[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 76 (Thursday, May 8, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3968-S3970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         LAW OF THE SEA TREATY

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, many of us have come to the floor, 
certainly this past week--all this year--talking about increasing 
energy prices. There has been a lot of commentary about whom to blame. 
What do we do, how do we reduce the price of oil, how do we address the 
predicament we are in as a nation that is so very heavily dependent on 
energy for our economic strength? I have certainly done my share of 
talking about the need to increase domestic production of oil and gas, 
particularly in the State of Alaska. We believe we have great 
opportunities up there and can be doing more to address it. What we 
haven't had an opportunity to bring up in the debate is the potential 
for a vast reservoir of energy that is available to the United States 
in the Arctic, in the far north, and the fact that we could lose out to 
other nations if we are not more proactive in asserting our claims to 
these resources.
  I have been on the floor many times talking about the Arctic Coastal 
Plain and the potential in ANWR. We believe there is anywhere between 
10 to 16 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, the largest 
remaining onshore petroleum field in North America. But even further to 
the north, beyond ANWR, off the coast of Alaska and beyond, this is 
where we believe an unquantifiable amount of resource may lie. It is 
estimated that the Arctic may hold 25 percent of the entire world's 
undiscovered oil and gas resources. It is enormous. That number is 
based on a 2000 assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey. In that 
survey, they only looked at a few of the Arctic basins. There is going 
to be a more detailed survey that will be out. The survey is currently 
underway. The projection is that the amount of 25 percent could be 
lower--that, in fact, the amount of oil and gas in the Arctic region 
could go significantly higher.
  What is the problem with this situation? The fact is, we believe the 
potential in the Arctic under the ice may be enormous, but we have no 
legal claim as a nation to most of this oil or gas, unless the United 
States becomes a party to the convention on the law of the sea. I can 
tell you, if we are not willing to claim it, if we do not step up to 
claim it, others certainly will.

  We had before the Foreign Relations Committee the Convention on the 
Law of the Sea. It was before us. We have had several hearings on it. 
It was reported favorably out of the committee on October 31 of last 
year by a committee vote of 17 to 4.
  For those who are not familiar with the Law of the Sea Treaty, it 
allows, among other things, coastal states to exert sovereign rights to 
all living and nonliving resources within its exclusive economic zone 
out to 200 nautical

[[Page S3969]]

miles from its shores. Essentially, it is the Outer Continental Shelf. 
But, in addition, a nation can exert claim to an extended Outer 
Continental Shelf if it can show that its continental shelf extends 
beyond the 200-mile limit.
  So last year, the Coast Guard Cutter Healy went up north beyond 
Alaska, up into the Arctic Ocean, to do a mapping of the ocean floor 
there, to determine where the extent of that continental shelf may 
extend.
  Behind me I have a map or chart of the Arctic Ocean that was mapped 
by the Coast Guard Cutter Healy during this last season of exploration. 
What the expedition showed us was that the United States could 
potentially lay claim to an area about the size of the State of 
California as part of our extended continental shelf. But we cannot do 
that without being a party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  So to make it a little more real to the situation--and I know it is 
difficult to see the map--but what you have here is Alaska. It is 
upside down, but Alaska is at the top of the world, so we felt it 
should be located at this angle. Here is the State of Alaska, the 
Canadian border, all of Canada, Greenland, Norway, and then Russia up 
through here. The red dotted line indicates the limits of the permanent 
ice that you have. So much of what you see in the lighter area is 
continental shelf.
  What you have with this line--that kind of follows in a very jagged 
way Russia--this is Russia's continental shelf claim. So they are 
essentially laying claim to this area from the Chukchi Sea, the East 
Siberian Sea, and down through here.
  Norway has its extended continental shelf claim. Here is Norway. They 
have made a claim that their Outer Continental Shelf should allow them 
access to the resources up to this green line.
  Well, what we have here with the yellow line is the Russian extended 
continental shelf area. So through their mapping, or their 
determination, they believe--the Russians believe--they could 
potentially lay claim to all of this area in to the coast of Russia.
  Where it gets a little complicated is looking at the coastline of 
Alaska, recognizing that we have claim to 200 miles off the coast of 
Alaska, but with the mapping the Coast Guard Cutter Healy has brought 
back, it demonstrates we can potentially add an additional 100 miles 
offshore from our existing 200 miles of exclusive economic zone, 
theoretically putting Alaska's claim--and, therefore, the United 
States's claim--to an area that would be potentially on this side of 
the Canadian border and coming down through the Chukchi Sea, clearly 
overlapping where the Russians have submitted that they would have the 
potential for a claim.
  So you need to kind of appreciate the dynamics you have here. We have 
mapping that indicates the U.S. continental shelf could extend out 
dramatically. When you talk about a mass, an area the size of the State 
of California, you would say that is hugely significant to us as a 
nation in terms of our potential for additional resource.
  Now, I have shown you the lines on this map. There are some who 
object to ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty and express 
concerns about sovereignty. But for those who are concerned about 
sovereignty, I would suggest that if we are not party to the Convention 
on the Law of the Sea, there is a good chance Russia's claim to the 
Arctic--which I have shown you, following this yellow line, which is 
substantial; it is about 45 percent of the Arctic Ocean--could be 
recognized cutting into what we believe to be our extended continental 
shelf.
  Now, let's talk a little bit about the potential for the resources up 
there. It is estimated the area that Russia claims as its Arctic Ocean 
shelf--so this area in through here, as shown on the map--could hold 
580 billion barrels of oil equivalent. And 90 billion of those barrels 
could be in the Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea, so close in to 
the State of Alaska. That is 90 billion barrels of oil we have the 
potential to stake a claim to as well, but only, again, if we are party 
to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  Now, some would take a look at this map and say: Well, Russia is not 
going to be able to get that. We all saw the cover of Time magazine 
last year when Russia took a little submarine down and basically 
planted a flag on the bottom of the seabed, staking claim. It got 
people's attention. I think folks looked at that and said: Well, they 
don't have any claim to that ocean seabed. On what do they base that? 
So you look at this map and say: There is no reason Russia has any 
greater claim to 45 percent of the Arctic Ocean anymore than the United 
States or Canada, so it is not going to happen.
  But for those who would doubt Russia might have success with their 
claim, I would ask you to look at what has happened. Right now, you 
have a handful--probably, seven or eight--different nations that have 
submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf 
their requests for extended continental shelf claim.
  Russia submitted their claim back in 2001. Brazil is out there, and 
they submitted their claim in 2004. Australia submitted a claim in 
2004, Ireland in 2005, New Zealand in 2006. You also have a joint 
submission by France, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom that came 
about in 2006. Norway submitted their claim--that is going out this 
far, as shown on the map--in 2006. France has submitted a claim last 
year, as well as Mexico.
  On April 21 of this year, the Commission on the Limits of the 
Continental Shelf confirmed that Australia's claim to an additional 2.5 
million square kilometers of continental shelf beyond its existing 
exclusive economic zone was valid and has moved forward to allow for 
that extended claim.
  Now, Australia's claim, again, was submitted in 2004. So the 
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is actually moving on 
these submissions. The claim Australia made--and, again, Australia is 
an island nation, so they clearly have a great deal they can say lies 
off their continental shelf area, but 2.5 million square kilometers of 
continental shelf has now been added to their jurisdiction. This is an 
area approximately five times the State of France. Now, for those of us 
who are thinking a little bit closer to home, that is three times the 
size of the State of Texas. So, again, the jurisdiction that has been 
extended to the nation of Australia, because of their claim to 
additional Outer Continental Shelf areas, is significant.
  Martin Ferguson, who is Australia's Minister for Resources and 
Energy, noted that the Commission's findings ``demonstrates that 
Australia's effective engagement in law of the sea matters delivers 
results.''
  Now, I mentioned nine submissions that have been submitted for 
extended continental shelf claims. All of these have been made since 
December of 2001, including Russia's claim to half the Arctic and the 
resources it holds. We see that Australia's claims have been accepted. 
I believe it is only a matter of time before other claims are accepted 
as well.
  I believe--I believe very strongly--it is in the best interests of 
the United States to be able to submit our claims. We have the mapping. 
We can establish the extension of the shelf, again, to a considerable 
area--the size of the State of California. I believe it is incumbent 
upon us to assert our authority in this area and to have a seat at the 
table in determining the validity of the claims of the other nations.
  If we think Russia should not be able to extend their jurisdiction 
out--as they have requested, with this pretty impressive yellow line--
to 45 percent of the Arctic Ocean, we want to be able to sit at the 
table and say why we believe they should not have the ability to make 
that claim. Well, if we are not a party to the treaty, we are not 
sitting at the table, and we cannot contest the validity of the claims 
of other nations.
  We have the opportunity to stake a claim to an area of the seabed 
that we believe--we believe very strongly--likely contains billions of 
barrels of oil. We have the research to demonstrate that the seabed is 
part of our extended continental shelf. But we cannot claim ownership 
of these resources without being a party to the Convention on the Law 
of the Sea.
  There are plenty of other reasons why we should ratify this treaty--
whether it is to ensure that our Navy has the ability to freely 
navigate in international waters; or to provide our maritime industries 
with the legal certainty they need to carry out their activities.
  I believe, again, very strongly, the ratification of the convention 
is a

[[Page S3970]]

must. But I think we need to recognize that as we are kind of sitting 
back on this at this point in time, other nations are moving forward. 
They are making their claims to greater areas of the ocean and to its 
seabed. I do not think we should be left behind as a nation and lose 
out on significant potential energy reserves at a time when we all know 
that energy is at an incredible premium.
  I will make the same statement I made in committee when we had the 
discussion on the Convention on the Law of the Sea. I urge my 
colleagues to support ratification of the Convention on the Law of the 
Sea and urge the Senate leadership to bring the treaty to the floor for 
a vote. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from South 
Carolina is recognized.

                          ____________________