. Just in time,
Admiral.
Today, the subcommittee will hear key details about what
will be on that agenda, how to prioritize and what priorities
we should have, which ones will serve our national interest and
promote responsible development.
Let me just note that there are 50,000 Americans who live
in the Arctic. But this is much more than just a local issue
for Alaskans. The vast resources of the Arctic can and should
be wisely promoted and used to increase our prosperity and the
well being of our people.
If the Arctic nations can do this successfully, so can we.
Our Government's role is to ensure private industry follows the
rules and uses good practices but not to block progress.
We should all be mindful that other Arctic nations are
seeking ways to use the Arctic for their own advantage. Chinese
scholars, for example, have taken to calling China a near-
Arctic state.
Chinese military officials have commented that China has an
indispensable role to play in the Arctic. Well, if we don't put
in place effective policies for the Arctic and then follow
through on those policies, we know who is waiting in the wings
to fill the void.
We also cannot ignore Russia's prominent role in the
Arctic, and while the Russian relationship with the Trans-
Atlantic community is at its lowest point since I was elected
to Congress--since 1989--we should not ignore the possibility
of a productive relationship with Russia in this polar region.
Perhaps--let me put it this way--we can cooperate with
people like this even though we have disagreements with them
and maybe by cooperating in those areas maybe we can overcome
some of those other challenges.
Lastly, I want to hold this hearing now to let our friends
and allies in the Arctic Council know that their cooperation
and their collaboration on key projects is being noticed and
appreciated on Capitol Hill.
It was also important to hold this hearing before the U.S.
chairmanship began to take place to lay down some clear
benchmarks and some of the metrics that we can use to judge
whether or not your chairmanship and our leadership is actually
accomplishing the goals we wanted to accomplish.
So I thank all the witnesses for being with us today. We
will have two panels--the first, as I say, with Special
Representative Papp, and the second panel of private experts.
Without objection, all members will have until the end of this
week to submit additional written questions or extraneous
material for the record.
And I now would like to have Mr. Keating, our ranking
member, give his opening remarks.
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for having this meeting, the last one of our--of the year and
it is been a pleasure working with you during this period and
it is very thoughtful of you to have this meeting at this time,
talking about the North Pole area at a time of year when so
many millions of children are anxiously awaiting this.
Now, I must concede that there is an element of skepticism
about this, but as you said you are not a person that believes
in scientific evidence. So anything is possible.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is good.
Mr. Keating. And for the benefit of my staff, that was not
written in my notes. And Admiral Papp, it is been a pleasure
working with you as I have on Coast Guard issues.
I have so many Coast Guard stations in my district and
thank you for your service there and thank you for sharing your
first opportunity to testify before Congress in your new
capacity. It is an honor to have you here today.
Across the Arctic, many challenges are faced by those
living and working in the North. These challenges include
higher living costs, skilled labor shortages, the ramifications
of climate change and other black carbon phenomena and harsher
weather conditions, to name just a few.
Yet, in these challenges lie immense opportunities to
coordinate efforts, increase outreach and to make potentially
life-altering scientific discoveries. It is these common
challenges and experience that demonstrate why the Arctic
Council is necessary and why your position, Admiral, will be so
critical as the United States prepares to chair the council.
By bringing together the eight countries bordering the
Arctic, various stakeholders, NGOs and businesses the Arctic
Council can engage in a dialogue that enables cooperative
strategies to tackle common problems.
The Arctic Council can serve as a forum for dialogue even
as tensions exist in other areas amongst members. That being
said, I believe that a lack of transparency in certain
behaviors may also raise questions.
In this regard, I will be interested in your thoughts on
how to ensure peaceful cooperation, particularly given the
recent increase in Russian long-range aviation, i.e., strategic
bombers, and in over the Arctic and Russia's plans to establish
a new military command and bases in the Arctic.
These plans seem to belie Russian assertions that their
interests are strictly peaceful. There are, of course, a
plethora of examples of cooperation through the council.
For example, under Canada's leadership the council
empowered Northerners with its focus on the indigenous
population of the North, their traditions and their knowledge.
Canada's promotion of the Arctic Council is something that
can move this region forward while also maintaining the unique
landscape and the environment.
Sweden and the U.S. are also working together on a
partnership on Arctic resilience and the effect of changing
ecosystems and as this is occurring, the U.S. continues to
partner with Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Russia and
other members to coordinate on search and rescue efforts,
monitoring vessel traffic, oil pollution preparedness and, of
course, integral climate change initiatives.
As these operations move forward through the council, the
North will inevitably be more interconnected and we can learn
from each other, particularly as the U.S. Coast Guard prepares
to visit countries like Finland in March to examine Arctic
acquisitions and bring back the knowledge to the U.S.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Admiral Papp, I would like to thank
you for including climate change in the U.S. national Arctic
strategy as well as for the U.S. chairmanships of the Arctic
Council.
It is a huge step for us and one that I know has been
recognized by proponents of the environment worldwide and for
that I thank Secretary Kerry and I thank you, Admiral Papp. I
yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and we also have with
us Congressman Larsen from Washington and if you would like to
make an opening statement, feel free.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and
I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to be waived on for
a brief time onto the subcommittee in order to participate in
today's hearing.
I really do appreciate that, and I will be--I will be
brief. My colleague, Don Young, and I created the U.S.
Congressional Working Group on the Arctic a few months back,
sort of bring some attention, highlight some of the issues that
we see in the Arctic that are important and important for U.S.
policy.
A lot of times, the Arctic is seen as out of sight and out
of mind to many. But for we in the Northwest it is certainly
part of kind of the everyday economy, probably more so for my
colleague, Mr. Young, from Alaska, but my district in the Puget
Sound as a whole tends to be the winter home for a lot of
people who are--have activities and employment in Alaska over
the spring, summer and fall, including the major fishing
industry fleet headquartered in--basically in the Seattle-Puget
Sound area as well as a lot of the shipyards doing work in the
Puget Sound supporting that activity and as well with the
potential of leases--oil and gas leases in the U.S. portion of
the Arctic.
A lot of those companies are looking to Puget Sound to be
their winter home for maintenance and repair. But there are
other issues.
It is not just economic--there are environmental issues,
national security issues as well as the concerns and rights of
native peoples that are to be on the U.S. agenda for Admiral
Papp as the Arctic Council gets together.
I got involved with this in part because my district is
the--either the first or second closest to Alaska in Washington
State, up there in the northwest corner of the Lower 48, but
also being the--on the Coast Guard Committee and working with
Admiral Papp and his predecessors on the icebreaker issue
introduced me to these broader issues in the Arctic.
So I have got a real strong interest in what occurs there,
and I won't speak on behalf of Congressman Young, who was here
before votes, but I do appreciate his willingness to allow
somebody who is not from Alaska to be interested in the Arctic.
Our Alaskan friends are very protective of what happens
there and we want to be supportive of that. So thank you very
much. I appreciate it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Admiral Robert Papp is the State Department's first Special
Representative for the Arctic, having been appointed in July of
this year by Secretary Kerry. Before his current position, he
was the 24th Commandant of the Coast Guard, the good guy branch
of the services.
We Californians, we all love the Coast Guard and especially
the surfers love the Coast Guard. He has held numerous
important positions while serving our nation, including
commanding four different Coast Guard ships.
He is a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy and holds
advanced degrees including from the Naval War College. Admiral,
you may proceed with your statement.
We would hope that you could summarize in a 5-minute
summary for us and then we will have questions for you, and you
may proceed.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP, JR., USCG, RETIRED, U.S.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ARCTIC, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Keating,
good to see you, and Mr. Larsen, good to see you again, as
always, and thanks for having me here this afternoon to speak a
little bit about the Arctic. I really appreciate the
opportunity.
When I heard that the theme was to be the United States as
an Arctic nation, I was very pleased because the importance and
recognition of that concept could not be more timely for all of
us.
As you mentioned, there are only eight nations in the world
whose territory above the Arctic Circle gives them the right to
claim being an Arctic nation.
The United States is one, although it has been my
experience that Americans do not embrace or fully understand
the concept of being an Arctic nation and that is unlike what I
have observed in the other seven Arctic countries. We hope
through our chairmanship to be able to raise the awareness for
all Americans.
The story of the Arctic is defined by intense and arduous
relationships between humans and the environment. Arctic
residents, including more than 50,000 of our fellow U.S.
citizens, know not just how to survive but also how to thrive
in the harshest of conditions on the Earth. Theirs is a story
of continuous adaptation and survival.
Today, however, the harsh and challenging environment is
transforming at an unparalleled rate. Average seasonal
temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as the rest
of the world, and though the region seems remote to most
Americans, last month we watched as the entire country
experienced abnormal weather, the result of a storm that passed
through the Bering Sea, creating that weather phenomenon which
we have known to be called the polar vortex.
And this is just one illustration of how things happening
in the Arctic are not only impacting the rest of the United
States but the rest of the world. Melting glaciers and land-
based ice sheets are contributing to rising sea levels and
threatening some of our coastlines and cities.
The future of America is inextricably linked to the future
of the Arctic and will undoubtedly include increasing maritime
commerce, exploration and management of resources.
In line with the President's commitment to elevate Arctic
issues in our nation's foreign policy, Secretary Kerry
appointed me in July to serve as the country's first Special
Representative for the Arctic and I gratefully accepted that
responsibility and welcomed the opportunity to advance the
Arctic discussion in our Government and with American citizens.
The Arctic Council chairmanship agenda is an important part
of that discussion and it will provide the international stage
upon which we can promote our priorities.
But there are many other issues at play, some on the world
stage as we navigate our relationships with countries like
Russia and China, and others that will require domestic action
at home.
As the former commandant of the Coast Guard, I have
extensive experience working in northern waters, especially in
Alaska where I began my Coast Guard career as a young ensign
assigned to a cutter home ported in Adak in the Aleutian
Islands.
During that assignment, I crossed the Arctic Circle for the
first time almost 40 years ago. Later, I toured Alaska
extensively during each of my 4 years as commandant.
In my new role as Special Representative, I have already
been to Alaska twice to see and hear first hand from the people
living in our rapidly changing Arctic region.
Now, while I am a sailor and not a scientist, over the
course of my lifetime I have observed firsthand the dramatic
changes that are taking place in this incredible region. While
the natural environment is changing at an accelerated pace, the
geopolitical situation is changing quickly as well and must be
taken into account.
Russia's continued violations of Ukraine's sovereignty are
an affront to a rules-based international system. The United
States has joined the international community, including the
other Arctic nations, in opposing these violations and imposing
costs on Russia for its actions.
Nevertheless, the Arctic has been a zone of cooperation and
free of conflict. We will continue to work with Russia on
global issues related to the Arctic through our multilateral
engagement at the Arctic Council.
We remain cognizant of how changes in the Arctic have
created significant challenges and opportunities for every
Arctic nation. The warming climate threatens traditional ways
of life for indigenous peoples and wildlife but it also opens
up new opportunities for maritime trade and prosperity, new
shipping routes, increased oil and gas exploration and tourism,
to name a few.
The challenge of charting a course toward a sustainable
future in the Arctic is important to all of us. The State
Department is committed to working within our abilities to
improve the future of this region.
The Arctic is quickly becoming a global cornerstone for
scientific and academic research, trade and tourism. Four
million people live in--across a region that crosses 24 time
zones. Some areas are incredibly developed while parts of our
own American Arctic are struggling to provide the basic
necessities like clean water and affordable energy.
The United States will have the opportunity to address some
of these Arctic challenges as we take over chair of the Arctic
Council this April.
Considering my appointment began in late July, my first
months on the job have been spent getting out and talking to a
wide range of constituent groups, both domestically and
internationally, while making preparations for a chairmanship
agenda that will generate forward-leaning actionable goals and
quantifiable results.
Our leadership at the Arctic Council will focus on three
primary initiatives--first, Arctic Ocean safety, security and
stewardship; second, improving the economic and living
conditions of the people of the North; and third, addressing
the impacts of climate change.
We are currently discussing our proposed program with the
Arctic states and the permanent participants who represent the
indigenous groups, and we hope to have their full support prior
to our chairmanship. Our themes reflect some of the most
important issues in the region.
Arctic Ocean's accessibility is increasing and a maritime
nation's first responsibility is to ensure that any activity
taking place off its shores is safe, secure and environmentally
responsible.
To do so requires a delicate balance but affords secure and
sustainable sources of food, energy and commerce for
generations to come.
For many Americans residing in the Arctic, their
communities are remote and their quality of life is dependent
upon Northern economic activity. The cost of living is high and
not only is it difficult to find employment but it is a
challenge to obtain the basic necessities we as people need to
survive.
As part of our chairmanship, we aim to focus on improving
local access to sources of clean water and renewable energy to
address some of these vital needs.
We also hope to utilize public-private partnerships as a
tool to help these remote communities throughout the Arctic
region to make advancements to improve their day-to-day lives.
And, of course, we must focus on some effort in the
regional impacts of climate change and continue the council's
work to mitigate black carbon and methane emissions.
As an Arctic nation and a global leader, we have an
obligation to use our diplomatic, economic and scientific
resources to help those in the region find ways to adapt to a
changing Arctic.
We must set the bar high and pursue ambitious domestic and
foreign policy agendas to address these challenges and
opportunities.
I have no doubt about America's ability to embrace the
responsibility and succeed, and I welcome the efforts of our
partners including Alaska natives, students, academia, private
industry, state and local governments as we focus all of our
energy on this critical global issue including the recognition
that the United States is and always will be an Arctic nation.
So I thank you for interest in the Arctic and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Papp follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much for that testimony. We
have been joined, of course, by Don Young, one of our more
famous Members of Congress for his knowledge of that part of
the world and I kid you not, I have heard about him--I was
elected 26 years ago and I heard about him even then.
Don, if you have an opening statement feel free to join us.
We are also joined by Steve Stockman. If you have a opening
statement please feel free and then we will proceed with
questioning.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I have a written
statement I will submit for the record, without objection.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Young. Just an off the cuff type thing, and I am one of
the few people that really lives in the Arctic, eight miles
above the Arctic Circle, and my interest in this is, of course,
the lack of exposure of the Arctic to the Lower 48 and where we
are going.
And Admiral, I compliment you for your role but keep in
mind we just finished, I believe, 6 years with another chairman
from another country, and not much happened. That concerns me.
In your testimony you bring up some very valid points and
we will discuss those in the questioning part of it. But Mr.
Chairman, I thank you for your interest and, of course, my good
friend from Washington is here and understands my interest and
he and I together are working on, hopefully, some solutions to
some of those challenges we are faced with.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will submit this for the record and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. And Mr. Stockman, do you have
an opening statement or a few thoughts?
Mr. Stockman. I will just quickly state that I think this
is a very important area in which, as you know, could cause
confrontation among many countries and the observations you
made are important and I think that United States needs to be,
I think, more aggressive in its posture. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and thank you for
joining us. We appreciate Mr. Young and Mr. Larsen who,
obviously, have taken a very serious interest in this issue.
We have--what I am planning to do as chairman I will move
forward and let Mr. Keating, our ranking member, ask his
questions first. I will then go and then we will proceed with
our fellow colleagues.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Papp, I would be interested to hear your thoughts
on Russia's increased use of bombers in and over the Arctic as
well as their new Arctic military command, which I alluded to
in my opening remarks.
Since the Arctic Council does not deal with political
military affairs, how will the U.S. be prepared to address the
lack of Russian transparency in the Arctic and as well as the
impact on the cooperation on the Arctic Council, and should
NATO be lending more situational awareness to the region as
well, particularly since much of the Arctic is under NATO's
area of responsibility?
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Mr. Keating. That is a pretty
broad topic and I would start off with the over flights.
You know, first and foremost, those are strategic movements
and physical statements by Russia that can be interpreted a
number of ways, and I would leave it up to my colleagues in the
Defense Department to give probably a better assessment on
that.
I do get regular intelligence briefings and I have been
doing readings on all the articles I can that we get in the
open press on activities along Russia's northern border.
I think the construction that they have going on and their
focus is partially a reflection of the fact that they have got
about 4,000 miles of coastline that is opening up now, and they
are stepping out smartly in terms of adding ports, search and
rescue facilities.
Some of these are referred to as dual-use facilities, both
civilian and military. I suspect if we were to build a Coast
Guard base in Barrow other people could point at us and say
that we are building dual-use facilities as well.
But I have been impressed with what I have seen so far in
terms of their investment along that northern sea route, and
rightly so, because they are going to have a significant
increase of traffic there.
So I think a lot of the activities are to be expected. We
look at some of them with some skepticism but, on the other
hand, they are right in terms of building facilities so they
can provide for search and rescue, pollution response and other
things that could happen along that northern coast.
As far as NATO goes, NATO's responsibilities does not stop
at the Arctic Circle. It includes the Arctic as well. I think
that the European Command and our NATO commander all take this
into account.
There are plenty of venues, whether it is the Arctic Chiefs
of Defense and other things that are looking at the military
security side of the equation.
I think the good thing about the Arctic Council is right
from its start nearly 20 years ago we have put defense issues--
military security issues--off the table so that we can keep the
discourse going between the eight countries and I think that
that will continue under our chairmanship.
Mr. Keating. Another follow-up to my opening remarks, in
regard to the U.S. chairmanship's priorities, as you know,
permafrost on the Arctic tundra contains twice as much carbon
as currently exists in the atmosphere.
Over time, the thawing of this permafrost could lead to an
increase in annual emissions equal to the current annual
emissions of a major emitter such as China or the United
States. This could greatly complicate international efforts to
curb climate change.
You have lived in the Arctic and have been up there, as you
mentioned. Could you explain in your own words what evidence of
the changing climate you have seen during that time as chair of
the Arctic Council?
How does the United States plan to educate the public about
our interest in the Arctic including the imperative to address
this kind of climate change as well?
Admiral Papp. As I said, Mr. Keating, I am not a scientist.
I am a sailor who has been in the Arctic and I made
observations. They started 40 years ago.
Forty years ago, the ship that I was on got beset in the
ice in the Bering Strait in July 1976 trying to make it to
Kotzebue, I flew by helicopter into Kotzebue and, descending,
there was ice as far as I could see.
I went back to Kotzebue 34 years later as commandant,
flying in the same time of the year, and as far as I could see
from thousands of feet in the airplane I could see no ice. And
I went back and looked--it was not an anomaly in 1976 to have
that much ice and it is not an anomaly now to have no ice.
So there has been some drastic changes. But there are other
things as well. I have taken time to speak to the elders in
Barrow who talk about ice cellars where they have stored their
whale meat for centuries that they have dug down hundreds of
feet into the permafrost.
Those ice cellars are now filling up with water. They have
never seen it before. My most recent visit to Barrow their
utility system was almost breached this year.
There is a tunnel that runs for about four or five miles
under the city and the pumping station was relatively close to
the shore.
Now it is over the shore because the permafrost is thawing
and the seas that are not buffered by shore ice now ate away at
the cliffs, the permafrost fell into the sea and their pumping
station was almost breached by the seas, and they have been
working feverishly up there to replace the shoreline.
So these are very visible things. It doesn't take a
scientist to figure out things are changing and we have some
very rudimentary things in basic food, water, shelter issues
that need to be taken care of within our American Arctic.
Mr. Keating. And these areas you think the council can work
on in a collaborative--the effects of it--is that going to be
the focus more than the science of it?
Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. Now, the experiences around the
Arctic are quite different. You know, the conditions that you
find in Scandinavia, which has had open water for centuries and
is much more developed and sophisticated, there is a difference
from some of the challenges that we are facing.
We are literally centuries behind on our North Slope in
some circumstances because the water was never open before. We
never worried about it. The debate over climate change, in my
mind, is a moot point.
It has changed, and we would not be here talking about all
this if the climate had not changed. So there is going to be
increased human activity, whether it is maritime or on the
shore, and infrastructure--governmental functions have not
caught up with where we are right now in terms of humankind
starting to come to the area.
Mr. Keating. It sounds that some of the experiences of the
other participating countries could be beneficial to us where
the changes might be more pronounced, learning from their
experience.
Admiral Papp. And that is where we are very helpful. Yes,
sir. For instance, in Scandinavia it is a very rocky shoreline.
They don't have to deal with permafrost, but some places,
particularly Canada and the United States and in certain
circumstances Greenland--the Danish portion of our Arctic
Council--have less development and increasing activities now
and different geography.
Mr. Keating. Yes. I recently had a tour of the latest asset
we have with the National Science Foundation, and I can't
pronounce the name of the ship--you are probably familiar with
it--but I think it will be a great resource as well because it
will give us more opportunities for actual mobile assessment on
the site. Are you familiar----
Admiral Papp. It will be for research, yes, sir. But in
terms of accessibility, I am sure we will get into an
icebreaker topic here at some point. But while we always
welcome those assets from the government, it doesn't replace a
heavy icebreaker.
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Just--I would suggest that we must struggle as hard as we
can to make sure that the Arctic is an area that reflects
cooperation rather than military confrontation, and it is
always easy for us to try to be fearful and I think if there is
one place that we can actually reach out and demonstrate where
people can work together, even if there are some other conflict
areas in the rest of the world, it is the Arctic, and
especially with people from Russia who, I think, share some
basic, how do you say, goals in their country maybe for the
Arctic as well.
Let me note that when you were talking about the icebreaker
in 1976, was it, that was caught in the ice, at that time all
the scientists were telling us it was global cooling and they
used that as an example of why they believed that we were
entering this era of global cooling and, obviously, now the
scientists are saying the opposite.
But what we do know is that what you described is there is
a change going on, and do you know, Admiral, is there a history
at all--I understand that at a time when the Vikings were there
that there was this similar changes and openings and then they
were frozen out. Is that right?
Admiral Papp. I am not sure about the Vikings. I have done
a little bit of reading about Alaska and if you go back about
10,000 years ago, of course, there was a bridge that went
between--the scientists believed there was a bridge that went
between Siberia and what is now Alaska and that is how the
current natives who migrated over thousands of years, actually
entered into Alaska and then down the Western coast of North
America.
So things go in cycles and we tend to see things in a short
term but----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Ask Congressman Young about that because
he knows all about bridges.
Mr. Young. It went somewhere.
Mr. Rohrabacher. With that said, what do you--let me tell
you, one of the concerns that I have is that when we have not
defined actually what we want out of the--out of the Arctic and
out of that region of the world, that instead we may leave a
void and not just when I am saying the Chinese that I mentioned
earlier on who want a share but other powers that may want a
share of the authority to control what events are going there--
may try to come up with schemes that would deny the United
States and those eight countries that you are talking about the
ability to keep control of the situation.
I think it is in the interest of the United States to
develop a plan that will--that will define authority so that we
maintain a higher level of authority and other of those Arctic
states--a higher level of authority than, for example, if we
would turn this over to an international body like the United
Nations, which might be susceptible to countries like China
that have, we know, bribed foreign officials and get votes.
Is your--what is your reaction to the idea of trying to
maintain authority rather than going to a total international
authority in the Arctic?
Admiral Papp. I believe that all eight nations within the
Arctic Council are firm in maintaining their sovereignty over
their portions of the Arctic.
There are many stories about land grabs and people trying
to compete for space up there but the reality is the boundaries
are fairly well defined.
There are a couple little disputes here and there and,
certainly, as we progress--as the other seven nations progress
under the Law of the Sea Convention to outline their extended
Continental Shelf claims, those other remaining issues will
resolve as well.
You know, one area that we are concerned about is the high
seas portion of the Arctic Ocean, which right now is frozen but
at some point in time will be at least open during certain
portions of the year and as the waters warm, if what the
scientists are saying is correct, there will be species of fish
that will begin migrating.
So one of the things that we are working on within the
Arctic Council is to come up with some sort of either
nonbinding or binding agreement on a fisheries council program
based on science that would regulate that high seas portion and
allow us to control who goes in there and conducts fishing in
the future.
Now is the time to start working on something like that
before people get up there on the high seas portion and start
exploiting those resources and the council gives us that
opportunity.
And you made the comment about cooperating with others. My
experience is that while there are some strategic movements
that Russia is conducting and we are rightly concerned about
those things, at the tactical and operational level there has
been great cooperation and we have worked well.
The Coast Guard in the 17th District in Alaska works very
well with the Russian Border Guard--their counterparts--and
within the council we have a good working relationship.
I went to the Arctic Circle event in Reykjavik, Iceland
just a couple of weeks ago. I had a one on one bilateral
meeting with Artur Chilingarov, who is Russia's Special
Representative for the Arctic, and I have an upcoming trip to
the Scandinavian countries and we are including a trip to
Moscow as well to talk with our counterparts there.
So we are intent on keeping these lines of communication
open because it is important for the safety and security of the
Arctic region and to maintain its condition.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Admiral, and Mr.
Larsen, would you like to proceed?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say nothing forced the Vikings out. They
left of their own accord because that is how--that is how we
Vikings are.
Admiral Papp, in May the GAO issued a report that the U.S.
had not prioritized its commitments to the Arctic Council and
it lacked sort of an organizational head. Also, the report
stated the State Department had only two employees at the time
working on Arctic policy full time.
Can you update us on what the administration has done to
respond to GAO findings--these GAO findings?
Admiral Papp. Well, first and foremost, we have appointed a
Special Representative and the Secretary has given me broad
responsibility to manage the Arctic portfolio--the large Arctic
portfolio across the State Department.
I was a little concerned when I first came in about the
same issues in staffing, and I think back at that point what
they were talking about is our Senior Arctic Official and the
one person that was working with her.
There were always plans to expand that staff in preparation
for the Arctic Council. There are probably at least a dozen
people, depending on how you count them, that are associated
with that right now, not even including myself. I have a staff
of four.
The Arctic Council is part of my portfolio, and as you look
across the State Department, part of my job has been
inventorying all those people across the regional and
functional bureaus who deal with the Arctic and coming up with
a matrixed organization.
And I say when you do that we probably have closer to about
two dozen people within the State Department that actually have
Arctic responsibilities and that we can call on from time to
time.
In terms of prioritization of program, it is prioritized
now, certainly. The first thing that I was tasked with when
coming in was to review our program, and I was very pleased to
find out that there was an awful lot of work that was done and
it may not have been prioritized but there were a lot of issues
out there.
What we needed to do was lump them into these categories
and what I wanted to do was have those categories relate back
to the National Arctic Strategy and that Strategy's
Implementation Plan.
Clearly, the Arctic Ocean's safety, security and
stewardship is linked back to activities that are in the
Implementation Plan that the National Security Council put out,
as are many of the other things in the other two categories.
So the first process was to prioritize and organize those.
Then we had to do listening sessions so we had input of the
people that will be affected by it, both internationally and
within Alaska.
We took two trips up to Alaska to do our listening sessions
and then made our presentations to various NGOs and other
interest groups in preparation for the Senior Arctic Officials
meeting in Yellowknife, Canada, which occurred about a month
ago, for our initial presentation of our program.
That is being negotiated right now. The Arctic Council
operates on a consensus basis so we have to work our program.
Our initial reports are wow, that is pretty aggressive--that is
a lot to do--and the primary feedback I got from most people I
spoke with was they thought we were being too aggressive.
When I took it to Secretary Kerry, he wanted to know could
we do more. So we probably hit the sweet spot in terms of
balance and I think we have a very good, aggressive program,
which is operationalizing some of the agreements that have been
done in the past like search and rescue and marine pollution
prevention response, and I am very pleased with where we are
right now.
Mr. Larsen. So the committee staff supplied the org chart
for the Arctic Council and it includes a list of observer
countries, and the EU has applied. I know Singapore is
interested or actually is an observer country. Mongolia,
Switzerland--a lot of folks getting interested in the Arctic
Council.
Does the administration have a thought or feeling--an
assessment about the growth of observer states at the Arctic
Council and their impact?
Admiral Papp. I think we believe that the more countries
that are interested and would like to participate, the better.
This is--the Arctic, clearly, is the responsibility of
those eight Arctic nations but the Arctic has an impact on the
rest of the world and the rest of the world would probably like
to use the Arctic, particularly if those shipping lanes free
up.
So I think it is our view that the more people who want to
join the party, participate and have input, the better. If they
get a better understanding what is going on, that is in our--in
our interest as well and, by the way, if you would like to
participate then perhaps those countries can devote resources
to some of the issues that we would like to do.
They can come up with some public-private ventures and
other things to help us with research projects in the Arctic.
So we believe it is a good thing.
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Chairman, could you indulge me one last
question? It is a yes--I think it might be a yes or no. Can you
tell--can you give us an assessment about whether the lack of
U.S. involvement with the Law of the Sea Treaty helps or hurts
the U.S. in the Arctic?
Admiral Papp. It hurts us. First and foremost, I would save
probably hours of discussions if I didn't have to go into every
bilateral meeting and respond to the first question that is out
of their mouths on why the United States hasn't acceded to the
treaty.
I mean, it gets monotonous that every bilateral meeting
that I have attended, not just since taking this job but over
my 4 years as Commandant, when you deal with another country
they are embarrassed for us because this great nation has not
acceded to a treaty that nearly every other nation in the world
has including the other seven Arctic nations.
Right now, it is not hurting us greatly because we abide by
most of the provisions. There will be some time in the future,
I believe, that when we want to affirm our claim on extended
Continental Shelf we will not have standing.
I guess if we want to create a navy and enforce it or
something like that we could. But we are a country that lives
under the rule of law and I think we should be a part of that
and it would give us standing and a venue to legitimize our
claims for extended Continental Shelf as well.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And we now and are grateful that
Congressman Young has joined us because, again, let me
reiterate this man knows more about the natural resources of
Alaska both fish and furs and----
Mr. Young. Whales.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Whales, the whole business,
and during my tenure in office he has been an incredible source
of information and inspiration. So Congressman Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind words.
Admiral--and welcome--what is your 50-year vision of the
Arctic? You will be gone and I will be gone but what do you see
out of all this council work and meetings and stuff? What do
you envision in the Arctic?
Admiral Papp. Well, first of all, good to see you again,
Mr. Young, and I have benefitted greatly for many years from
your wisdom and guidance and I am humbled to be here talking
about the Arctic in front of you because you have much, much,
much more experience than I do.
But having said that, I have some experience and, clearly,
during my tenure as Commandant I put the Arctic strategy as
part of what I thought was one of the most important things.
And I did that because as a nation--this is not just as a
Coast Guardsman or former Coast Guardsman--but as a nation we
have the opportunity to get out in advance of development.
The analogy that I have used as I have gone around the
world and talked to other people or around the country is where
I live out in Fairfax County. I have owned a home out there for
25 years and when I first bought the home it was surrounded by
farms.
But developers bought up all the farms, started building
other homes and it takes the government years to catch up in
terms of roads and infrastructure and schools and other things
because the government is inherently bureaucratic.
The Arctic is ripe for development now but it is also a
pristine environment, which we would like to preserve. We need
to come to a balance of economic development with preserving
that beautiful region that we have and----
Mr. Young. Let me interrupt. How can you preserve something
that is changing?
Admiral Papp. Well, I think what you can do is you can
protect the environmental quality of it.
Mr. Young. Well, and again, I don't want to get into this
climate change deal. This whole issue--I am a flatlander.
I have 57 scientists I think are the best in the world
including Russian scientists who don't agree this whole thing
it is changing. Now, how do you preserve something that is
changing? You do not. You adapt.
And that is why I am asking you what is your vision? How
are we going to adapt to the changes in the Arctic, which you
already said in your testimony.
Admiral Papp. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Young. How--what are we going to do in the Arctic to
adapt to the change?
Admiral Papp. Well, for the United States, while there are
a lot of people who would like to self-actualize and come up
with lofty ideas on things, the reality is we are at the base
of the pyramid.
We are concerned right now about food, water and shelter
issues. It is like Barrow having their utility system at risk.
It is like those villages that don't have fresh water and
sewers.
Mr. Young. Again, Barrow would not exist if it wasn't for
the white man. It wasn't a permanent town. It exists because we
discovered gas.
We invested in infrastructure. They have done so
themselves, and now we are going to have to adapt because you
can't--if you don't--you can't preserve something in its
changes.
That is why I am asking you. I am interested in what you
see. We are not going to be able to put firewalls up. We can't
freeze the ground again. How do we adapt? What is your council
going to talk about adapting?
Yes, their conduit was possibly going to get flooded. Yes,
they have some erosion problems. Yes. So how--what are you
going to do as the council to help them adapt to what is
changing? That is what the--I don't want just a bunch of
meetings.
What is your plan when you get done with this term of the
United States and your being in charge of it--what is going to
be the result and how is it going to affect 50 years down the
road?
Admiral Papp. Well, in terms of adapting to what is
occurring up there, we are looking at projects where we would
be able to adopt some of the recommendations that have been
made in the adaptation study that has been done between Sweden
and the United States, see what things that have come out of
that study that we might be able to pursue in terms of
objectives and pursue funding.
Some of these are going to ultimately come back to domestic
issues and resource issues and policy issues that the United
States will need to address.
We are involved from the State Department side in this
international body in coming up with cooperation on looking at
the impacts and seeing what other countries are doing, what
best practices we might be able to adopt.
Mr. Young. Okay, which brings me up another question, Mr.
Chairman. Resource extraction is going to take place. Is that
correct?
Admiral Papp. It looks likely it will.
Mr. Young. Looks likely it will. Now, how does that--is
that a conflict with the goals of this administration and the
council on climate change--the extraction of fossil fuels?
Admiral Papp. No, it is not in conflict at all. Reading the
National Strategy for the Arctic and the Implementation Plan,
it calls for sustainable development of the resources of the
Arctic.
Mr. Young. Okay. Now, lastly, Mr. Chairman--Admiral, I
always get a kick out of the permafrost--I have heard that
term--the permafrost is melting. What is permafrost?
Admiral Papp. Permafrost is an accumulation of sediment,
soil, animals, other things that have accumulated there over
centuries and because of the temperature as----
Mr. Young. What was it before it froze?
Admiral Papp. What was it before it froze?
Mr. Young. Yes.
Admiral Papp. It would have been probably swamp or----
Mr. Young. It was soil and it grew those animals and all
the other things we talk about, and I go back to the concept of
change.
What I don't want your council to do is get involved--and I
know what you talk to the people in Barrow--I represent that
area--and just the climate change issue itself.
This is--as you mentioned, 11,000 years ago there was no
ice in the North Pole. I know that is amazing, you know. The
ice was all the way--12 million years ago, not 11,000--12
million years ago there was ice in New Mexico.
It melted all the way to the North Pole and that was before
automobiles were around--now, keep that in mind--or mankind of
any kind. So we don't know what melted it.
But permafrost is a body of orgasms, if you call it, of
soil, of--well, it could be orgasms. But then it froze. It
froze, and I just--I just--you know, I get so concerned that I
have seen these meetings--and I know the time is up--council
meetings and everything else and we will talk and we will talk
and we will talk.
Because you haven't answered that first question--what is
your vision where the Arctic is going to be 50 years from now?
I will give the Coast Guard credit. They do put out some
shipping channels. They just did that this week, which is good.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I probably should be asserting a little
chairmanship authority here, although the conversation is
getting kind of hot.
Mr. Young. No, I just--I sit here and I have been through
this so many years and listened to talk with no goal and
position.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Let us give the admiral 60 seconds
to answer that question, then Steve Stockman to have his time
for questions.
Admiral Papp. The vision I personally would have for 50
years from now is there will probably be sustainable
development that will be extracting oil and gas from the
offshore region, whether it is the extended Continental Shelf
or closer to shore.
I would see new connections to the pipeline, probably
innovations in terms of renewable energy and natural energy for
the residents of the Arctic and the north part of Alaska.
Clearly, we are extracting a large percentage of the oil that
we use in this country from Alaska yet your Alaskans pay the
highest prices for fuel in the country, and most of them rely
upon diesel.
So we need to have some innovative solutions to power for
people in northern Alaska and I foresee that happening, whether
it is wind power, thermal, wave generated, hydro power, new
solutions for power and providing clean water for the people in
the north.
There are going to be a lot of people that are interested
in tourism. In 2016, there is going to be a cruise ship with
1,200 passengers that is going to leave from our West Coast, go
around Alaska, making ports of call up there, even though there
are no ports to pull into--they will run boats ashore. But I
see an increase in shipping up there.
There will be a need for permanent bases on the North
Slope--not just seasonal things that the Coast Guard and other
agencies do but there will have to be a permanent presence up
there.
All these things are going to require investment by our
country--investment that we have not done yet but is looming
out there. I talked about how Russia is investing along its
North Sea route. We are going to have to do very similar
things.
Mr. Young. And, Admiral, that was what should have been the
first answer you gave of what your vision was. You were
skirting the visions. Well, that last answer was good. So thank
you.
Admiral Papp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And Mr. Stockman.
Mr. Stockman. Some may ask why I am here because I am from
Houston, Texas, where we do have global warming, around the
year. They say we have two seasons--waiting for summer and
summer. It is pretty hot down there at this time of year, even
now.
But in my district we have 87 refineries. We produce almost
half the gasoline in the United States. I have the Port of
Houston, and so oil and gas is a very, very important commodity
to our district and what happens around the world impacts
directly in our district.
Therefore, I am interested in what you had to say today and
interested in the dynamics. I was told that the Department of
Homeland Security was calling for more icebreakers--I think
three heavy ones, three medium ones.
Currently, we don't have anywhere near that, and I was
wondering do you have a vision, as Don was saying, of where we
are going? Is this administration going to execute what was
recommended to them in terms of icebreakers? Are you going to
increase the number of icebreakers?
I think I was reading in the paper one time where, you
know, we had to get help from other countries even. There was
one that was--remember it was frozen and then they kept sending
other icebreakers and it kept freezing the other icebreakers,
which is amazing for how they were--that passage was supposed
to be open but it wasn't.
Could you address those concerns that the other committees
here have in reference to the icebreakers?
Admiral Papp. Yes, sir. My public statements are record on
that.
Even though there is a new Commandant who may have a
different opinion, I don't think his opinion would be too
varied from what mine has been. But in this job as well, it is
my opinion that we are woefully inadequate in terms of national
icebreakers.
We have only one. Russia, on the other hand--granted, they
have a much longer coastline but they have got at least a
dozen, six nuclear-powered heavy icebreakers, and what I would
say also is a reminder that we are just not focused on the
Arctic.
We are a bipolar nation, literally. We also have Antarctic
responsibilities as well and we have got one icebreaker that
can probably operate about half the year and then has to go in
the shipyard because of the rough usage. We do have a medium
icebreaker, the Healy, that can operate. But that is----
Mr. Stockman. But that is decommissioned or not, or is
that--is that operating?
Admiral Papp. Healy----
Mr. Stockman. That is a medium one or is that a large?
Admiral Papp. Healy is a medium icebreaker and is about now
about 14 years old. It is in pretty good shape and it is used
primarily for Arctic research. Polar Star is the only heavy
icebreaker that we have.
Its sister, Polar Sea, is laid up in mothballs in Seattle,
and what we have been trying to do is get construction on a
brand new icebreaker to replace Polar Sea and Polar Star, which
are approaching 40 years of age each.
Mr. Stockman. Can I ask you what the goals are and what is
the impediment to those goals?
Admiral Papp. It is money. It is new construction. In
theory, right now it should be within the Coast Guard's budget
to build those.
But it was denied for many years and they are involved in
other projects, and it is like the rest of the Federal
Government--there is no growth, and a new icebreaker costs
somewhere between $800 million and $1 billion and it is hard
for any agency in the government to absorb right now.
Mr. Stockman. But didn't Canada have--they were buying an
icebreaker and they bought, like, the plans from another
country and that saved them a lot of money?
Admiral Papp. Well, that is not unusual. When our
shipbuilders in this country--oftentimes what they will do is
they will buy plans from another country.
Even Navy ships or Coast Guard cutters, oftentimes they
will buy a design from another country but then build it in the
United States. Our laws require us to build it in the United
States.
Canada--I think they got their design from Finland, if I am
not mistaken.
Mr. Stockman. Right.
Admiral Papp. Finland is probably the leading country for
icebreakers.
Mr. Stockman. But I am saying could we emulate what Canada
did in order to facilitate--you know, expediting these
icebreakers I think is pretty important, given that your vision
of increased activity you would probably want more icebreakers
and if that is the case and we could save money by buying it
from Finland, I would think that we should do that.
So I guess, Mr. Chairman, what he is suggesting is we
should bring back earmarks. That is my opinion I have. But
thank you so much for coming down today and I would just
request that there be something you can tell us to do to
increase the--make sure that additional icebreakers could
happen and you can tell us in Congress what we need to do.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Being from Texas I would be surprised if
we would earmark those icebreakers. But----
Mr. Stockman. As long as we had oil getting out of it we
would be very happy.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Listen, thank you very much, Admiral. We
appreciate your testimony. We appreciate your testimony. We
appreciate your service.
I am speaking for my ranking members--the other members of
the committee here--our doors are open to you in your new
chairmanship. Let us work with you.
I take this responsibility very seriously because I believe
that the Arctic area is an area that people have not paid
attention to the vast potential that could be available to the
people of the United States and these other countries and, yes,
the world, if we have the right kind of policies--if we try not
to be in a conflict there but instead try to find ground rules
that will actually fit with all the countries and respect each
other's rights.
And thank you very much for testifying and we have another
panel now.
Admiral Papp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me here
today. God bless.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we have
had a fairly lively hearing so far. We have with us two
witnesses, Dr. Scott Bergerson. How do you--pronounce that for
me, please.
Mr. Borgerson. Borgerson.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Borgerson. Got it. Dr. Scott Borgerson,
who is the co-founder of an organization called the Arctic
Circle, a prominent NGO, and he is also the chief executive
officer of Cargo Metrics Technologies.
He has previously been a visiting fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations and has written numerous scholarly articles
on the Arctic. He is a former Coast Guard officer. Do they
allow you to have the beard in the Coast Guard?
Mr. Borgerson. They did. This is new.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Isn't that something? Okay. And having
graduated from the Coast Guard Academy and later he earned his
Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law in diplomacy.
We also have with us Mr. Andrew Holland. He is a senior
fellow at the American Security Project. His work focuses on
energy, infrastructure and the environment. In the past, he has
held various policy staff positions on both sides of Capitol
Hill. He is a graduate of Wake Forest University and the
University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
Gentlemen, we would like you to, if you could, summarize
your testimony in about 5 minutes and then be able to go and we
will have questions for you after that.
You may submit anything else, of course, for the record.
You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT BORGERSON, PH.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CARGO METRICS TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Borgerson. Thank you, Chairman, and it is a great
pleasure to be here. I am honored to be invited and I testified
actually before your committee in 2009, along with Admiral
Papp.
So it is great to be back, and I went back to reread my
testimony in preparation for this today and some things have
changed and many things haven't, like icebreakers, the Law of
the Sea, et cetera. I will touch on that in a bit in my
comments.
But, really, I am pleased to be back today as a private
citizen. Thank you for inviting me. I am going to detour from
my prepared comments to answer the question Congressman Young
asked Admiral Papp, if I could, about my vision for the Arctic
in 50 years.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is fine.
Mr. Borgerson. I think there are two answers for that,
depending on how the United States chooses to invest or not
invest today, and if you look at the Korean Peninsula you can
see two very different kinds of policies at a line of
latitude--one, at night by satellite, is all lit up.
There is a viable industry there. They build ships--really,
a vibrant economy in South Korea. And in North Korea there is
the opposite policies and it is dark at night, and I think when
you look at the Arctic in 50 years you will see some countries,
like Russia and Norway, having vibrant bright coastlines with
vibrant communities and economies and industries because they
are investing in infrastructure today, and if the United States
does not you will see something that looks like North Korea
today from space--what Alaska is today, which is basically open
wild coastline.
From Adak to Barrow is the same distance as from about Key
West to Maine. It is a massive state. Everything is bigger in
Texas, of course, except for Alaska, which is two and a half
times the size of the Texas, and there is virtually no
infrastructure there, and we have to invest in infrastructure
today.
So I will summarize my comments very briefly and to, first,
climate change, just touching at the wave tops; second,
infrastructure--I think we need to invest there; and lastly, I
think, some foreign policy opportunities for the United States
and chairmanship at the Arctic Council.
First, climate change--5 years ago, when I testified I
talked about the pace--the rapid pace of sea ice melt then. In
the 5 years since, every year is a record or a near record.
In the past 30 years, the Arctic has lost half of its area
and three-quarters of its volume of sea ice. These are historic
unprecedented melting of sea ice. It is without debate, as we
have discussed on this panel.
I am a big fan of Alaska. My heart is in Alaska. I love the
state. I am in constant contact with people there including my
friend, Dan Sullivan, who is now a senator-elect from Alaska,
and this is one of the warmest Novembers ever there and winter
is 2 months behind. The rivers have not yet frozen.
So we have--we can talk about mitigation strategies, and I
personally believe carbon needs to be priced, whether it is tax
or cap-and-trade. But separate from the point of this hearing,
which is about adaptation, the Arctic is melting. The United
States has to respond because the rest of the country or world
is.
Second, infrastructure--so what might we do? I would ask
you to channel your Lee Kuan Yew, the great Singaporean leader,
who, when they left Malaysia in 1965 had relatively little
infrastructure and a small economy, and it is now the
wealthiest nation in Southeast Asia because of very forward-
looking progressive ideas about how to invest into port, into
rail, roads, et cetera.
I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times 10 years ago, the
first op-ed about the Arctic, saying that it would take 10
years and $1 billion to build a new icebreaker, and if we
started today--this was 10 years ago--that we might have one
when we need it as the Polar Sea and Polar Star are being
decommissioned.
As we just heard from our Ambassador, here we are literally
10 years later with not a nickel appropriated to build a new
one and this country needs to. It is late.
We need a deep-water port. We need road, rail and other
intermodal infrastructure. We need pipelines. We need airports,
et cetera. I would really encourage the committee to think big
about Alaska and think big about the Arctic.
Lastly, we need to be much, much bolder in our approach to
Arctic foreign policy. I don't think we are being bold enough
as, as we approach chairmanship of the Arctic Council, starting
with, before I suggest some new ideas, an old one is get off
the list of Syria, North Korea and Iran as nonsignatories as
coastal states the Law of the Sea Convention and join
officially.
I know this is the House, not the Senate, which has
constitutional authority to get advice and consent to treaties,
but it is embarrassing that we don't--aren't officially party
to the treaty.
I think we should create marine preserves in the Arctic. I
think we should work through the Arctic Council to help protect
the high seas and maybe perhaps even make all the high seas off
limits.
I think we should work with Canada to create a new
compromise of the Northwest Passage. We have a maritime
boundary line dispute with Canada there. I think we should
engage energetically with Russia.
And, lastly, I see I am about out of time. I am pro-
development. I think this should be done hand in hand with
development.
I think there should be a strategic approach to the Arctic
where we look to invest in infrastructure in the Arctic and
develop the Arctic with conservation in mind but do so in a
very progressive forward-looking way that also protects the
environment.
Thank you.
[Mr. Borgerson did not submit a prepared statement.]
Mr. Rohrabacher. Doctor--Mr. Holland, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW HOLLAND, SENIOR FELLOW FOR ENERGY AND
CLIMATE, AMERICAN SECURITY PROJECT
Mr. Holland. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking
Member Keating and members of the committee for inviting me to
testify at today's hearing.
I am going to begin by noting that I cannot claim to be an
expert on Arctic affairs. Though I have written and spoken
extensively about it, I have not yet been above the Arctic
Circle, unlike some of our folks who have spent time on Coast
Guard cutters or Navy submarines.
My research at ASP focuses on energy, the environment and
how they affect America's national security. What that means is
that I care more about geopolitics than I do about polar bear
habitats.
I think my role in today's hearing will be to offer
perspective as an outsider, someone who understands
international relations and America's national security needs
more than I understand the intricacies of how the Arctic
Council works.
So to back up--for most of human history, the annual melt
and refreezing of the Arctic Ocean was a consistent trend that
kept it closed to all but the most intrepid explorers.
It was only in 1909 that Admiral Robert Peary's expedition
became the first to reach the North Pole. In a telegram to then
President Howard Taft, he said, ``I have the honor to place the
North Pole at your disposal.'' Taft replied, ``Thanks for your
interesting and generous offer. I do not know exactly what to
do with it.''
As I will explain, I think that American policy to the
Arctic has not changed that much since Taft. We still do not
know exactly what to do with it. Today, melting ice is opening
the Arctic.
As we heard, the administration has made climate change in
the Arctic a focus of the U.S. Arctic Council chairmanship, and
that should certainly be a part of it. The unraveling of the
Arctic will have huge costs to all of us, but I am concerned
that U.S. policies must go further in planning for an opening
Arctic.
During question and answer time, I am happy to discuss
commercial Arctic shipping, Arctic cruises, or drilling for
energy resources. My statement for the record includes
extensive analysis of these. But I will concentrate my oral
statement on the geopolitical and military imbalances I see in
the Arctic.
At first glance, there is a clear story line here--a gold
rush leads to a 21st century scramble for the Arctic with
contested territorial claims, which leads inexorably to
conflict.
But that does not fit. The institutions governing the
Arctic are simply too strong. The U.N. Convention on the Law of
the Sea and the Arctic Council have legitimacy among Arctic
nations and cooperation has reigned for decades.
That does not mean, however, that there is no threat of
conflict over the Arctic. I contend that the danger, in fact,
comes from an imbalance of attention and of power. Put simply,
the United States is weak where others are gaining in strength.
We are way behind our competitors in planning for an open
Arctic and this imbalance is most apparent in the military
power available in the Arctic. As the region warms and the ice
melts, Arctic nations are constructing new military bases and
building new ships that can operate in the harsh environment.
At the same time, countries far from the Arctic, including
the two most populous nations in the world--China and India--
are scrambling to find new geopolitical advantages in the
melting ice.
While countries like Russia see Arctic power as central to
their national affairs, the United States pays little more than
lip service to our status as an Arctic power. In nowhere else
in the world is the U.S. Navy so clearly outclassed in its
ability to perform surface operations as in the Arctic.
Russia's Northern Fleet is its largest and most powerful.
It has conducted extensive exercises in Arctic waters. Russia
has reopened Cold War-era bases all along their Arctic coast
and just 2 months ago they opened new radar bases on Wrangel
Island; that is only 300 miles from the Alaska coast.
That means that the Russian military would be much closer
to any drilling operations in American waters than any U.S.
military or Coast Guard operations.
Today, neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard have the
infrastructure, the ships or the political ambition to be able
to sustain surface operations in the Arctic in a similar manner
to the Russians.
Reading the Department of Defense 2013 Arctic strategy you
come away with the impression that it is a worthy document, but
there is no budget to back it up. Regardless of why the U.S.
has failed to act in the Arctic, the result is a missed
opportunity.
The U.S. Government, under the leadership of both
Republican and Democratic administrations, has all but ignored
the Arctic. So we must do more.
In the harsh environment of the Arctic a laissez-faire
approach does not work. Governments must put in place the
policies, appropriate the funds and give the political
legitimacy to Arctic development in order to exploit the real
opportunities that are available up there.
So far, the United States has, notably, combined only
tentative policies with very little funding and no high-level
political visibility.
So I have a few concrete steps that Congress could quickly
take in order to exert power in the Arctic. First, and I know
this is for the other side of the Hill: Ratify U.N. Law of the
Sea Convention.
Second, increase funding for U.S. military presence. This
is about Coast Guards but it is also about port facilities. It
is also about permanent Coast Guard facilities.
Third, we need to make a final decision on whether to
approve and regulate offshore oil drilling. We need to decide
one way or the other and then get moving on figuring out
regulations.
Fourth, elevate Admiral Papp--or his successor's--role to a
permanent Senate-confirmed Ambassador-level position. Right
now, he is just a special envoy appointed to the Secretary of
State. It would be better if he was an Ambassador.
Other nations have Arctic Ambassadors--all the other Arctic
nations as well as the Chinese, the Indians, Singapore, others.
And fifth and finally, raise the Arctic's profile by
regularly participating in Arctic-focused events. By that I
mean Members of Congress, not just Representative Young. We
need to raise its profile, and I know I am over time but I will
finish up here by saying in the absence of clear statements of
policy, backed by high-level attention and resources from the
United States, there is a danger over the long run that other
countries will misread U.S. intentions about what we perceive
as our core interest in the Arctic.
The United States is an Arctic nation but we should start
acting like one. Thank you, and I look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holland follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Mr. Keating, would
you like to proceed?
Mr. Keating. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. I
do think you addressed some of the unanswered questions we had
with the admiral.
I do want to give you the opportunity--I guess, first,
Scott and if you would like to--you both addressed it but if
you had some time to go a little further, I am curious.
Our inability to accede to the Law of the Seas Convention--
what are some of the results of that? If you could detail them
a little bit more I think that would be helpful. I will give
you a little more time to do that.
Mr. Borgerson. I will start. First, I would like to say
that was fabulous testimony, I thought, from Mr. Holland and I
agree with every one of his policy recommendations.
When at the Council on Foreign Relations, I published a
special report called ``The National Interest and Law of the
Sea,'' which detailed all the reasons why hurting the
convention--why not joining the convention hurts specific
concrete aspects of our national interest.
This isn't sort of a airy fairy feel-good thing about
international treaties. This is about national interest, hard
power. A few examples--one, under the provision Article 76 of
the convention, without being officially a party you can't
formally submit your claim to extended Continental Shelf. Not
only can we not submit our claim, we can't officially have a
seat at the table to review other claims that are being
submitted. That is a problem. We literally don't have U.S.
representation on that committee.
Second, under Article 234, which has to do with additional
legal authority to enforce shipping rules and regulations in
ice-covered waters, that is undermined by not being a party to
the treaty.
And then lastly, and it is difficult to sort of quantify,
but Admiral Papp sort of spoke to it and I feel this also,
traveling the world talking about the Arctic and interacting
with other Arctic sovereign heads of state--we have really
little lessons or a moral authority on Arctic issues.
The law--we led the writing of the Law of the Sea
Convention. The world changed the Law of the Sea Convention to
address President Reagan's problems with it. The rest of the
world has signed up for the rule book that we follow and yet
still, as a great maritime nation such as ours, we still can't
get our act together and join the convention, and it does
undermine us from a moral and diplomatic point of view in all
these forums.
So I would refer you to the book I wrote, ``National
Interest and Law of the Sea'' for a stimulating read on all the
sort of other legal details. But I will just end by saying it
is the one issue in Washington that you can find the oil and
gas industry, heads of the militaries, environmental NGOs,
Republicans, Democrats across the aisle agreeing that we should
join this treaty.
Mr. Holland. I would just add that the only thing--it is
about legitimacy and it is about our ability to exert our will
up there.
You know, the Russians made headlines last decade in 2007
by planting a little Russian flag on the sea floor under the
Arctic and that is a part of their claim to an extended
Continental Shelf.
The Canadians have now claimed a similar thing, claiming
the North Pole. The Danes, through Greenland, have also claimed
up to the North Pole.
I don't know whether we could or we would want to or
anything like that but I would--I would note that when I was
doing my research for this, Admiral Peary was the first one to
put a flag up there and it was an American flag.
Mr. Keating. You know, it is interesting. The chair and
myself went to Russia and it was prior to the aggression in
Ukraine and other areas, but we were in Russia and we had
occasion to meet with Mr. Rogozin, and during that meeting I
was impressed with how much time he spent talking about their
plans in oil exploration and as the ice was melting and how
that, you know, offered all kinds of opportunities.
So I think it is clear that our country has almost
adopted--it might be too severe to say--an isolationist policy
but, clearly, one of not paying attention to the economic
issues, the--some of the jurisdictional issues that are going
to come about, some of the environmental issues--you know, oil,
fishing.
You could go on and on with what we are--but we are--it is
clear, and that is why I hope this hearing raises, you know,
the consciousness around this because we will be dealing with
this one way or another at a certain period of time, and we can
deal with it before some of these conflicts occur, before some
of these opportunities are lost, before our ability to
influence things diminishes but--or we can wait and all those
things will occur.
So I thank you both for your testimony--very important
points--and I hope we can--hope it raises the level of interest
in this because it is inevitable that we will be dealing with
all of these issues.
Better--we would be better served as a country doing it in
the front end. Thank you.
Mr. Borgerson. You are welcome. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me just ask some specifics here.
I have heard a lot about the Law of the Sea Treaty here. I was
not necessarily prepared to discuss the Law of the Sea Treaty
but would the Law of the Sea Treaty be contradictory then--you
mentioned--I guess you just mentioned or maybe you just
mentioned that one country had made a claim--was it Denmark?
Made the claim all the way to----
Mr. Holland. To the Pole. The Russians and the Canadians.
The Canadians are preparing their claim to the Pole.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Claims--territorial claims that go all the
way to the Pole in the sort of a pie----
Mr. Holland. Correct. Yes, like a pie piece.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Pie piece. So that is one approach that we
have to setting down a strategy of how to approach who has
authority and rights and power over those areas in the Arctic
that we are talking about.
Is there a conflict between the Law of the Sea Treaty and
the idea of a territorial claim by individual countries? If we
claimed them--a pie shape to the Pole--would the treaty then be
contrary to that?
Mr. Borgerson. So I will take that. The answer is no, and
the treaty actually outlines the rules under which the
adjudication would be made under a organization called the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which has a
very technical prescribed set of rules to make that
determination and----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we at that point rely on the United
Nations in order to settle disputes then within that context?
Mr. Borgerson. So maybe, not necessarily. So they can be
resolved bilaterally in certain circumstances.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, yes. But if they can't--but if someone
comes----
Mr. Borgerson. There is a Law of the Sea Tribunal and----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, but somebody comes up and they are
challenging your authority and your rights and, of course,
there is not going to be someone who says well, I will just
give in to arbitration. You know, if this person has no rights
to this particular territory----
Mr. Borgerson. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. We would then be letting the
United Nations settle that dispute?
Mr. Borgerson. No. I mean, no different than China's
allowed the United Nations to solve the Spratly Island dispute
in the South China Sea or our disagreement with Canada over the
status of the Northwest Passage or----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Borgerson [continuing]. Our dispute with Canada on the
maritime boundary line in the Arctic. Those aren't----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Of course, in this particular case it is a
particular pie--you know, the Spratly Islands, of course, are
200 miles from the Philippines and 800 miles from China and
maybe China would like the United Nations to settle that
because they have a tendency to bribe countries in the United
Nations.
Mr. Borgerson. I can't speak to Chinese bribery of U.N.
member states as it relates to the Law of the Sea claims but
what----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, just remember--let us put it this
way. If the Law of the Sea Treaty is dependent on the United
Nations for any type of enforcement, what you have done is you
have taken authority and put it in the hands of enforcement
into an institution in which if you look at the membership of
the United Nations and you look at the General Assembly, you
realize that over half the nations are governed by crooks or
lunatics, and we--as people who would never be elected and
given authority to anything in the United States.
So if the Law of the Sea Treaty verification would in some
way put us under an obligation to let the United Nations solve
disputes, I think that is rather--something I would not be
supportive of. Let us put it that way.
The--in terms of this is the warmest--this is the warmest
winter that Alaska has had, we all--the question as in global
warming, of course, is who causes this--as whether it is a
natural phenomena or a manmade phenomena because of CO2 being
put into the air.
That is the only real debate going on on that issue. But we
also should note that this has been the coldest winter in large
portions of the United States. I mean, it is still the coldest
winter they have ever had in Wisconsin and Minnesota and those
places like that.
So while we note that it is warmed up here, we know it is
getting colder over here, and we also know that down in the
Antarctic it seems to be an expansion of ice rather than a
contraction.
So these things indicate something about the environment of
the world that is taking place, and I think it is really--it is
important that if, indeed, these changes in the world that are
taking place changes the reality of the Arctic, we need to set
down policy so that we don't have to worry about giving up
authority to a international body that may or may not be overly
influenced by crooks and, frankly, that is, of course, a matter
of some people have a different philosophy of how we are going
to have a better world.
So that--and I--that is just my point of view. With that
said, I appreciate both of your testimonies today. It has been
very valuable, and we----
Mr. Stockman. Mr. Chairman, can I--can I----
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, you are----
Mr. Stockman. Oh, okay. Okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. I am not finished yet. I am
just going to say that Mr. Stockman has got his chance. Then
there will be closing statements from the ranking member and
the chairman.
Mr. Stockman. I think we may have votes pretty soon too. So
I thank you for coming out today. I asked--Chairman, may I
submit for the record articles by Phyllis Schlafly from Eagle
Forum on this topic?
Mr. Rohrabacher. So ordered.
Mr. Stockman. Thank you. I have a question for you. I like
your ideas on development. However, I am questioning--I mean,
if I presented this to some of our environmental friends, they
would have--well, to be blunt, they would be rather upset with
your position which, by the way, I agree with.
But how would--how do you address that when you are
confronted with people who have really strong feelings against
everything you suggested? They want it to be never touched.
I mean, actually the policies we are doing now is exactly
the policies they want, and I agree with you--I think it is a
tragedy to look forward and to see us, again, like you said, 10
years down the road and you have such advanced development with
Russia and other countries and yet we are--excuse me, we are
kind of stuck in the Ice Age.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So to speak.
Mr. Stockman. Yes.
Mr. Borgerson. The metaphors on this panel are great.
Mr. Stockman. So how do you address when I come up--I am
going to come up to you and say, you know, I am angry at you
for your positions, but I am not.
Mr. Borgerson. Yes.
Mr. Stockman. How do you--how would you recommend I address
that?
Mr. Borgerson. Okay. I would love to answer that. If I
could, though, I got to respond to the chairman and say that
there is not debate on the scientific community about global
warming.
I mean, the debate among scientists is over. So I would
refer you to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
and----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me note that that just isn't true.
There are 3,000----
Mr. Stockman. Doesn't sound like it is over. It is still
going on.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There is 3,000 scientists who have signed
a petition who--most of whom are Ph.D.s in science that have
said they disagree with that assessment. But there is a honest
debate about it, and I could be wrong and other people have
trouble admitting they could be wrong.
Mr. Borgerson. So in answering Congressman Stockman, I come
at it from the point of view of global warming is happening.
The scientific community, I think, agrees. The ice is melting
and so there are two ends of the spectrum, right. There is----
Mr. Stockman. I know, but I am saying that you are making a
statement about development.
Mr. Borgerson. Yes.
Mr. Stockman. I agree with your statement on development. I
am not going to argue global warming because if you actually go
through the record of the statements by the global scientists
every 2 years, including Al Gore said right now that the polar
bears were not going to have any ice to walk on.
By the way, if you want to save polar bears stop giving
hunting licenses to hunters to kill polar bears. We have an
abundance of polar bears and he predicted they were all going
to be dead and floating in their Jacuzzis or whatever. I want
to address the thing on--I don't want to argue over global
warming.
Mr. Borgerson. I will answer it.
Mr. Stockman. I want to--I got someone coming to my office.
They are going to be screaming at me and I will say oh, I agree
with this global warming guy who wants development. They go,
well, that sounds contradictory. That is like jumbo shrimp.
Mr. Borgerson. So I am a pragmatist--there are jumbo shrimp
so you can have--you can have both.
Mr. Stockman. The cocktail size.
Mr. Borgerson. I am a--I am a pragmatist in the sense that
the environmental far end of that spectrum that wants to turn
the Arctic into a park is not going to happen, and it isn't
happening.
I mean, the largest zinc mine and nickel mine are already
in the Arctic. The Prudhoe Bay is in the Arctic. The Russians,
especially, are--and others are going to develop the Arctic.
So that perspective is fantasy. The other end of sort of
what I call the ``drill, baby, drill'' crowd that wants to just
develop without having rules and conservation in mind and do so
in a very thoughtful, progressive and strategic way we know
what that looks like and I would say China, if they could do
things different in terms of development with more
environmental and conservation ethic in mind and turn back the
clock, they would do so.
So I try and take sort of a balanced approach to say how
can we smartly develop. This is an amazing opportunity for us.
The Arctic is pristine and new and here we have a chance--you
have a chance as a leader to set in place a vision in which to
develop it but develop it sustainable.
Mr. Stockman. Yes, but I am saying I want to do role
reversal here. I am arguing you come into my office and you
say, I want nothing--I want that not to be developed. That is--
that is not an argument which is--it is a small sliver of
people.
That is--a lot of people buy into that argument that
nothing should be done. It is not a few people. There is a
large number of people. I mean, we have proposals before
drilling in ANWR which I think are--could be extremely safe and
that is not that big of a footprint--let us be honest. It is a
huge geographic area and the footprint would be very small and
they are blowing up over that, predicting, you know, every
caribou is going to die.
Mr. Borgerson. I don't disagree with you. I would maybe
package it as part of a broader conservation effort that
included things like marine protected areas and other places
that would be protected and investments in infrastructure and
education and a long list of things that you could do to have
both development but also do so with an eye to the future. You
can have both.
Mr. Holland. And I would add, too, you know, the Arctic is
a relatively small enclosed sea. So if the United States just
stops all development that doesn't mean the Russians will stop
all development as well, and what happens there if they have
spills--if we are not, you know, partaking in and trying to set
high standards in the Arctic, if they spill it won't stay in
its Russian waters.
Mr. Stockman. But that doesn't--that doesn't disavow my
point. For instance, in Florida, if you look at the line in the
Gulf it is a direct line. Right where Florida is they stop
drilling, and now the Cubans basically--you know, the pool of
oil doesn't just, like, oh, it is Cuba--we got to stop, and
they are going to basically stick a straw in there and they are
going to take Florida oil and they are able to drill out there
and get it, and so that doesn't stop Cuba from drilling but
that still--in this country Florida is not drilling and Cuba
will.
And I trust you, Cuba is not going to have the same
environmental concerns or ethics as the Floridians and you are
going to see the same thing up in the Arctic Circle. We are--I
predict 10 years from now we are still going to be in the
situation we are in right here today. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. I think we should let the two
witnesses--seeing that we have also--all expressed our opinion
here why don't we give you 1-minute summaries?
So if you had something you needed to say to some points
that we made up here, we will start with Mr. Holland.
Mr. Holland. Great. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher,
Ranking Member Keating. It has been an honor to be here today.
Just to sum up, you know, I would say that the national
security case for why we care about the Arctic is about what
other countries are doing in the Arctic and what else is going
on up there.
We have to--we can't just retreat into a hole and put our
heads under the sand on anything like this. We have to look at
what--not only what our opponents are doing but also what our
allies are doing and we have to support them and we have to
think about better ways to plan for the future on this.
So the Arctic requires a lot of planning, a lot of
foresight and we are not doing it. So we need to do that more.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Borgerson?
Mr. Borgerson. Thank you for holding this hearing and,
really, my compliments to the committee for thinking about the
Arctic. America is--needs to think more about the Arctic and,
as we have heard, is late to this region.
If I wasn't clear before, I do believe global warming is
real. But as Congressman Stockman pointed out, there is some
can be perceived as contradictions in my world view in that I
would love to see us take a very progressive and thoughtful
approach where we invest for the future where, as you lay the
Florida example, every time it rains Miami is under water and
is--and working hard to pump the water out.
You can have development in south Florida that maybe then
takes into account infrastructure to keep Miami from flooding,
has public-private partnerships that can be with development
but also adapt to climate change, et cetera. We should take
that exact same approach to the Arctic.
So we should maybe leave you with the idea of Manifest
Destiny. If we were having this hearing 150 years ago, 100
years ago, thinking about the American West, we would be
talking about the no canals or no railroads--it is just
wilderness--it is great in Washington, DC--we will never
develop America's frontier.
That is what Alaska is, and so 50 years from now we might
put our Manifest Destiny hats back on as American visionaries
and develop it with a conservation ethic and one that we will
be proud of for our children.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well said, and we had some national parks
dedicated that we are very grateful for that now. Mr. Keating,
would you like to make a 1-minute or----
Mr. Keating. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Whatever--however long.
Mr. Keating. I will be brief. I view myself as a pragmatist
and I think the concerns Mr. Stockman brought up, the analogy I
see from an environmental and growth standpoint is sustainable
growth or smart growth and that kind of planning where there is
going to be growth anyways, that is inevitable.
Let us do it the right way and let us do it in a way that
complements and minimizes the effect on the environment. That
is why planning ahead is so important. Also, I would suggest
too, when we are looking at the areas of the Law of the Sea
Convention, we can't ignore the fact that right now the other
members--the other people that have agreed to this--they are
making those decisions.
They are using whatever governing authority, whether it is
United Nations or not, already. The difference with the U.S. is
we are shut out of that so we have no voice or the lone voice
in those issues, and along the same lines it is important to be
a part of that.
Either you are there as a part of it or you are left out,
and I learned those things that are being emphasized in this
hearing as well.
I hope the fact that we had this publicly there is more
attention and awareness to this because there has a lot of work
to do, and in the absence of that other countries will be doing
things that could potentially conflict with us and we won't
have a voice in dealing with that, and if we do at some later
juncture it could be too late to effectuate the kind of change
we need.
So I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think maybe we timed this just
perfectly, didn't we? I mean, I think that sounds like we have
some votes coming up. Let me just say there is no disagreement
about whether there is climate change.
The only disagreement is whether mankind is causing it, and
there are many scientists on both sides of that issue. But we
are going through a period of climate change and your
testimony, whether how we believe that it is coming about, both
of you and the admiral earlier are testifying that we are not
taking the steps necessary to make sure that we are positioning
ourselves so that that change that is happening in--up in the
Arctic will be to the benefit of the people of the United
States and, yes, the people of the world.
I would--and I appreciate the admiral being here and I was
very serious about our doors are open to him. He is now going
to be part or the head of the Arctic Council of eight nations.
So we need to make sure that, number one, rather than
giving any type of authority to an international body that may
be affected by other countries outside those nations, I think
it would benefit us better to make sure that we establish a
very cooperative relationship with those eight nations and--
which that makes more sense to me, and I really appreciate the
insights both of you have given and the admiral is--you know, I
can't think of a better guy to have there representing us
there.
So with that said, I thank you and this hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Steve Stockman, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]