[Senate Hearing 114-15]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-15
U.S. ARCTIC OPPORTUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
EVALUATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE UNITED STATES TO BUILD ON ITS STATUS AS
AN ARCTIC NATION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE NATION AND THOSE WHO LIVE IN
THE ARCTIC
__________
MARCH 5, 2015
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-048 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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
Karen K. Billups, Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
Isaac Edwards, Senior Counsel
Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Tara Billingsley, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska... 1
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from
Washington..................................................... 4
WITNESSES
Papp, Jr., Admiral Robert J., Special Representative for the
Arctic, U.S. Department of State............................... 9
Herron, Hon. Bob, Representative, Alaska State Legislature....... 23
McGuire, Hon. Lesil, Senator, Alaska State Legislature........... 24
Brower, Hon. Charlotte, Mayor, North Slope Borough............... 133
Bitz, Dr. Cecilia, College of the Environment, School of
Atmosphere, University of Washington........................... 141
Arnold, Patrick R., Director of Operations & Business
Development, Maine Port Authority.............................. 160
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Alaska Native Women
Statement for the Record..................................... 203
Arnold, Patrick R.
Opening Statement............................................ 160
Written Testimony............................................ 162
Bitz, Dr. Cecilia
Opening Statement............................................ 141
Written Testimony............................................ 143
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 193
Brower, Hon. Charlotte
Opening Statement............................................ 133
Written Testimony............................................ 136
Cantwell, Hon. Maria
Opening Statement............................................ 4
Center for American Progress
Statement for the Record..................................... 207
Herron, Hon. Bob
Opening Statement............................................ 23
Written Testimony............................................ 27
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.
Chart: Least Sea Ice Extent.................................. 179
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa
Opening Statement............................................ 1
McGuire, Hon. Lesil
Opening Statement............................................ 24
Written Testimony............................................ 27
Papp, Jr., Admiral Robert J.
Opening Statement............................................ 9
Written Testimony............................................ 12
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 184
TO EVALUATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE UNITED STATES TO BUILD ON ITS STATUS
AS AN ARCTIC NATION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE NATION AND THOSE WHO LIVE
IN THE ARCTIC
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
ALASKA
The Chairman. Good morning. We will convene this morning's
hearing on the Arctic.
It is, I think, appropriate that the first ever Arctic
hearing scheduled in a full Senate Committee is held on a day
that has Washington gripped with anxiety. [Laughter.]
In anticipation of weather. If there's one thing the Arctic
knows, it's weather. The people of the Arctic, their lives
depend on knowing what will happen with the weather. Being able
to predict whether it is safe to go out on the ice,
anticipating winter, anticipating the seasons. There is an
awareness, I think, of the people of the Arctic about the land
and their surroundings that perhaps we don't see in most places
in the United States anymore because the people of the North
depend on their land.
I have been asked why it should be the Energy Committee
that would have a full committee meeting on the Arctic, but
I've pointed out that so much of America's Arctic land, of
course within Alaska's sizeable borders, is federal land and
that's where the nexus is with this Committee.
That's why I wanted to invite the Committee to take a look
at what I am describing as the Arctic opportunity that is
before America and before the world today. It is economic
opportunity. It is scientific opportunity. It is environmental
opportunity. National security opportunities, and really
opportunities for the nation as a whole from, quite literally,
a ``top of the world'' point of view.
I had an opportunity yesterday evening to give a speech on
the Senate Floor, and I had a map of the Arctic and the eight
Arctic nations and it was commented on by somebody. They said,
``I didn't recognize it. I didn't know what that was a map
of.''
When you look at planet Earth from above, truly, from the
top of the world, it is a remarkable area. Remarkable in its
topography. Remarkable in the extent of our oceans.
Also more remarkable because of what we're seeing take
place in the Arctic today, a level of movement, a level of
commerce, a level of engagement that is absolutely
unprecedented. It's this aspect of the Arctic opportunity that
gets me excited about what it is that we have to offer as an
Arctic nation.
I want to acknowledge a few people who have joined us today
that have discovered this is, probably, the only hearing going
on in the Senate this morning. It may be that some of you are
just lost. [Laughter.] It may be that others of you are here
with great purpose as we are.
We have the Ambassador to Iceland, Ambassador Barber, who
has joined us. Welcome. It's the first time that I have seen
him since we confirmed him, and we're pleased that he is here.
We also have Iceland's Ambassador to the U.S. who has
joined us in the group here this morning.
We have many Alaskans who have traveled quite far to be
with us, I think, to support not only those who will be
testifying this morning, but also a series of other meetings
that will be going on throughout the Hill today.
PNWER, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region, is having a
North American Arctic Leaders Forum this afternoon in the
Russell Office Building, Room 485, beginning at 12:45. I'd like
to invite folks to attend if they would so desire. There are
those meetings going on and again, we've had a good deal of
focus on the Arctic here in the Senate as well.
Now I mentioned that we are an Arctic nation because of
Alaska, but truly every state in this union has a stake in the
Arctic whether it's from trade with other Arctic nations or
research activity. The Arctic touches all 50 states and really
needs to be a national priority.
When I was on the Floor yesterday it was Senator Gardner
who was sitting in the chair, and I reminded him that in his
state of Colorado the percent of total exports from Colorado to
the Arctic nations is 30 percent of Colorado's exports. 30.5
percent of Colorado's exports go to Arctic nations. That's from
Colorado.
My friend and partner here on the Energy Committee was also
on the Floor yesterday, and I reminded him that in Wyoming,
again, the numbers are pretty impressive, Wyoming's Arctic
exports are 28 percent of Wyoming's total exports.
I guess I should look up Washington while I'm sitting here
thumbing through. Washington. We need to up our game here in
Washington a little bit. 14 percent of Washington's total
exports go to the Arctic.
Maine, and I think my colleague from Maine knows this
because I think it's one of the reasons that he has become so
engaged in Arctic issues, but in Maine it's 52 percent of
Maine's total exports that go to the seven other Arctic
nations. So it was not surprising to me that Maine should have
a very substantial contingent at the Arctic Circle meeting in
Reykjavik back in October, and that was good to see.
Minnesota. You need to know, Senator Franken, that it's
just about 30 percent for you as well, 29.9 percent and----
Senator Franken. A lot of that is to Alaska, though.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We're going to work on our friends and
neighbors to the south of us.
In Hawaii it's a little less than four percent, but I think
what happens with Alaska and Hawaii is we export a lot of our
Alaskans in this time of year to you for tourism. So I think
you appreciate, very well, the full benefit coming out of the
Arctic.
I mentioned my colleague from Colorado already sitting at
30 percent, so we welcome him to the Committee as well.
My point in putting these numbers out here is because I
think many of us just don't even think about the significance
of the Arctic from a trade perspective and what that might mean
to us.
On April 25th, just a couple months away, the United States
will assume the Chair of the Arctic Council at the ministerial
meeting in Iqaluit in the Nunavut territory. I've had the
opportunity to attend the past two ministerial meetings. One
was with Secretary Clinton when we traveled to Greenland, and
then again with Secretary Kerry when we were in Kiruna, Sweden.
It was impressive in both of those ministerials to see the
growth in interest in the Arctic by the non-Arctic nations. At
the last meeting we had six additional non-Arctic nations that
were added as observers to the Arctic Council bringing the
number of observer nations to 12 and overall observers to 32.
So what is happening is this is not just Arctic nations that
are focusing on the Arctic. It is nations from around the
world. It is not to be missed that Singapore has had a presence
at the Arctic Circle meetings and at the Arctic Council
meetings. It is not to be overlooked that the contingent from
Great Britain, when we were in Reykjavik at the Arctic Circle
meeting, was larger than the delegation from the United States.
Great Britain is hardly an Arctic nation.
So it causes you to question what is it that they see that
perhaps we're missing here in Alaska? I shouldn't say it. We're
not missing it in Alaska. We're missing it in the rest of the
lower 48 here.
The Arctic is notable within the international community
from an economic perspective as our shipping lanes are opening
up, additional areas become accessible for resource development
and clearly we see tourism on the rise.
Our neighbors, Russia to the west and Canada to the east,
continue with their very determined national plans combined
with state investment to develop Arctic resources and advance
commerce in the north. Their plans are working to create jobs
and economic growth in areas that, I think, we would
acknowledge face some extraordinary challenges.
Even non-Arctic nations are embracing the opportunities
that are coming with diminished polar sea ice. They're reaping
the transit benefits. They're moving ahead with resource
exploration and development activities.
We can debate here in the Congress the pros and cons of
offshore development in the Arctic, but I am one who believes,
very strongly, that we can access our resources. But even if
you suggest that we take that off the table, the reality is
these activities in the Arctic will continue with or without
the United States' involvement. The maritime activity is only
going to increase. What we're seeing happening on the Russian
side of the Arctic is going to just accelerate. We're seeing it
in Canada. It is everywhere. It is within the entire Arctic
except, perhaps, in the U.S. Arctic.
During our Chairmanship of the Arctic Council I am hopeful
that the United States will embrace the work of the Arctic
Economic Council, recognize its formal connection with the
Arctic Council and support its work in order to help those who
live in the Arctic to develop their economies and improve their
qualities of life.
I think today is a somewhat fitting reminder as we're out
in the snow and talking about weather, an element.
Unfortunately I think so many people associate the Arctic with
just weather. That's all they think about, and it's important
that we remind them of the people of the Arctic, the people who
have been there for thousands of years, the 4,000,000 people
who live in the Arctic.
So as we have these discussions about the challenges that
face us, the challenges of climate change and environment, the
challenges of moving from a time when it was truly a
subsistence lifestyle to one where commerce is opening up.
Activities are opening up, and perhaps we lack, not perhaps,
but we do lack the infrastructure necessary to be a major
participant.
We cannot forget about the people of the north, so I'm
pleased today that we will have those who will address those
issues as we work together to discuss the Arctic opportunity in
front of us.
With that I will turn to my colleague and Ranking Member
and one who benefits greatly from the activities in the Arctic
because we all jump off from Washington State in heading
northward. So with that, I turn to my Ranking Member.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and
thank you for keeping this important and historic hearing on
the schedule. And thank you to our constituents who are here to
testify.
There is a bit of irony that the backdrop of this hearing
is weather when, in fact, the changes of weather conditions
demands that the United States come up with an Arctic strategy
and implement it. So I'm very grateful that your passion and
leadership prevailed here today.
I think the Arctic is something we can find significant
common ground on. The United States Arctic strategy is
tremendously important to both the economies of Washington and
Alaska and, as we've heard from many of our colleagues here on
the Committee, it is critically important to the United States
of America as well. I think that we will hear that from our
witnesses today.
I believe we can agree on the fact that our Coast Guard
needs the tools and infrastructure required to operate in the
Arctic which means developing a polar ice breaker fleet.
We must have strategic investments in Arctic science which
will help us understand the impacts of climate change on Arctic
communities but will also better inform our strategies for
dealing with everything from rescue operations to potential oil
spills.
I think we can agree that the United States must ratify the
Law of the Sea Treaty which clarifies the rights and
responsibilities of nations on our oceans.
The Arctic already contributes a great deal to the American
economy, and we must have a seat at the table. The Chinese and
the Russians are already aggressive in their resource
development in the Arctic area, and as our climate continues to
change, the economic importance of the Arctic will only
continue to grow in the years ahead.
This year the United States assumes the rotating Chair of
the Arctic Council. In this capacity we have a great
opportunity to draw Arctic nations closer together to address a
wide range of issues. The U.S. efforts, hopefully, will
prioritize important efforts in addressing climate change,
increasing regional cooperation and facilitating new and
reliable shipping routes.
On January 21st President Obama issued an executive order
to improve coordination and implementation of the United States
Arctic strategy, and this order created the Arctic Executive
Steering Committee, chaired by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy at the White House. The Steering Committee
will help to increase coordination, reduce duplication, and
address any potential gaps in implementation. In my view, the
Obama Administration is pursuing an Arctic strategy not just on
paper, but they have to have significant actions proportional
to the challenges and opportunities that we face here with the
Arctic.
That's why I'm so pleased that Admiral Papp is here today,
because he fully appreciates the role the Coast Guard plays in
the Arctic and will play in the future. As we evaluate
opportunities and challenges that we face in the Arctic, we
need to make sure the Coast Guard has the adequate resources to
meet those missions and do so safely.
Admiral Papp, given your role in signing the Coast Guard
Arctic Strategy in 2013 when you served as the 24th Commandant,
you bring a unique viewpoint on these issues. I look forward to
hearing your perspective this morning on your role as the
Special Representative for the Arctic.
While all ice breaking operations in the Arctic have been
delegated to the Coast Guard, it is clear that we have not yet
provided these men and women with the resources to meet this
mission. According to a 2010 study, the Coast Guard determined
that it either needs three heavy or three medium ice breakers
to fill its statutory obligations or six heavy and four medium
ice breakers to both meet its statutory obligations and the
requirements established under the Naval operations concept.
Yet today the Coast Guard only has two ice breakers in
operation, one heavy and one medium, and the medium vessel, the
Healy, is primarily a research vessel.
Madam Chair, I know this isn't the Commerce Committee where
we often discuss these issues, but it is very important as we
discuss our Arctic strategy that the United States of America
understands it needs to make an investment in ice breakers.
These issues of lack of resources are particularly troubling
when we consider that Russia currently has 29 operating ice
breakers and is in the process of building eight more. I found
out this morning even India is building an ice breaker.
According to a report for the Center of American Progress
released this morning, ``Without this decisive action to fund
and build a new heavy ice breaker fleet for the U.S. Coast
Guard, the United States puts its environmental and national
security in harm's way.''
The Coast Guard is already spread too thin, and earlier
this year the Polar Star broke through ice to deliver supplies
to the American base in Antarctica. A commercial fishing vessel
got stuck in ice nearly 900 miles away. The Polar Star launched
an international rescue mission traveling 860 miles, 150 miles
required breaking thick ice in the Antarctic ice. When all was
said and done, our Coast Guard rescued 26 people.
I'm very proud of our Coast Guard, especially the crew that
calls Seattle home, and I'm concerned that we only have one
heavy ice breaker. What if the Polar Star too had been stuck?
So as the Commandant, Admiral Zukunft, said in his State of the
Coast Guard address last week, ``There is no one to rescue the
rescuer.'' We need to provide the Coast Guard with more
resources, and that means more ice breakers. I'm sure ice
breakers are one of the topics we'll hear about from a number
of our witnesses.
I'm pleased to have Dr. Bitz, from the University of
Washington, here today to talk about the impacts of climate
change as we will discuss we're seeing tremendous impacts on
the Arctic region. And this is something we need to address in
a comprehensive, regional policy.
It's also worth noting that last October Defense Secretary
Hagel referred to climate change as a ``threat multiplier.''
These threat impacts include impacts to property from sea level
rises and erosion, and access to natural resources, including
our fisheries. Further extreme weather can impact our military
readiness and continue to stretch already limited resources.
Warming has serious implications for America's national
security in the Arctic, and this impact is especially acute
because climate change is affecting the Arctic region twice as
fast as the continental United States. Over 5.4 million miles
of the Arctic Sea melted between March and September 2012 and
the level of Arctic ice measured in January of 2015 was the
lowest amount for the month of January in history.
We've already seen significant ways in which climate change
is altering the life of the Arctic. Juvenile salmon populations
have decreased as they have lost access to traditional food
sources under the Bering Sea coast. I'm sure the Chair could
name many things that are happening, everything from affecting
Alaska villages to coastal flooding and erosion to threats to
homes.
But it is also important that we note the impacts of
melting ice in the Arctic also have broad, national economic
implications. According to a recent report by the Natural
Resources Defense Council, melting ice in the Arctic will have
a severe impact on agriculture in the continental United
States. Kansas, for example, will be four degrees warmer in the
winter without Arctic ice, which normally generates cold air
masses that slide southward. Warmer winters are bad for wheat
farmers who need freezing temperatures to grow wheat. In the
summer warmer days would rob Kansas soil of 10 percent of its
moisture for drying out valuable farmland.
My point to our colleagues is that this affects all of us,
and the fate of the Arctic ice will have broad economic
implications in the lower 48.
I want to talk for a second just about the importance here
of trade in the economy, because I know we do have guests from
all over. They've already seen how important the Arctic is for
this. In the coming years economic activity in the Arctic is
poised to increase substantially. This will have a dramatic
downstream impact on Pacific ports like Seattle and Tacoma. The
economy of my home state and Alaska too is already deeply
interwoven.
According to a recent study by the McDowell Group, Alaska-
related jobs in the Puget Sound area increased by nine percent
in the last ten years. 3.4 million tons of cargo moves between
our states every year, and an increase in commerce in the
Arctic will certainly provide new economic opportunities to
both our states.
It is also important that we assess how the melting ice in
the Arctic would have a significant impact on global trade. The
opening of the Northwest Passage, for example, would reduce the
amount of time it would take to travel from Korea and the
Netherlands by ten days compared to the route through the Suez
Canal. A 2009 report from the Arctic Council estimates that the
northern sea route would offer an overall estimated savings of
35 to 60 percent for ships traveling from East Asia to Europe.
It would also allow ships to circumvent regional conflicts that
are at risk of piracy, everything from the African Coast or
Malaysia.
It is also important that we not lose track of the
significant challenges this economic opportunity will also
present. Although melting ice sheets will increase traffic,
there still will be significant ice cover, severe storms,
minimal maritime and weather data to assist vessels transiting
those routes. That is why we all need to work together on a
strategic plan in the Arctic sciences, tools and
infrastructure.
One of the key steps in addressing, I believe, our Arctic
activities is also in ratifying the Law of the Sea under the
United Nations convention. I know my colleague knows well this
issue and all the challenges that we have faced in trying to
address this here in the United States Senate, but I just want
to point out that President George W. Bush and President Obama
and Secretaries of State and Defense have all supported this
effort including many, many people in the private sector,
everyone from shippers to fishing businesses. I think it's an
important issue we need to try to engage our colleagues on.
So the Arctic is certainly a region of great economic
importance to our country, and at the same time we must work to
confront the climate change issues that are posing a threat to
the region. I look forward to hearing from many of the
witnesses.
Again, Madam Chair, I really do want to complement you on
your perseverance in making sure that we had this historic
Arctic hearing today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. It will be just
the first of many, I'm sure.
Along with Senator King, I have invited each of our
colleagues to join us as part of the Arctic Caucus. We've got a
lot of caucuses around here but, I think, it is something that
we will use as a means of outreach and education and
collaboration on some of these issues that you have raised in
your comments.
I appreciate your comments, particularly about the issue of
ice breakers and our lack of capacity in that area. While there
are many things that can be used as a barometer for progress
that we're making, if you can't move it makes it tough to do
much of anything. And as a nation we are woefully behind.
While we do have the Polar Star, the fact of the matter is
that the Polar Star is on contract for the next five years down
in Antarctica. When she's not down there, she's going to be
being patched up because of being banged around in the ice down
there. So we're not going to see her in our northern waters for
five years.
And then you think, well, okay, we get her after that.
She's got a youthful life expectancy of between six to eight
years now. So when you keep in mind that it takes at least ten
years to build a new ice breaker and it takes about $1 billion
we needed to get started yesterday. So I look forward to your
commitment in working on that.
Let's stop talking and listen to those who truly get up
every day to focus on the issues of the Arctic.
I will welcome each of you with introductions and then we
will start with your comments. I am particularly pleased this
morning that we have Admiral Papp joining the Committee. I
know, Admiral, that you rearranged your schedule to be here,
and I greatly, greatly appreciate that. I know where your heart
is on these issues. We've had an opportunity to travel
together.
Admiral Papp has been with the Coast Guard for his entire
career. He served with great distinction as the 24th Commandant
of the U.S. Coast Guard, and he was a career Cutterman serving
on six Coast Guard Cutters. He began his Coast Guard career in
Adak, and it is a wonderful story for those of us who have an
appreciation of the remoteness and some of the unique
attributes of being out in Adak with a new bride. But the good
news story for Admiral Papp and his wife, Linda, is that
journey that began in Adak continues after many decades of a
wonderful relationship. He's got a fabulous family, and I have
been pleased to be able to make their acquaintance as well.
Admiral Papp became the State Department's Special
Representative for the Arctic in July of 2014. He has a
considerable task in front of him as he works to really
coordinate and facilitate so much of what is happening whether
it's through the State Department, the White House, the
legislative branch, or working and communicating with local
governments at all levels. I truly appreciate the leadership
that Admiral Papp has presented.
Next to Admiral Papp is Representative Bob Herron. He is a
member of Alaska's State House of Representatives, and he is
co-chair of the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission. He hails from
Bethel. He was elected to the House back in 2008, but his
passion for all things Arctic is manifested in all of what he
does. I appreciate you being here and for what you and Senator
McGuire have done with the Arctic Policy Commission. It has
been a considerable effort and is greatly appreciated and
respected.
Senator McGuire, welcome to you. Senator McGuire is also a
member of the Alaska legislature, serving in the Alaska State
Senate. She's co-chair, again, of the Alaska Arctic Policy
Commission, and she was first elected to the State Senate back
in 2006.
She served in the House of Representatives, and I'm pleased
to be able to say that we were able to serve together in our
legislature. She has done a wonderful job for us. She is also,
along with Representative Herron, co-chair of the Pacific
Northwest Economic Region Arctic Caucus. Again, that meeting
will be going on this afternoon.
In the middle we have the Honorable Mayor Charlotte Brower,
who is the Mayor of the North Slope Borough. The Borough
encompasses an area of nearly 95,000 miles. I'm told, Mayor
Brower, that's about the size of Wyoming. And you are mayor of
this amazing area. Over 70 percent of the borough's residents,
there's about 7,500 residents up there, about 70 percent are
Inupiat Eskimo.
Charlotte is the first woman to serve as mayor. She was
recently reelected to another three year term. She's the wife
of a whaling captain and has a wonderful family there in
Barrow, Alaska. Welcome and we appreciate your leadership,
Mayor Brower.
Dr. Cecilia Bitz, welcome to the Committee. Dr. Bitz is a
professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Department, an affiliate
physicist for the Polar Science Center and part of the program
on climate change, all at the University of Washington. We
welcome you to the Committee as well.
Her work includes research into the role of ice in the
climate system and high latitude climate and climate change. So
we'll look forward to your comments.
Rounding out the panel we have Mr. Patrick Arnold. Mr.
Arnold is the Director of Operations and Business Development
at the Maine Port Authority.
Again, I think it's significant that the two states that
book end the country, Maine and Alaska, are significantly
represented as we discuss these issues of Arctic policy.
Thank you to all of you for coming here, many of you flying
great distances to be here, rearranging your schedules and
coming through the Arctic weather.
With that, Admiral Papp, if we can begin with you and thank
you again, for your service to our country in so many different
ways.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT J. PAPP, JR., SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ARCTIC, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Admiral Papp. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and let me say,
congratulations. It's the first time for me to see you in the
Chair. And as you are a member of our Coast Guard family as
well, due to your father's service, we're really proud of you
to be there.
And Senator Cantwell, another long term friend of the Coast
Guard and to me personally. She substituted for Senator
Rockefeller five years ago to Chair my confirmation hearing, so
I'm indebted to her for that.
To the rest of the members, good morning to all of you.
Also good morning to my good friends that I've been able to
make over the years of visiting Alaska, Representative Herron,
Senator McGuire and Mayor Brower. I've spent a lot of time with
them, not only over the last six or seven months in this job,
but also over the last four years.
As you noted I started my career in Alaska, and it taught
me many lessons that lasted me throughout my entire career.
First of all the tyranny of time and distance in Alaska,
the severity of the weather, but also the beauty and the ice
and the challenges that people face while they're living and
working in that environment.
It also laid down a marker for me because then visiting
almost four decades later as the Commandant of the Coast Guard,
I saw firsthand the changes that are occurring in that very
sensitive and beautiful environment. So my interest in Alaska,
in particular, and in the Arctic, more broadly, has been for
about four decades now. I'm very proud and privileged to be the
first United States Special Representative for the Arctic.
I don't have a long statement here in the interest of time.
I want to get to the questions and answers just like you do, so
I just wanted to point out a couple of things.
Our program that we've developed for our Chairmanship of
the Arctic Council is probably the most aggressive and
ambitious that's ever been proposed by any one of the Arctic
countries. It was well underway before I came into the job
nearly seven months ago. My job, when coming into the State
Department, was more to organize it and to market it and put it
in a form that we could bring it forward.
Much of that depended upon getting input from our friends
and neighbors in Alaska, so I immediately went to Alaska for my
first visit in this job. I spent a week up there talking to the
entire breadth of constituency groups, came back, we revised
our program slightly, gave it to Secretary Kerry for tentative
approval, and then made a second visit to Alaska to do some
more listening sessions and find out where we might improve our
program.
We came back, prepared the program and then started our
efforts towards advertising and bringing it to the public. I
spoke to a number of groups both environmental, security and
others then, of course, traveled to Reykjavik, Iceland.
I would say also, good morning to Ambassador Barber and
Ambassador Gerhard, good friends of ours and my first
international speaking engagement was with you in Reykjavik at
the Arctic Circle.
Once again, refining our program, getting more input from
constituents and also the entire federal family, and then
coming and taking it to Europe. Just three weeks ago I returned
from two weeks in Europe going to Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
Finland and to Russia to discuss, at the highest levels in
their governments, the implications and the agreement on our
program for the Arctic Council.
So I wanted to give you the feedback on what I received
across the board on our program for the Arctic Council.
First and foremost we have, when I speak to environmental
groups, they say, well you got the climate issues right, but
you're a little strong on security. When I talk to security
groups they say, well, you got the security stuff right, but
you're a little strong on climate. So I suspect we hit the
sweet spot there in terms of balance in our program.
The second comment I get, particularly from the other seven
countries, is that's a very ambitious program. Are you sure
we're not taking on too much?
The only person that contradicts that is Secretary Kerry.
He always asks me, are we doing enough? Can we do more? So once
again I think we've found a sweet spot there.
There are complaints about economic development and that
the United States might not be committed to the Arctic Economic
Council. I think that's a misperception, and I look forward to
answering questions about that.
The next question we get is are we going to cooperate with
Russia? And that was part of the reason for me going to Moscow
was to make sure that we can keep the lines of communication
open with Russia and reassure the other Arctic countries that
those lines of communication will remain open for the success
of the Arctic Council.
Then the final thing is the other countries are excited
about the United States' leadership. They will admit that this
is a very ambitious program, but they're excited because we're
showing leadership. Leaders set high goals, and once you set
those goals you have to look for measureable results.
What we're trying to do with the Arctic Council is to
operationalize the Arctic Council, get it out of just policy
decisions and start taking some actions. For instance,
implementing the search and rescue agreement. Implementing the
pollution response agreement, and showing and identifying where
our strengths and weaknesses are.
Under U.S. leadership the only question that I have coming
up from the other countries is, you know, we really like what
you're doing. We're excited, but is the United States really
committed? We don't sense that you're fully committed to the
Arctic yet.
And then what it always reverts to when you talk to either
the other countries or our friends in Alaska, they say its
resources. When is the United States going to commit resources?
When are you going to spend the first dollar on building a new
ice breaker?
That's not within my purview at the State Department, and
it's not within the purview of the Arctic Council to run
domestic issues for the United States; however, our public
diplomacy program, we hope, will bring attention to the Arctic
and to Alaska and hopefully lead to those considerations.
Madam Chair, I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Papp follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Admiral Papp. I greatly
appreciate, again, your leadership and your willingness to be
here with us this morning.
Representative Herron.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB HERRON, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA STATE
LEGISLATURE
Mr. Herron. Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and to all the
other members of this Committee.
We're going to explain to you this morning a little bit
about the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission's report, and I'll
take the implementation plan and the House bill that my
colleagues in the Alaska Senate will vote on next week.
The implementation plan and the bill follow four priority
lines of effort. Promoting economic and resource development.
Addressing the infrastructure and response capacity in the
Arctic. Supporting healthy communities, and strengthening a
state-based agenda for Arctic science and research.
Now Madam Chair, when we started out in this adventure four
years ago we had three audiences we wanted to target for
learning what it is to be in Arctic jurisdiction, the
legislature itself, the executive branch and our federal
partners. I think we've addressed that in the implementation
plan and the report as well.
It comprises that the articulation of Alaska's Arctic
policy. We want to be a leader in Arctic policy, and we want to
effectively partner with the federal government on shaping a
prosperous Arctic future.
Alaskans are on the forefront of new exploration, new uses
of Arctic resources and new circumpolar cooperation. Alaska is
providing relevant information about the reality of an emerging
Arctic and understand in communicating the critical issue that
affects our state and instilling confidence in the promise of
safety and prosperity is essential as Alaska and for America as
we move forward.
Now, Senator, we've had this conversation privately, but we
feel that it's important to share with everyone, we're not a
snow globe. We're not little Eskimos in a museum and in an
environment that needs no development. We're not ready for it.
We don't want that.
Madam Chair, you have copies of the final report on the
implementation plan, but I'll just point out four efforts that
we've identified that are important. On page 17 there are three
lines of effort that fit into the Arctic Council's initiatives
and will bolster the Council's activities for economic security
for the people who live in the Arctic. Another line of effort
is strengthen and develop a mechanism for resource production
related revenue sharing. That cannot be emphasized enough
because any revenue that comes off the offshore has to come
onshore, and those communities will be impacted.
The third effort is economic returns to Alaska and Alaska
communities and the individuals in the maritime fishing
activities.
But the other one, this is a shout out to the Coast Guard,
Admiral Able of the 17th District has already visited the
capital and my office and the Senator's office, is that there
is three initiatives that are on pages 22 and 23 that the Coast
Guard is already working on. They appreciated the partnership
because they know that the Coast Guard is key to Alaska's
future.
I'd like to note just for the record, Madam Chair, that
this journey I said started four years ago included the
Northern Waters Task Force that was chaired by then
Representative Reggie Joule. Those two years identified the
questions and hopefully this implementation plan provides some
of the answers and some of directives we need to go forward
with.
Also, Senator, you mentioned the PNWER Arctic Caucus and
that's Alaska, the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I'm proud
to say that Honorable David Ramsay is in the audience observing
as well. Those Canadian neighbors are key to Alaska's future
and to America's future as well.
And in closing, Madam Chair, is that you represent a state
that has many faces, but in our Arctic face, Barrow, of course,
Kotz, Nome, Bethel, Dillingham and King Cove are all in the
Arctic. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Herron.
Senator McGuire.
STATEMENT OF HON. LESIL McGUIRE, SENATOR, ALASKA STATE
LEGISLATURE
Ms. McGuire. Good morning, Madam Chair and congratulations
on behalf of all the Alaskans here in the room today, it's an
honor to see you sitting here and thank you to the other
members who braved the weather to come out today on this
important issue.
As a State Senator, I know how these hearings can bring you
relevance and can also drain on in other areas. So I'm going to
try to synthesize a few points down if I were on your side what
I would want to know.
The first thing is you heard from my colleague next to me,
Representative Herron. The two of us have been chairing the
Alaska Arctic Policy Commission now for the last two years.
There is a series of reports that are here for you. They're
online. Your staff will have them. And we hope that you'll look
to them as a resource to guide you in crafting Arctic policy on
behalf of the federal government.
The most important thing that I want to say to you today is
it is Alaska that makes the United States an Arctic nation, but
it's all of you and going to take all of you to really bring
the Arctic into the forefront of federal policy making and
efforts in the infrastructure development.
As it's been noted by the Chair and by you, yourself,
Senator Cantwell, we're behind. In all the places that I've
traveled and visited along with Representative Herron, we're
the one of the eight that's the furthest behind. We're lacking
in any deep water ports. We're lacking when it comes to support
for spill response, and yet our federal government has taken in
over $4 billion in lease returns.
And so, if I were sitting on your side one of the takeaways
that I would have would be because it affects all of us so
greatly there are resources that have been taken in by the
federal government. It's time for us to start investing in
infrastructure and policies that will move us forward, not just
words. These are nice words. These are nice policies, but the
actual investment of infrastructure is something that, I think,
we'll be looking to you two women to lead on.
The state has been doing its part. We have a fund that has
over $50 million in spill response dollars that are sitting
there in case something would happen.
We also have one of the greatest, most innovative vessel
response tracking systems, and I know you both have seen this.
Captain Ed Page, has presented this.
We have been a foremost leader in Arctic logistics and
microgrid technology, hybrid wind diesel electric systems,
Arctic engineering and of course, the Trans Alaska pipeline,
the one major Arctic infrastructure project that the world has
seen. Over 40 years now in existence. Great jobs. We've
preserved and grown the porcupine caribou herd. We've provided
safe, environmentally friendly, energy to America. At one point
20 percent of the domestic supply of energy to this country
came from that one line.
So I just want to emphasize that point as well that's
entirely appropriate that we're here before you today, Madam
Chair, in the Senate Energy Committee, because the Arctic
really is that place that holds America's energy security right
there in its clutches. Between ANWR, between the National
Petroleum Reserve of America and the Chukchi and the Beaufort
Sea we have America's energy security sitting right there.
And so those policies are for you as you move forward, but
I just encourage us when we do think about the Arctic to
remember that it was just in 2012 that America was importing
over 40 percent of its energy from other foreign countries that
don't favor our belief in women's rights, our belief in human
rights and in many cases, are our enemies. So that's something
for this Committee, as you look at Arctic policy.
The last point that I want to make is the opportunity.
Madam Chair, you have labeled the Committee hearing today as an
opportunity. And that is how we, in the Alaska Arctic Policy
Commission, 26 Commissioners, I want to point out only 10 of
them were lawmakers, the other 16 subject matter experts. We
traveled for two years all over the state.
The first day of every meeting was a listening session, and
what we heard from Alaskans was opportunity. We've been dealing
with climate change. We've been dealing with global warming for
thousands of years, and Alaskans adapt, just like we do today.
We put on our coats and we get out and we muck through it and
we adapt.
What we don't need are policies that might come from the
federal government that would hamstring us or make it more
difficult for us to adapt. We're looking for partnership and
help to adapt to that climate change. But as we move forward
the opportunity, the $100 billion worth of private capital
that's out there waiting to come into the Arctic, Alaskans are
looking forward to that as that next chapter for their economy
to fill up our pipeline and to develop jobs.
So I'm not going to read into the record our vision
statements or our policy statements. They're here for you in
these three documents. You're members of a Senate Committee.
You're fully aware of how you can access those and look at
them.
I wanted to try to bring a personal face to it. As an
Alaskan Senator what I would be thinking about if I were on
your side. And I thank you so much, Senator Murkowski for
having us today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herron and Ms. McGuire
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, and we do appreciate the good work
of the Commission.
Let's go to Mayor Brower, Mayor of the northernmost borough
in our great country. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLOTTE BROWER, MAYOR, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH
Ms. Brower. [Speaking Inupiat language.] That's my first
language. Chairman Murkowski, members of the Committee, my name
is Charlotte Brower. I'm the Mayor of the North Slope Borough
which encompasses 95,000 square miles. We're on a road-less
system.
We have Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, Point Hope, Point Lay, Atqasuk,
Barrow, Wainwright and Prudhoe Bay. Those are my areas that I'm
responsible for.
I'm a wife of a whaling captain. I have six children, 25
grandchildren and three I'm very proud of that are in college.
One to be a mechanical engineer so that one day that they'll be
able to build a rig that could be environmentally safe for
footprints of our tundra. I didn't say offshore. I said tundra.
I want to thank you for the invitation to address you. I'm
always very happy because our people have lived in the Arctic
since immemorial, and I want to give a valuable perspective of
the dialogue today.
As I mentioned I want to thank, very much, our great
Senator from our great State of Alaska, Senator Lisa Murkowski,
who is part of us, who is always looking out for the needs of
our Inupiat people. She's always been a very tireless champion
for those of us who are often ignored by policy makers here in
Washington and her leadership in Arctic issues is vital. Thank
you, Lisa, for your friendship and support.
We also want to mention our new governor of our great State
of Alaska, Bill Walker, our friend, House Speaker, Mike
Chenault and Senate President Kevin Meyers for their leadership
over Arctic issues. I believe we're going on a right track.
To talk about what our country must do to build upon its
status as an Arctic nation, I must first share some history.
If you were to travel to the North Slope 70 years ago, you
would find a semi-nomadic people subsisting off the land and
living in sod houses much like their ancestors had for
thousands of years. To have fresh water they had to melt ice
and snow. To have heat they'd have to burn whale oil, and to
travel from place to place they had to walk or use a dog team.
The discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay changed the shade of
history as how we see it today. In a period of roughly 30 years
we experienced over 200 years worth of economic development and
advancement. We formed a local home rule charter government and
built roads, airports, schools, hospitals, houses and
utilities. We created police, fire, first responder and search
and rescue.
As I speak my whole North Slope region is experiencing over
60 to 70 miles per hour blizzard winds, with visibility very
poor, but our people are very resilient. They have used their
own local resources, our resources within the North Slope, to
take care of any matters before we discuss any state disaster
or national disaster.
Melting snow for water morphed to turning on a faucet.
Whale oil was replaced by electricity and natural gas and dog
teams gave way to automobiles and snow machines.
The property taxes we collect from oil and gas
infrastructure still accounts for over 97 percent of the
revenue collected by the North Slope Borough to provide local
public services. It also generates private sector revenue
streams and jobs through our native corporations that are
shared with other native corporations throughout our great
State of Alaska and are distributed as dividends to Alaska
native shareholders.
These funds provide the economic life blood of our region.
They allow us to be self sufficient, allow our communities to
grow and even provide the means for us to support our
subsistence activities. But as many of you know, our economic
realities are changing.
Oil and gas production on Alaska's North Slope is
shrinking. The Trans Alaska pipeline flows at a third of what
it used to be. And the consequences of changing climate coupled
with the large costs of building and maintaining vital
infrastructure in the Arctic are overwhelming to the state and
local government.
Just like our past, responsible resource development
promises to provide the economic engine to provide future
prosperity, but today those future prospects for developments
lie on the federally-controlled lands and waters. And
unfortunately our federal government does not seem to share the
same enthusiasm as our state in the development of its
resources.
Over the past few years our federal government has closed
50 percent of NPRA oil-to-oil and gas development, proposed
wilderness designations for the oil rich coastal plain of ANWR
and has refused to lease portions of the Outer Continental
Shelf. It seems as if this current Administration is doing
everything within its power to hamper or restrict resource
development in our region.
This bias against resource development is also reflective
in our country's Arctic strategy. Instead of focusing on
initiatives that could improve the economic conditions of
America's Arctic people, our government has chosen to side with
powerful special interest groups and to focus on issues like
climate change, creating new layers of governance over the
Arctic and ideas for Pan-Arctic marine-protected areas.
The importance of these issues pales in comparison with the
current needs of America's Arctic residents, and they fail to
further their status as an Arctic nation. They provide no
mechanism for things like the construction of ice breakers,
transportation, infrastructure and other critical deficiencies.
In some ways it seems like our national strategy for the Arctic
is like fixing the mailbox while the house burns down.
We hope that our government will recognize the importance
of economic security to those of us who live in the Arctic by
including more specific economic and resource development
initiatives during our Chairmanship of the Arctic Council,
because if our federal officials were to consult us they might
begin to understand that their current policies will lead us to
a future where we struggle to provide basic public services.
Where our subsistence practices and food security are put in
peril because our people can no longer afford to hunt. Where
our culture and communities wither because our residents are
forced to leave our villages and move to the big cities. And
where those that remain dwindle in the hopelessness of lost
jobs and opportunities.
Our quest for self-determination will be replaced by a
complete dependency on the government which we have worked very
hard not to be.
Perhaps there are some hope to see us revert to the old
ways, to live in igloos and travel by dog team, relegated to
being mere exhibits in a large, open air, Arctic museum, but
that is not the future that we want to leave to our children
and grandchildren. No one has better appreciation of the
importance of the Arctic than the Inupiat.
We are the first Arctic nation. Our spiritual connection
with the land coupled with our knowledge and experience have
enabled us to strike the proper balance between protecting the
environment and developing our resources throughout our
history. We have a keen understanding of what it will take to
continue to grow the economic prosperity of America's Arctic
people, and we've already demonstrated our willingness to lead
through local initiative such as the Arctic Waterway Safety
Committee and the North Slope Port Authority.
It is our hope that our federal policy makers will partner
with us instead of opposing us so that we can build a strong
Arctic nation together.
[Speaking Inupiat language.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brower follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mayor Brower.
Let's go to Dr. Bitz, please.
STATEMENT OF DR. CECILIA BITZ, COLLEGE OF THE ENVIRONMENT,
SCHOOL OF ATMOSPHERE, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Dr. Bitz. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member
Cantwell and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss Arctic climate change and new frontiers
in an Arctic environmental research with you today.
The climate has changed in many ways across the globe since
pre-industrial times. Global surface temperature has warmed
about one and a half degrees Fahrenheit. The pace and
characteristics of climate change are consistent with
scientific understanding of the climate response to human
activities.
For a region of its size the Arctic has experienced the
fastest surface warming on Earth. In addition, the subsurface
of the Arctic Ocean is warming faster than anywhere else in the
world's oceans.
When I was a graduate student I first looked at the sea ice
extent records from satellites when the record was half as long
as it is today. We knew then that the sea ice extent was
retreating, but the limited observations available did not
signal the rapid decline in summer sea ice that we know today.
Now with expanded observations and understanding, we have
developed global Earth system models with historical
simulations of the Arctic sea ice loss in reasonably good
agreement with reality. These models predict the Arctic will be
nearly sea ice free by the end of summer, roughly at mid-
century.
I've emphasized the loss of Arctic sea ice because it is an
amplifier of climate change and air warmed over sea ice is
transported towards the land surrounding the Arctic. Warmer air
in winter increases the likelihood of freezing rain and rain on
snow events. Both can significantly disrupt mobility of humans
and animals. Subsistence hunters suffer twice with the
difficulty of traveling and a diminished population to hunt.
Warmer air leads to thawing permafrost that can damage
roads and buildings and lead to greater particulate runoff into
the rivers and the Arctic Ocean, changing ocean chemistry and
affecting fish and marine animals. Atmosphere and ocean warming
are causing land ice mass loss which is the highest contributor
to observed global sea level rise today. Greenland alone
contributes one quarter of the global sea level rise, and sea
level rise affects us all.
Arctic coastal villages are threatened by rapid coastal
erosion from a combination of fine permafrost, sea level rise,
greater wave heights and worse storm surges due to reduced sea
ice.
In July 2007 I was an instructor at a course on sea ice
that was an activity of the International Polar Year. More than
100 students and instructors were present at an Arctic village.
We had grown accustomed to seeing sea ice set records. Though
with the evidence surrounding us at that time, we did not
predict that in September 2007, just two months later, the sea
ice would shatter the previous record low by 20 percent.
Today I co-lead a community effort known as the Sea Ice
Prediction Network which coordinates and leads scientists
worldwide to improve sea ice predictions from a few weeks to a
few years in advance. Our prediction systems must blend the
methods used to predict weather and longer term climate
signals. Weather forecasting has a half century lead on sea ice
forecasting.
But there is much we can do to make these systems much
better, and with continued investment in observations and
research I believe we could forecast optimal shipping routes
and give coastal communities advance notice of offshore sea ice
type and the potential for damaging waves. Our Earth system
models today have the capacity to produce wide ranging
information that is beneficial to society such as chemical
cycling, near shore sea ice conditions and biological activity.
Arctic scientists are actively exploring the extent to
which a changing Arctic can influence the lower latitude
weather. For example, longer lasting colder outbreaks is one
possibility. Our European colleagues have found that when their
models include a more realistic Arctic forecasts improve in the
lower latitudes as well.
Sustained observations are essential to our ability to
predict the Arctic environment. Observations at a process level
and across the Arctic are needed. An observing network of the
Arctic Ocean sea ice and surrounding land is challenging to
construct, but the payoff is clear.
Investments in Arctic research is essential to a safe and
productive future for us all. U.S. research institutions are a
key player in Arctic research because they offer scientific
excellence and progress in Arctic science. University
scientists are uniquely able to include undergraduates in our
research and to educate the wider population.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bitz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Bitz. I appreciate your
comments this morning and your being here.
Finally let's go to Mr. Arnold. Welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK R. ARNOLD, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, MAINE PORT AUTHORITY
Mr. Arnold. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am privileged to join
you all on this fine Arctic summer day.
I'd like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
speak on these opportunities in the Arctic. I'd like to
especially thank Senator Murkowski and Senator King for the
leadership they're showing working together in forming an
Arctic Caucus and Senator Cantwell for acknowledging Maine's
recent leadership in this and calling me as a witness.
If there were one take away from this hearing, I would hope
it would be that anything in the Arctic requires cooperation
and that openness that sometimes does not come easy.
Since 2013 the Icelandic steam ship company Eimskip
established its single U.S. port of call in Portland, Maine
connecting Maine directly for the first time in decades to
Scandinavia, Northern Europe, Iceland, Greenland and
Newfoundland. This shift brought Maine as close to these
countries from a freight/cost perspective as it is to the Mid-
Atlantic. Through a close collaboration with Iceland, Maine has
entered into dialogue and trade relations with several Arctic
nations in the high north and has been establishing
relationships based on trust and mutual consideration.
Our approach has been simple. Build trade and mutual
economic opportunity and all else will follow. We believe this
to be true.
At the Arctic Summit Symposium titled, ``Leadership in the
High North'' held in Bangor, Maine in May 2014, hosted by the
Maine National Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard, retired North
Com General Jacoby, said in regards to the Arctic, ``Build the
rail and the cavalry will follow.'' The rail being, we believe,
economic opportunity and collaboration and the cavalry in this
case perhaps being ice breakers.
Maine's activities in the high north, starting with trade
lanes set up by Eimskip, have opened opportunities in cultural,
educational and political exchanges that have benefitted Maine
as well as the countries and people we exchange with. Through
this exchange we work towards stability in our Arctic
relationship in an environmentally sensitive and culturally
inclusive manner and we endeavor to lead by design. This is who
we are in Maine.
In order for trade lanes to be well established, I agree
that the administrative focus on safety, security and
stewardship regarding the Arctic Ocean is what is needed.
Additionally, with the goal of improving economic and living
conditions in this region, as this can be done with trade as
well.
As a former navigation officer on U.S. Jones Act ships, I
spent time navigating waters globally including as a navigation
officer on cruise ships with Norwegian Cruise Lines that
transited between Seattle and Alaska as well as the waters in
Hawaii. Arctic shipping lanes would benefit by charting routes
and understanding the region's unique navigational challenges
with real time mapping of ice flows being one such challenge.
While there are geo-political implications of any action in
this region, there are priorities that are more important such
as the safe ability to transit these waters and visible
participation supporting right of innocent passage as implied
in the Law of the Seas.
With the Trans Polar route being the furthest from being
ice free and the northern sea route and the Northwest Passage
both requiring cooperation, the U.S. would be well served in
ratifying the Law of the Seas.
Ice breaking is the lowest hanging fruit for the U.S. to
jump into Arctic assistance and Arctic development. Without
this capability the U.S. does not have the opportunity to lead
in a meaningful way regarding support of future trade lanes or
present natural resource opportunities or contributing to
search and rescue commitments.
Maine is merely an example of how this nation can lead
alongside Alaska in Arctic affairs.
First, opening lines of trade that allow for mutual
prosperity, and then building on top of these trade lanes
policies and opportunities for cultural and educational
exchange that lead to lasting relationships.
This will be important given the rapid change in Arctic
conditions due to climate change. Regardless of opinions,
change is inevitable and what matters is how we adapt to it
while mitigating the negative aspects of human contribution to
it. We can only improve and prosper more by working together
with the people and the countries in the Arctic.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arnold follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Arnold. We appreciate you
being here today as well.
We'll now turn to a round of questions from the members
here.
I want to let my colleagues know that in addition to what
Senator King and I are doing with the Arctic Caucus, I'm
looking to develop an Arctic infrastructure type bill that--
well it's not the deep water ports. It's some of the basics
that, I think, most folks assume we have in place up in our
Arctic waters.
First and foremost is better charting, better hydro graphic
charting. If we're going to see the level of commercial
activity that we are seeing, we need to know that we have
accurate maps and charts. In addition things like weather
stations and ice forecasting as Dr. Bitz has mentioned are
imperative for us. Weather buoys, electronic buoys,
navigational aids that assist us.
So when we look to some of the budget, and I know this
isn't a budget hearing, I will tell you that I become concerned
that we're not seeing the budget priorities placed in areas
that we could be making a difference. NOAA's budget has a
reduction in their ocean exploration and research program which
effectively is the area that looks to the mapping and the
charting issues. In addition, I'm always worried about our
Coast Guard budget, always worried that we ask so much of our
Coast Guard men and women and we don't resource them properly.
So we've had a lot of discussion about the need for an ice
breaker, a billion dollar proposition, but the fact remains
that it is more than just an ice breaker. The funding for
Arctic operations in the budget is actually down. We need to
make sure that we are resourcing appropriately. Admiral Papp,
you mentioned that specifically in your comments.
You also mention, Admiral, that there is perhaps a
misperception out there about the Administration's position or
support for the Arctic Economic Council in promoting economic
development within the Arctic. We clearly heard from Mayor
Brower as well as our two members of the Alaska legislature the
imperative for economic opportunity. Can you speak to that
misperception and perhaps clarify?
Admiral Papp. Yes, Madam Chairman. It came across loud and
clear when I started listening sessions that there was both
confusion and disappointment over the way we approach the
Arctic Economic Council. I would say as I've had a chance to
put this back together and look at it over the last six months,
we may have approached it differently if I understood the issue
but that was already in motion by the time I came into this
job.
What I would say is I think each one of the eight countries
have approached it a little bit differently. The United States,
in particular, is, I think, different and comes into an apples
and oranges comparison because many of the other countries in
the Arctic Council own companies. There are government-owned
companies that are then selected by the government and placed
in positions on the Arctic Economic Council.
As we all know, we have a culture in the United States of
staying out of private industry. And granted, there's
regulations and other things, but the federal government does
not own industries.
So we approached it from a different perspective and asked
that the Canadians, when they put out their solicitation, to go
to the Alaska Chamber of Commerce and ask them for input on the
companies to be representing the United States on the Arctic
Economic Council. So we did approach it differently. I think
the Alaskans should be pleased that they were able to pick
their companies to represent us, and as I look across all the
companies that are represented or lobbying type firms that have
been recommended by the other countries, not one of the
countries have approached it exactly the same.
It's one of the issues that we intend to take on during our
chairmanship to clarify the role of the Arctic Economic
Council. It's very high on our priority list in terms of
strengthening the Arctic Council. We value the input of
industry and these companies, and we will look on how we can
improve and move away from this misperception of our lack of
support for it.
The Chairman. Well, I thank you for that clarification. As
you know it was an issue that I raised with Secretary Kerry
when we met several weeks ago, because I think it is an
imperative that we should carry forward. There are many things
that are presented within the Arctic Council and, based on who
is chairing at that time, that initiative either carries
forward or it stops. I would suggest to you that this needs to
be a priority that the United States carries forward from what
Canada has built and that when we pass the gavel in two years
that that will continue.
Again when we talk about the Arctic and recognizing the
priorities that have been laid out in the proposal from the
United States, climate is one aspect of what we're dealing with
but an economy that allows for the people of the north to not
only exist, but to thrive is critical. So I thank you for that
clarification.
Admiral Papp. Yes, Ma'am.
The Chairman. Let's turn to Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Admiral Papp, I think I want to start with you on this
question about investment and resources. I'm sure to some
people this sounds like a lot of the infrastructure investment
might cost a lot, but it just reminds me of a guy named
Jefferson who sent two people named Lewis and Clark and said
get out there and define this area for us. I'm sure it took,
for a very young nation, a lot of focus to understand why we
would be spending all those resources in the Pacific Northwest,
but thank God we did. So I think the same question is here
today. What's it going to take to get people to wake up, to
make people realize that you have to have the resource
investment?
As the U.S. takes over the Chairmanship of this Council, do
you have a recommendation yet on infrastructure investments
that we would need as part of a comprehensive Arctic strategy?
Admiral Papp. I'll say this once so I don't have to go back
to it. My job as the U.S. Special Representative is
international diplomacy. The State Department doesn't have an
impact directly on domestic issues and domestic resourcing;
however, we have taken that into account in our program with a
very heavy public diplomacy effort to raise the awareness of
the Arctic to the extent that we can by having meetings in
Alaska of our senior officials. We're hopeful that we can bring
the most senior levels of our government to Alaska for events
and draw the attention to the American people to the needs that
exist in the United States portion of the Arctic.
In terms of resourcing I've seen, as we all have, what's in
the U.S. national strategy for the Arctic. We have the
implementation plan which is very extensive, but there are
about 22 or more agencies or departments that that impacts.
And that's why the President came out with the executive
order which creates the Arctic Executive Steering Committee
which just had its first meeting, and hopefully they're going
to start and produce gaps and overlaps analysis on where we can
begin to set priorities for resources that are needed in the
Arctic.
What I would say, from my professional experience and
having been working in Alaska for at least the last five years
or so now directly observing what needs to go on there, the
needs have been identified. There are plenty of needs up there
that have been identified.
Senator Cantwell. Like ice breakers.
Admiral Papp. It's just--pardon me?
Senator Cantwell. Like ice breakers.
Admiral Papp. Ice breakers is one of them. You can trace
the history of this country back to the Federalist Papers that
talk about the need for maritime safety and security for
prosperity of this country. Alaska's maritime is opening up.
Their needs for maritime safety and security are huge.
I get accused as any, well, it's typical that a former
Commandant on the Coast Guard would speak this way, but that's
who I am and I think that's why I was hired.
And the maritime needs up there, in particular, charting
was already mentioned. Many of the soundings up along the North
Slope are from Cook's third voyage back in, I guess it was
1778. And I've confirmed this with the oceanographer of the
Navy. Sounding is up there were from led lines in sailing
ships.
But ice breakers, you know, we get wrapped around the axel
talking about do we need six, do we need three and three,
whatever it is. The fact of the matter is if you're talking
three and three or four and two or whatever it might be then
there's at least a need for one.
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Admiral Papp. And we haven't even started on the one yet.
So there's plenty of needs that are already identified. We
just need to get about the business of setting some priorities
and having the determination to start resourcing them.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Dr. Bitz, what do we need to get a national scale, federal,
robust Arctic research program going?
Dr. Bitz. Are you asking----
Senator Cantwell. I hear that we're using information from
Captain Cook's efforts as the real measurements that we've had
in some of these areas, so what do we need to do to get the
data and information, the need for which Mr. Arnold laid out in
a very robust way? What's at stake in these new shipping lanes?
We're going to have to have good data and information on the
Arctic to provide people with accuracy.
Dr. Bitz. Right. We need----
Senator Cantwell. And the Chairman mentioned a magic word
here. I have my Coast Guard and fisheries staff person here and
smart buoys would make anybody jump up and cheer, so the
Chairman's mentioning of that is a particular area that all
throughout the Pacific Northwest we're interested in.
Dr. Bitz. Right. We need sustained observing networks. We
have limited numbers of buoys. These are very useful for
prediction and for understanding. We utilize all that data, but
it's just in localized regions. We have estimates of where we
need observing stations and at this point we're limited, and we
are under sourcing the number we could utilize.
The satellite networks are also of extreme value.
Commitment to keeping what we have and improving the number
that exists today is also critical for us. At this time what we
absolutely have need for prediction of sea ice and sea ice
thickness and type of sea ice. And we do not, in the U.S., have
a sea ice thickness observing satellite at this time. We use a
European satellite which is accurate, but we hope we could do
better. It's not as good as we----
Senator Cantwell. So the Europeans have better data on this
than we do?
Dr. Bitz. Absolutely, but they share it with us so that's
pretty good. And----
Senator Cantwell. Well, all they did with Sandy, but we
would have been better prepared for Sandy if the U.S. would
have had the supercomputing data and forecasted that out even
further and helped the local governments plan. Because once, as
we all know in the Pacific Northwest, we know events are going
to happen, the question is having the ability for local
governments to plan for those events and getting the
infrastructure and warning systems and everything in place so
that we can respond quickly. Thank you.
I'm sorry. I know my time is expired.
The Chairman. Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have to tell a
tale on you, Madam Chair, before I begin. I approached the
Chair on the Floor of the U.S. Senate about a year ago and said
I would like to be the Arctic Senator. The response was, ``No,
you can be the Assistant Arctic Senator.'' [Laughter.]
So those of you from Alaska, I want you to know that the
hierarchy is very clearly established here. [Laughter.]
I also recently met with the Speaker of the Icelandic
Parliament who left me a wonderful book, the Sayings of the
Vikings, the eddic poems, a thousand years old, and I think
apropos of our hearing today is the little poem, ``Seeking
Knowledge.''
``The cautious guest who comes to the table speaks
sparingly, listens with ears, learns with eyes, such is the
seeker of knowledge.'' What a lovely thought for us to try to
attempt to emulate here in the Congress.
Admiral Papp, a very specific question, your title is U.S.
Special Representative to the Arctic. How big is your staff?
How many people do you have in your office?
Admiral Papp. It's a day-to-day proposition, Senator.
Actually within my personal staff we have a total of four,
including me, but my job is to coordinate across the State
Department. When I started the job I thought this is a rather
small staff and this is going to be very difficult, but the
fact of the matter is there are people in all the regional and
functional bureaus across the State Department that have some
touch point for the Arctic.
So what Secretary Kerry has asked me to do is to coordinate
across all of those. I deal with the Assistant Secretaries
primarily for Europe and Eurasia, but also the Western
Hemisphere because of Canada. They cover the countries of the
region, but then whether it's economic development, politics,
military, whatever, we have people who are matrixed together
that literally, I've never been able to count them all, but
literally there are dozens of people who work the Arctic
issues. And then, of course, we work across the interagency as
well. I have that latitude.
Senator King. I understand that, but I would suggest that a
staff of three in this situation does not represent a
significant commitment by this country.
Second question. Practical limitations or practical
disadvantages to the U.S. of not joining the Law of the Sea
Treaty?
Admiral Papp. Practical on a day-to-day basis, not a lot
because----
Senator King. But I'm talking about things like territorial
claims and the adjudications. I understand by not being members
we're out of that process.
Admiral Papp. That's the biggest part of it. That's
probably the largest impact is we cannot perfect a legitimate
claim on Outer Continental Shelf. We can do the research. We
can develop our claim which we are doing.
There have been, I think, six voyages over the last eight
years or so to map out, at least in the Arctic, where we think
our extended continental shelf claims are. But we don't have
standing to be able to then go to the Continental Shelf
Commission to lay our claim down and then have it validated and
then go into negotiations with the bordering countries.
Senator King. Meanwhile the other bordering countries,
particularly Russia, are staking claims which are quite
extensive.
Admiral Papp. For the Arctic the big ones have been Russia,
Canada is just about ready to go with its claim, and of course,
Denmark got a lot of publicity recently by putting its rather
large claim in including overlapping on the North Pole with
Russia.
Senator King. I'm running short on time. For the record I'd
like you, if you could, to supply us with a list of legislative
priorities. Things that we should be addressing. We don't need
to go into that now, but if you can supply that after the
hearing.
Admiral Papp. Yes, sir.
Senator King. Final question, talking about charting. The
U.S. Navy is up there. I was on a Virginia-class submarine
under the Arctic ice about a year ago. Are they providing data
for charting? It strikes me as inefficient if we've got ships
in the Arctic Ocean with amazing capabilities for measuring
what the bottom looks like if we're not gathering that data to
contribute to charts.
Admiral Papp. Well, sir, as you know the discussions of
where, how, what they are, and what numbers the Navy has up
there would have to go into a classified session.
Senator King. Well, my question is are we gathering data
that's being contributed to the public realm for charting?
Admiral Papp. They can, but the needs for charting are in
the more shallow waters. Navy, with the type of assets they
have up there stay in some rather deep water. I'm sure they
gather information, but it cannot contribute to the type of
data that we need which is coastal in the shallower waters
where a lot of that maritime traffic is going to go.
Senator King. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I'm out of time. Thank you for all of the very
good testimony today. I appreciate it and I think the record
should show you mentioned about witnesses flying from great
distances. Our man from Maine came overnight on the train in
order to get here to beat this weather here in Washington, so I
wanted to express my appreciation to Mr. Arnold.
The Chairman. We appreciate that a great deal.
I just want to add before we go to Senator Hirono, talking
about what might be available from the Navy and other
opportunities to help us get better chart data. I think it
should also be noted that when private industry goes out
exploring they also need to be understanding what is happening
on the bottom, and so there may be some private/public
partnerships there that we can be talking about.
Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I
thank all of the panelists.
Madam Chair, I think those of us who are here should get a
gold star for showing up. [Laughter.]
Yes, I think that's a good idea.
The Chairman. Yes, a golden nugget. [Laughter.]
Senator Hirono. I'm very glad that Senator King asked
Admiral Papp the question about the fact that the United States
is really losing out in making our claims to the Outer
Continental Shelf because we are not party to the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea, and we can fix this by joining this
convention along with 167 or so other countries that are
members, wouldn't you say?
Admiral Papp. Yes, Senator. In my previous assignment I
testified before the Foreign Relations Committee when Secretary
Kerry was the Chairman. That was the last time that that had
been brought forward in the Senate. In fact it was not just me.
It was, I think, three other admirals and two generals that
were on the panel.
I just think that, as a practical thing, every time, every
international venue I go to the conversations with the United
States starts out with a lecture on why have we not ceded to
the Law of the Sea Treaty and shown leadership that I think
it's now 186 other countries have signed onto it. And the
countries that have not are ones that I would rather not have
us associated with.
So yes, we comply with it, but there are limitations on
what we can do, particularly for the Continental Shelf.
Senator Hirono. I don't know why the Senate has not
confirmed our membership, but I think it is high time because
as we sit here talking about economic development issues in the
Arctic area, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'm sure
some of my colleagues that we are not party to that convention.
Admiral Papp, I would say there's probably and perhaps to
the panelists here that in some ways it's ironic that global
warming, climate change has opened up areas of the Arctic to
further resource extraction of oil and gas. So can you talk
about how you will fulfill the President's objectives to reduce
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and reach an international
agreement to limit global emissions in light of the interest of
the United States and other Arctic nations in developing the
oil and natural gas deposits that will be opened as Arctic ice
recedes?
Admiral Papp. Well, Senator, I'm not going to be able to
reduce those or make any progress on them. My job is to prepare
us for the Arctic Council, but we're drawing attention to what
climate change is doing, not only to the Arctic, but also to
the rest of the world because of this change. We wouldn't be
there if it were not for the change.
We do have black carbon and methane studies that have been
going on through the Arctic Council. The reason the Arctic
Council was started was for environmental protection and then
creating sustainable development. Those are the key factors
that have been a part of the Council since its existence.
So we will highlight those things over the course of our
Chairmanship of the Arctic Council as other Departments take
the efforts forward to the COP meeting in Paris, and as the
President negotiates other agreements the Arctic will be
highlighted so it shows the rapid change that's occurring with
that environment and hopefully through our process and our
elevations where public diplomacy for the Arctic Council will
bring that to the attention of the American people.
Senator Hirono. So you see the need for balance. Balancing
our desire to reduce global warming, climate change and the
desire for the economic activity in that area. So I think that
that is really in heightened perspective in this area of the
world.
I wanted to just ask, Madam Mayor, you know, Hawaii also
has a native people, the native Hawaiians, so we are very aware
of the need to involve the voice of the native peoples in any
kind of discussion that would lead to development, economic
sustainable communities, etcetera. You noted in your testimony
that you did not think that our country has given sufficient
voice to the native peoples of Alaska.
So in saying that do you speak for all of the Alaska tribes
and other leaders in Alaska?
Ms. Brower. Through the Chair, Senator Hirono, I want to
thank you for that question.
I believe that this has been a discussion ever since
President Obama had given his executive order that his first
consultation would be directly with the tribes which had really
sustained a lot of questions and concerns among, not only
municipalities of which I serve but also the regional
corporations, who are for-profit corporations, village
corporations and all for-profit and non-for-profit
corporations. And through that are all tribal members of which
there are members in all capacities.
The whole issue I say is I represent the people that also
belong to those entities in the region that I serve, and then
when you go outside of my region which is the whole State of
Alaska also represents the same.
In the instance that we've done in the last four years that
we worked very hard in tribal consultation because we recognize
that even speaking to our Department of Interior we have to
have a tribe member with us. We have to have a person who
belonged to a native village that is an IRA status. So when we
realized that we needed their consultation, we went back and we
decided that the best way that we can do this, to have all open
communication, was to have tribal consultation, government-to-
government consultation, meaning that we have to also include
the before-profit corporations because they are serving the
same tribal members.
So we created what we call Voice of the Arctic which
includes all entities and all entities meaning that we have our
village corporations, our regional corporations, those that
serve in the native corporations, city governments, as well as
the North Slope Borough. And we will have our first official
meeting March 9 and 10, and we welcome anyone to come and
listen.
In fact, entities such as the Bureau of Land Management
will take an opportunity to discuss with the tribal leaders
along with the regional leaders and the municipal governments
in discussing issues that impact our region. I have great
honors to the NANA regional corporation, the AMITA Corporation,
all the native, tribal organizations from the North West Arctic
Borough who has been here in discussing a lot of their region
issues.
It's the same way when you come in numbers you don't come
in numbers at times, but you do have a very well
representation. And that, I believe, I do have that very strong
trust in what we do because everything that we've done if we
were to wait for the federal government and the State of Alaska
to do our services in the very harshest region that we live in
in the whole State of Alaska, we'd never get anything done. So
we have to have trust from our tribal entities which are our
tribal members. So, yes, I do come with that trust.
Senator Hirono. Madam Chairman, my time is up, but I do
commend Mayor Brower for doing everything she can to bring the
various perspectives at the table so that voices are heard.
Thank you. Mahalo.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair, for having this
hearing. By the way since both the Ambassador to Iceland and
Ambassador from Iceland are here, my wife Frannie and my
sister-in-law went to Iceland for about ten days a couple weeks
ago and just loved the whole trip.
Let me ask Dr. Bitz, we're basically seeing this decline of
Arctic sea ice, and that's what's making available these
shipping lanes and possible additional areas to explore for oil
and gas. This is the effect of climate change, right?
Dr. Bitz. I think at least a large portion of the decline
is due to climate change, to human activity.
Senator Franken. Right, and that a lot of climate change is
due to the burning of fossil fuels, right?
Dr. Bitz. Yes.
Senator Franken. Okay, so we have a bit of an ironic
situation here, do we not? I think everyone sees that the
burning of fossil fuels is creating an opportunity to find more
fossil fuels to burn.
Dr. Bitz. It is obviously ironic, yes.
Senator Franken. Yeah, that's funny how ironic it is. It's
hilarious. So the state is melting to some degree. I mean,
that's what's happening, right? Our Alaska friends? The coastal
communities are obviously feeling it, and my understanding is
this is a very expensive problem to fix when some of these
coastal communities have to relocate. Is that right? I heard
estimates of about $380,000 per person to relocate. Is that
correct, Mayor? Is that about right?
Ms. Brower. At a minimal of that cost.
Senator Franken. Okay, okay. So this is also expensive. I
just want to make it clear because very often my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle do not recognize that climate
change is happening, is caused by human beings, and that it has
its costs.
Now it's creating some opportunities including shipping
lanes and shipping lanes may be more efficient, actually, but
it's also presenting some opportunities that ironically may
actually, while they create economic opportunities, are also
possibly exacerbating the situation.
Is that, Dr. Bitz, a good summary? Am I hitting this over
the head too hard?
Dr. Bitz. I think that is true.
Senator Franken. Okay, can you describe the various aspects
of climate change that will be amplified by the rapid decline
of sea ice? I mean, won't there be areas that now absorb more
sunlight because, I mean, ice is white?
Dr. Bitz. Yes, that is the one driver of the amplification
that occurs in the high latitudes that a retreat of a highly
reflective surface in replacement of a very absorbing one
amplifies the initial cause of warming.
Senator Franken. What effect will that have on those who
live in lower latitudes?
Dr. Bitz. Right, well this is an area of active debate in
the climate community but the hypothesis is that it will cause
larger extremes such as have occurred in the eastern coast of
U.S. in the last two years with very harsh winters, so larger
excursions in both warmer and cooler. So of course in my home
state it was warmer than usual this winter. That's hard to even
say winter because it was so warm.
Senator Franken. Well, what state is that in?
Dr. Bitz. Washington.
Senator Franken. Oh, the State of Washington. Well my time
has run out, but I want to thank the Chair for this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Franken.
Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this very
interesting hearing. I want to pick up on a few of the points
that Senator Franken made because I find this really
fascinating.
The scientific community is virtually unanimous in telling
us that climate change is real. Climate change is caused by
human activity. Climate change is already causing devastating
problems in the United States and around the world, and if we
do not get our act together and significantly cut carbon
emissions that problem will only become much worse in years to
come.
That's what the scientific community virtually unanimously
tells us. We need to cut carbon emissions. We have to transform
our energy system away from fossil fuel.
I don't have a whole lot of time. I would like to start
with Admiral Papp and just go down the line. Do you believe
what the scientific community is saying about the need to
transform our energy system away from fossil fuel? Admiral?
Admiral Papp. Senator, that's a part of our program, and we
have put renewable resource----
Senator Sanders. Very briefly. I don't have a lot of time.
Sorry, I don't have a lot of time. Yes, no, maybe?
Admiral Papp. Yes, we should broaden out our sources for
energy beyond fossil fuels, but the reality is we don't have to
depend on them.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Herron?
Mr. Herron. Yes, Senator, in my community we use diesel. At
remote location, ice bound, six months of the year.
Senator Sanders. No, my question is do you agree with the
scientific community that we need to transform our energy
system away from fossil fuel?
Mr. Herron. Yes, sir.
Senator Sanders. Okay, I apologize, I just don't have a lot
of time. Ms. McGuire?
Ms. McGuire. I think that it will take longer to answer
than I can give you just to answer.
Senator Sanders. Okay, thank you. Mayor?
Ms. Brower. Combination of both.
Senator Sanders. Okay. Dr. Bitz?
Dr. Bitz. Yes, we need alternatives.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Arnold?
Mr. Arnold. Yes, we should be mitigating alternatives.
Senator Sanders. A report by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers predicted that the highest point in the village of
Newtok, Alaska, I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly, could be
underwater by 2017. A proposed move to higher ground may cost
as much as $130 million. A federal government report found more
than 180 other native Alaskan villages or 86 percent of all
native communities were at risk because of climate change.
In the case of Newtok, those effects were potentially life
threatening. Dr. Bitz, is that a true statement?
Dr. Bitz. Yes, I think the permafrost thaw is a factor
there as well as rising sea level and higher storm surge.
Senator Sanders. I'd like to ask Ms. McGuire and Mayor
Brower, it sounds to me and maybe I'm wrong, I'm not an expert
on this, but it sounds to me like climate change is an absolute
threat to the way of life of native Alaskans. Senator McGuire?
Ms. McGuire. Through the Chair, Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Pardon me, we're not that formal. You can
talk to me.
Ms. McGuire. Through the Chair, Senator Sanders, Alaskans
are some of the first climate refugees. We're right there at
the forefront, and at the state legislative level we're
dealing, already, with the costs of moving these villages. So
you're absolutely right.
Senator Sanders. Alright. So I'm going to get back to the
irony, I think, that the Senator--he's a victim to irony. He
made a fortune on irony, right? [Laughter.]
Senator Franken. A small fortune. [Laughter.]
Senator Sanders. It would seem to me and what I'm hearing
from--and you come from an extraordinary state. I've only been
there a little, a few days, but it is just an incredibly
beautiful state, and I'm sure you're all proud of the beauty of
your state. But it would seem to me if one is concerned about
preserving your way of life that one must be a leader in the
fight against climate change. I understand the economic
implications of it, but how can we be talking about producing
more oil which causes climate change which will be devastating
to the communities of native Alaskans. That I don't quite
understand.
Mayor Brower, do you want to help me out on that one
briefly?
Ms. Brower. I believe that this is a ten thousand year old
question. We never question anything that comes to us. We live
with what is coming before us.
Senator Sanders. But this one----
Ms. Brower. But, yes----
Senator Sanders. But let me just ask you this. I don't have
a whole lot of time. In all due respect, this is not a ten
thousand year old question. Climate change has been
significantly accelerated in recent years. The evidence is it's
caused by human activity.
Ms. Brower. It's because of the fossil fuels that's coming
out, yes, due to climate change.
Senator Sanders. Alright, but what about the point about
you aren't or some of you at least, are in favor of more
production of fossil fuel which is ultimately destroying the
very communities that your people live in. That does not make a
lot of sense to me, in all respect. What am I missing?
Ms. Brower. Through the Chair. The ones that are being more
impacted is my region because that is where the whole activity
of oil, industry, resource, onshore and offshore. And we do
have communities in our region that is going through a quite
alarming rate of permafrost melting.
Senator Sanders. And in some years from now may by
underwater.
Ms. Brower. And some years now the--some villages that
already have been created were built on frozen lakes. So yes,
it's a matter of technology today. If technology were to say
that I shouldn't have had Point Lay built and that it was
sinking at alarming rate then technology if we were to check,
we would have found them a more safer place than it is.
Senator Sanders. Thank you.
My time is expired, Madam Chair, but I think your state,
your beautiful state, is almost a canary in the coal mine here.
And well, I said what I said. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Well, as you can see we can probably have
extended discussion and debate, and I think it is an important
part of what we are discussing today. I have taken the
perspective and approach that economic development and
opportunities for the people who live and work and raise their
families there is not inconsistent with ensuring that we are
good environmental stewards.
I think, Mayor Brower, you note it will be the technologies
that will allow us to adapt. And this is the question that I
want to present, probably to you, Mayor Brower, or perhaps to
either one of our legislators. And that is the issue of revenue
sharing.
Because it's been pointed out to several colleagues here
that we face issues like erosion of the coastline. Because
we're seeing sea ice further from the shore, allowing the waves
to build up, we're seeing threats to our community.
The statistics that you have cited, Senator Sanders, we
commissioned this report to do an assessment about the
vulnerability of our communities, not only our coastal
communities but some of our river systems and the threats that
are present. It's been identified that it's not just Newtok.
There are other communities such as Kivalina and Shishmaref
that will need to be relocated.
I have been out to Newtok, and I have seen the efforts that
they are making.
So many in this room are very well aware, Kivalina's
biggest priority right now is an evacuation route off of their
barrier island. They need a new school, but is the state going
to invest the money for a new school when the community itself
is threatened?
These are the things that we are weighing as a state right
now, but the cost to do this, the cost to move Kivalina, a
community of about 400 people, is somewhere between $100 and
$120 million. How do you do that? How do you deal with the cost
to build revetment in Unalakleet? How do you make sure that in
Kotzebue when we've got the mayor of the North West Arctic
Borough here, former Representative Joule, how do we ensure
that their coastline, the erosion that they're seeing is not
eroded to the point that it threatens that community? It does
require resourcing.
Senator Sanders. But----
The Chairman. This is the discussion and I want to ask the
question because it actually is a question. A question to Mayor
Brower and to our legislators here in terms of the imperative
for revenue sharing as a source, not only to allow for
adaptation and mitigation funds but also to deal with the other
side of it, the opportunity side which is how are we going to
build out a deep water port? How are we going to ensure, again,
that we have whether it's navigational aids or communication
aids in an area where we currently lack them?
There hasn't been much discussion about revenue sharing,
and I think it's an important part of this discussion in this
Committee, and then we'll have opportunity for further
discussion from members.
So, Mayor Brower and then either one of our legislators.
Ms. Brower. Thank you, through the Chair. Revenue sharing
is one that we truly support, and we want to commend Senator
Murkowski in leading that forum. We believe that revenue
sharing, as we all know, the State of Alaska has done its
revenue sharing. But what we've not seen from the federal
government is that issue. So we truly support revenue sharing
because we believe in sharing of our resources.
The Chairman. Ms. McGuire?
Ms. McGuire. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to hold this up really quickly for Senator
Hirono. We're going to make sure you guys get a golden patch
basically with the North Star there from the Alaska Arctic
Policy Commission for being here today.
Yes, revenue sharing. I meant to include that in our short
remarks that that's one of the areas we feel, with the $4
billion in lease revenues the federal government has already
taken in, that's one place, one pot of money. But another is
that opportunity to take one third in revenue sharing as you
know the Gulf States do.
And just to touch back on Senator Sanders, I think what
we're asking for is the opportunity to continue to adapt. And
so ten thousand years, as the Mayor has said, of our people
adapting. What we don't want to do is have a situation right
now where we're still reliant on fossil fuels. We're still
going to be developing those.
Other countries will develop them if we don't and possibly
more irresponsibly, so we're not going to supplant that. We're
moving toward renewables. We're not there yet. It's a lot of
money, a lot of technology that we don't have. So in the
meantime, let's not hamstring the folks that live on the
forefront of the very first effects of changing climate by not
allowing them to have the resources to make their lives better.
And part of that is an economy.
The Chairman. Ms. McGuire, I thank you for that.
Mr. Herron. Senator?
The Chairman. Representative Herron?
Mr. Herron. Excuse me. To the question of Senator Sanders
about the irony of it is I represent Newtok. And I've been to
Kivalina with the Chairwoman just recently. Newtok is not just
about sea ice or lack of. It's not about storms. It's also
about river erosion. It's also about permafrost melting. But
when you talk about the irony, why should we drill for more, so
we can use more fuel products. And that's what the other
speakers have said. It's about having healthy, sustainable
communities.
And so there is no irony to a person that lives in Newtok.
Kivalina, for example, that barrier reef took many years to
build. Now the climate has changed its mind, and it's going to
take a few years to remove that barrier. But back to Newtok,
there is no irony there. We need to develop our own resources
so that we can have a healthy, sustainable community in Western
Alaska.
The Chairman. My time is expired, and I know members have
questions for a second round here.
Senator McGuire, you raised the issue of renewables, and
one of the things that I'm looking forward to introducing my
colleagues to is what Alaska is doing as the Arctic state to
really be the front line leader in developing out our renewable
alternatives so that we don't have communities that are reliant
on diesel. We are the innovators when it comes to the energy
microgrids, and it's pretty exciting.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's clear to me that we need to be in the Arctic
regardless of whether we're focused on more resource
exploration. To me, it's an area that's critically important to
the United States.
But I do want to ask Admiral Papp, what do we know about
oil on ice? You know, we had Commandant Zukunft testify before
the Commerce Committee. I think it's been more than a year ago
now because we were very concerned about tar sands oil in in
the Pacific Northwest and the fact that we don't know how to
clean up tar sands spills. He basically said, we don't have a
very good plan for tar sand oil. So what do we know about oil
on ice?
Admiral Papp. There is not a lot of information, and I've
discussed that with each one of the Nordic countries as I've
gone there. Obviously because the Nordic areas had open water
for thousands of years and they come close to the ice and
they've done much more oil exploration within their portion of
the Arctic.
Even they say they don't have a lot of experience in terms
of how we react to a spill in the Arctic ice. What we're
hopeful is through our leadership on the Arctic Council to
exercise that marine oil spill preparedness and response
agreement. An agreement is as good as the paper that it sits
on.
What we need to do is start exercising that and bringing
experts together and coming up with experimentation,
identifying shortfalls in terms of response equipment.
Inventorying what's available amongst the countries that
surround the Arctic so that we can get a step ahead of what,
inevitably, will happen. Someday there will be a spill of some
sort whether it's from drilling or whether it's from a marine
casualty. And I think we're behind the power curve in terms of
being prepared for it. So we need to start moving forward.
Senator Cantwell. Can you talk about the impacts of not
being a signature to the Law of the Sea Treaty? Specifically
I'm concerned right now about pirating of fish, everything from
crab in the Bering Sea by the Russians to other losses in cod
or pollock.
Admiral Papp. I'm hard pressed to come up with how not
signing, not being a signator to the Law of the Sea hurts us in
terms of fisheries because everything is customary.
International law is what is brought into the Law of the Sea
agreement, and we comply with all that.
Really the primary area that we are at a disadvantage is
the Outer Continental Shelf, particularly the extended Outer
Continental Shelf, and we will not be able to perfect a claim
that's recognized by other countries until we accede to the Law
of the Sea Treaty. So it's the bottom rights, etcetera.
Senator Cantwell. I think the question is we don't have
enforcement authority. I'm sure what happens now when we find
violations.
Admiral Papp. No, Ma'am.
The fisheries that's in the water column is governed by
your exclusive economic zone which we are all in agreement on.
The extended Continental Shelf gives you rights for exploration
on the bottom and in fact, even though we have these claims
that are occurring there will still be international waters at
the center of the Arctic. Even though there will be claims for
the Continental Shelf, the waters themselves that are above the
bottom remain international waters subject to any country
around the world coming in and fishing.
So one of the important things, one of the reasons we are
committed to keeping communications open with the Russians is
because there are very vital things like the Arctic Council and
fisheries agreements that we need to continue to work with the
Russians on so that we don't harm that particular resource.
Senator Cantwell. We are talking about Arctic fish here and
this is part of the issue of whose fish, whose resource. So the
question is how much patrolling are we doing in that area? How
are we defining this? So you don't see this as a challenge? You
don't see----
Admiral Papp. It's going to----
Senator Cantwell. Current resource allocation and
enforcement as an issue?
Admiral Papp. It's going to be a challenge. We already have
science that's telling us that species are moving north from
all the countries. I had a chance to meet with some
Greenlanders recently that are catching species around
Greenland that they've never seen before, and we have science
that shows us that other species are moving up through the
Bering Strait into the Arctic.
That's why we placed a moratorium on fishing within U.S.
waters and have pretty good agreement with the other countries
up there for a moratorium until science can show what the
stocks are doing up there, and then we can do it based upon
science.
We're also working towards an agreement so that that hole
up at the center of the Arctic that is international waters, we
seek to have an agreement whether it's a regional seas program
or otherwise, that would prevent other countries from coming up
there and harvesting resources that we are not sure of because
we don't have the science yet.
Senator Cantwell. Okay, thank you. I see that my time is
expired.
The Chairman. Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
On that point, lobstermen in Maine, Admiral Papp, are now
catching seahorses in their lobster traps which is astonishing
in terms of species moving north.
A couple of points, Madam Chair, that I think might be
helpful.
We've been talking about ice breakers. To me an ice breaker
is a piece of infrastructure. It's like a highway, and on a
back of the envelope calculation one new ice breaker is
equivalent of about 100 miles of interstate highway. Putting
that in perspective and the importance of these ice breakers, I
think, is important in terms of our national expenditures on
infrastructure. Of course, we're doing a pretty poor job on
infrastructure generally, nationally, but we ought to be able
to build the equivalent of 100 miles of interstate highway to
provide access to this incredible new region.
The way I think of it is it's as if we have discovered the
Mediterranean Sea. It's an entirely new body of water that has
been essentially locked up for most of human history with
neighbors, and hopefully we're going to be able to develop and
work in this new place peacefully rather than have to go
through centuries of war which surrounded the development of
the Mediterranean Sea because we have the international
organizations that we never had before.
I think one of the important data points on this is this
chart of the Arctic and the principal sea route now is right
along the Russian coast. [The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
It's another reason that this has to be done. This route is
useable in many cases today. This is the summer ice. The polar
route will be many years. The Northwest Passage will come
sooner than the polar route, but the principal route now is
right along the Russian coast and that's something that we need
to take into account. It's another reason that these
international relationships have to be developed in a
systematic and deliberate way that I think make this so
important.
One final point and then I wanted to ask Mr. Arnold a
question.
I would recommend to the Committee and to the witnesses and
to our friends who are here today an animation prepared by
NOAA, and you can find it if you go to You Tube and type in
NOAA Arctic Ice Animation. You'll see the aged iced from 1987
to 2014, and what you see over time is it's contracting. It's
very dramatic. It makes the point much more dramatically than
any of us could make in a speech. I recommend that to you. I
think it's so important.
It's another connection between Maine and the Arctic. We
have two companies in Maine, Ocean Renewable Power and Pika
Industries. Ocean Renewable Power actually has an experimental
tidal facility in Alaska. Pika is doing microgrid work that I
think would be very interesting because I'm sure, Madam Mayor,
your energy, your electricity costs are probably above 70 cents
a kilowatt hour. It's all imported diesel, and it's not very
clean. So renewables, it seems to me, is a huge opportunity for
you.
Mr. Arnold, you worked on port development around the
world. You've been a navigator. Talk to me about the
opportunities that are created by transit through the Arctic
and when do you see that coming to fruition and what's the
potential?
Mr. Arnold. Sure. So one thing to point out is that moving
freight by water is the greenest form of transportation when it
comes to carbon emissions and on a freight per ton mile. It's
important to have that consideration where we're talking about
trade and we're talking about the sea lanes over the Arctic.
Another element to that, Senator Franken had pointed out,
was that a reduction in transit time is also a greener aspect
to this in that if you're reducing the amount of distance from
say, China or Japan or Korea and the United States eastern
seaboard by anywhere from 20 to 50 percent, because that's the
reduction that you would experience in the case of using either
the northern sea route or northwestern passage then you're
reducing the equivalent amount of fuel consumption to move that
same freight which is going to move regardless of whether or
not that sea route is open but your fuel consumption and
emissions related will be 20 to 50 percent less as well.
So in regards to accessibility there are already more than
70 ships in 2013 that transited the northern sea route and that
was with ice breaker assistance from Russia.
Senator King. They charge more.
Mr. Arnold. They do charge for that. They're very cognizant
of the opportunity that exists with charging every other
country and every other ship owner for that. And there's a cost
to it. So naturally they would charge for that.
Right now everyone that we're working with, Eimskip, the
CEO of Eimskip is working very closely with the Chinese
shipping company, Cosco. And we're really looking at, kind of,
a gradual opening of the northern sea route for the summer
months over the next five to ten years.
This is a very long term discussion, but it's the reason
the investments in the ice breakers are happening now is
because the moment you have that you're extending the fringe or
the shoulder season for when you can transit that passage.
Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator King.
We've been talking Arctic for about two hours and 15
minutes, and I just appreciate the indulgence not only of each
of the panelists, but those who have come here to listen and to
the members. Given that there are other things that are
happening, the attention that has been given to this issue this
morning is somewhat representative of the growing interest that
so many have in the Arctic whether you are a resident of the
Arctic or a wannabe. And we want to make sure that there are
more wannabes.
I want to recognize before we conclude we have several
other legislators that have joined us. I see Representative
Millett from Anchorage in the back there. We had Senator
Castello here earlier. We have former State Senator and
President of our State Senate, Drue Pearce, in the back. Mayor
Joule, who is the Mayor of the Northwest Arctic Borough, was
also with us. Again, great representation out there.
I do want to make just a correction here because Senator
King you noted that in so many parts of Alaska the energy costs
are extraordinarily high. One of the amazing benefits that the
community of Barrow has seen and several of the other
communities in the North Slope Borough is that when the oil
pipeline came on part of the agreement was that the communities
would have natural gas. And so Barrow is blessed to have
abundant sources of affordable natural gas.
Mayor, maybe you can tell me within your Borough, how many
of your villages have natural gas accessible to them? So how
many diesel communities do you have versus how many that enjoy
the benefits that come with affordable natural gas?
Ms. Brower. Through the Chair, Barrow is the first village
through the transfer, the Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act, and
then Nuiqsut which is one closest to Prudhoe Bay in formation
of the Alpine, one of the agreements was that we would have a
gas transmission line to that village.
All other villages are either through diesel, propane or
gas and----
The Chairman. And Mayor, can you tell the Committee what
folks are paying for their diesel or their gas right now in the
North Slope Borough outside of Barrow and Nuiqsut?
Ms. Brower. Propane about this high can cost you $800. A
drum can cost you from $500-$800, and in Anaktuvuk Pass the gas
to run either a snow machine or our services which we provide
is as high as $10 a gallon for gas. I'm just giving you more
recent examples, but the natural gas is the answer in natural
heat and the emission out of the natural gas is probably less
to any type of other carbons that are out there. So we do have
it, and it's just a matter of cost of trying to bring it to the
communities.
The Transfer Act does allow for the natural gas to be
transmitted to Atqasuk and Wainwright, but it's so cost
prohibitive that we've not been able to do the natural gas
transmission to those two villages.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mayor, for the explanation.
I had the opportunity a couple weeks ago----
Ms. Brower. Oh, if I may?
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Ms. Brower. One of the villages that is the most impacted
that is not going to be able to ever see and enjoy the natural
gas transmission is the village of Kaktovik which is right
adjacent to the ANWR. And that is something that we have to
work with and very hard in how we're to do it. If they can
build Point Thomson which is adjacent to ANWR, we should be
able to build a transmission of gas, natural gas, to that
village, but today that's been designated a wilderness, not
even a pipe can go through that.
Senator King. You planted that question, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. I didn't plant that question. [Laughter.]
But I will tell you that I did see a picture of Kaktovik
last week where literally the buildings were buried with snow
from a blizzard, and the article that described the storm that
Kaktovik had faced said that the dumpsters in the community
were flying about the community. It was that tough out there.
It's hard when the only way to keep warm and keep the
lights on is expensive diesel or propane or oil, so I
appreciate you mentioning that.
I was going to conclude my comments by saying that the
Mayor hosted me in Barrow a few weekends ago. It was actually
Valentine's Day, and it was a gathering called Kivgiq which is
the dance festival that is held about every three years or so
where people from all of the North Slope villages come together
for days of dance. We were there for the final day, and the
grand finale was celebrated at about 2 a.m. with the most
amazing drumming and dancing, a beautiful expression of the
culture of beautiful people, truly the heart of the Arctic. And
I was honored to be included as part of that.
But it's a constant reminder to me that as we face these
challenges, as we face these opportunities in the Arctic, we
not ever forget the people of the Arctic. So, thank you for
your representation.
Thank you to my colleagues for being so attentive on these
issues that, again, we're not talking about Alaskan earmarks
when we're talking about an ice breaker. We're talking about
national assets. And I appreciate the help of my colleagues.
And with that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]