[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 71 (Monday, May 23, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3206-S3208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MINISTERIAL ARCTIC COUNCIL MEETING

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last week, I was honored to participate 
in a very historic trip to attend the seventh ministerial meeting of 
the Arctic Council in Nuuk, Greenland. I attended with Secretary of 
State Clinton, as well as Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Salazar.
  The Arctic Council was founded in 1995. It is an intergovernmental 
association. There are eight member states within the territory that is 
contained within the Arctic Circle. The group includes Canada, Denmark, 
Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, and the 
United States. There are also six permanent participants representing 
the indigenous people of the region.
  The trip was historic for a couple reasons. It was the first time a 
Secretary of State had led the U.S. delegation to the Arctic Council 
meeting. The fact that not only Secretary Clinton led it as Secretary 
of State but she was joined by a second Secretary, the Secretary of the 
Interior, certainly made that historic. It was also the first time a 
Member of Congress had attended the Arctic Council meeting.
  We met with Foreign Ministers of the eight Arctic Council nations and 
the representatives of indigenous groups to discuss issues that are 
related to Arctic governance, climate change, and environmental 
protection. We watched the Ministers sign a historic search-and-rescue 
agreement.
  The Arctic Council also increased its organizational structure. They 
formed a standing Secretariat that will be established in Tromso, 
Norway. They also established criteria for the admission of new 
observers to the Council. The People's Republic of China, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, Italy, and the European Union are all seeking 
observer status to the Arctic Council, which might cause some to wonder 
why are all these non-Arctic nations interested in what is going on 
within the Arctic. I think that speaks to the evolving role of the 
Arctic in geopolitics in the world as we know it today.
  The search-and-rescue agreement, the first ever legally binding 
agreement among Arctic states negotiated under the auspices of the 
Arctic Council, will strengthen the cooperation on search and rescue 
between Arctic states.
  As the Arctic sea ice decreases, maritime activities are clearly on 
the rise in the Arctic. Aviation traffic is also on the rise as we see 
new polar aviation routes across the Arctic airspace in several 
directions. But limited rescue resources, challenging weather 
conditions, and the remoteness of the area render the operations 
difficult in the Arctic, making it very important that we have this 
coordination among the Arctic nations.
  Under the agreement on the U.S. side, the Coast Guard will be the 
lead Federal agency for the search and rescue in the Arctic. While we 
applaud the role the Coast Guard plays historically--a very long, 
distinguished history of operating and conducting rescues in the 
Arctic--the current status of the Coast Guard's service and aviation 
fleets makes conducting search-and-rescue operations in the Arctic very 
challenging. With the scheduled decommissioning of the POLAR SEA, the 
Coast Guard will maintain only one--only one--heavy icebreaker in its 
fleet, and it is not expected to return to service until the year 2013. 
They are doing some work on that vessel. While the Coast Guard does 
have a medium-endurance icebreaker, the HEALY, the cutter is clearly 
not equipped to handle the thick, multiyear ice that is present within 
the Arctic.
  On the aviation side of the Coast Guard operations, the Coast Guard 
C-130 aircraft stationed in Kodiak, AK, are the only aircraft in their 
inventory that are capable to make the direct flights to the Arctic.
  To give some sense of the scope, here is a map of the Arctic. The 
United States is up here. Everything is upside down. I apologize for 
that, but that is the way the world is. Kodiak is an island off the 
southern part of the State. Barrow is down here. This is where the air 
assets are stationed in Kodiak. To get to any search-and-rescue 
operations in the Chukchi Sea, in the Beaufort off Barrow or Prudhoe, 
it is over 900 miles. It is the same distance as the distance between 
Washington, DC, and Miami. If there were an incident in Miami, the 
helicopters would have to fly from Washington to get there to provide 
for the rescue.
  Given the often harsh weather conditions in the Arctic, combined with 
a lack of infrastructure to provide for any forward deploying basing of 
helicopters, the Coast Guard's C-130s possibly can provide the search 
part of the rescue, but it is very difficult to get to the rescue site. 
This lack of maritime resources and shore-based infrastructure to 
protect our aviation resources places the Coast Guard and the United 
States in a difficult situation in the Arctic. Without concerted 
efforts and a focused policy for the Arctic, the United States and our 
Coast Guard are going to continue to be ill-equipped to conduct the 
search-and-rescue operations that are going to become increasingly 
necessary as amounts of sea ice continue to diminish and the levels of 
maritime vessel traffic increase. As former Admiral Allen, former 
Commandant of the Coast Guard, would say: I cannot discuss too much 
about climate change, but I can tell you there is more open sea that I 
am responsible for in the Arctic. We are clearly seeing that.
  It has been projected that a seasonal ice-free Arctic Ocean was 
decades away and that maritime shipping through the Northwest Passage, 
through the Northern Sea route above Russia and direct transit across 
the Arctic Ocean was going to be few and far between. But last year, 
Russia sent a large ice-breaking bulk tanker through the Northern Sea 
route and across the Arctic, carrying hydrocarbons bound for Asia. The 
Russian Federation has received 15 icebreaker escort requests to 
provide navigational support through the Northern Sea route for this 
year. Compare that to last year when they only had three requests. We 
can see the level of commerce stepping up.
  Transit through the Northern Sea route or the Northeast passage, as 
it is

[[Page S3207]]

also called, cuts 5,000 miles and 8 days off the Suez route between 
Europe and Asia. We can see why other nations would have an interest in 
what is going on up there. If they can cut their transit time, it is 
money and an opportunity for them.
  Interest in the Arctic by both the general public, the media, and the 
Arctic and the non-Arctic nations continues to grow for many reasons. 
The Arctic is a vast area. We can see from the map it is essentially 
one-sixth of the Earth's landmass. It has a population within the 
Arctic area--this red line, if we can see it, is essentially all of the 
Arctic nations. In the governments that are contained within, there are 
some 4 million people who live in this region, with over 30 different 
indigenous people and dozens of languages. While the land is clearly 
massive in size and relatively barren, it is not like Antarctica, where 
there are no indigenous people and no governance. The eight Arctic 
nations are sovereign governments with laws that govern their land and 
their people.
  The Arctic holds, clearly, vast amounts of energy. We have known this 
for some time. But until recently, the resources of the Arctic were 
deemed to be too difficult to access. They are covered with ice. They 
are difficult to access, and they are expensive to develop. With 
increasing access and high energy and mineral prices, the Arctic's 
wealth, which is estimated to contain approximately 22 percent of the 
world's remaining oil and gas reserves--22 percent of the world's 
remaining oil and gas reserves within the Arctic area--is obviously of 
great interest. It is now being actively explored and developed. Six of 
the eight member nations of the Arctic Council are exploring or 
developing energy resources in their own waters.
  This makes energy exploration perhaps among the more important and 
perhaps the most serious issues for Arctic policy as we move forward. 
This includes conventional oil and natural gas but also the methane 
hydrates and some of the less conventional forms. Offshore Alaska, we 
are estimating about 15 billion barrels of oil in a concentrated area 
of the Chukchi Sea, and over in the Beaufort Sea about 8 billion 
barrels.

  We have suffered serious delays in exploration, but I am hopeful we 
will see exploratory wells prove up this next summer. While the U.S. 
Geological Survey tells us the region has the world's largest 
undiscovered oil and gas deposits, we also think it holds huge amounts 
of other minerals, such as coal, nickel, copper, tungsten, lead, zinc, 
gold, silver, diamonds, manganese, chromium, and titanium. The 
potential for the mineral resource is equally significant.
  There is a natural and sometimes reflective tendency to question how 
in the world it can ever be safe or even economic to drill and produce 
in such harsh, misunderstood, and clearly distant environments. But it 
is happening. It is happening today, and the technology and the 
engineering behind some of the existing and proposed activities are 
advancing rather rapidly.
  While we struggle in the United States with moving ahead with 
offshore development in Alaskan waters, our neighbors are rapidly 
moving forward on Arctic energy development. Russia, which is just 53 
miles from Alaska's shoreline, is turning its eye to the Arctic's vast 
energy reserves as they are building the first offshore oil rig that 
can withstand temperatures as low as minus 50 degrees Celsius and then 
heavy packed ice around it as well. As their oil production is in 
decline, they are also reducing taxes and bureaucratic hurdles to 
encourage new oil development within the Arctic.
  Norway has been exploring and producing energy in the Arctic the 
longest of the Arctic nations. They have found the way--led the way--
for energy development and other activities, such as fisheries, to 
coexist. They also lead the world in developing technology to clean up 
oil in Arctic waters.
  Energy development, as well as protection of the environment, must go 
hand in hand. It is as simple as that. I was pleased the Arctic Council 
announced the formation of a new task force that will negotiate 
measures for oilspill preparedness and response throughout the region. 
The decision to launch these negotiations is evidence of the strong 
commitment to proactively address emerging issues within the region and 
to create international protocols to prevent and clean up offshore 
oilspills in areas of the region that are becoming increasingly 
accessible to exploration because of a changing climate.
  One question I was asked seemingly everywhere I went when I was in 
Greenland was: What is the U.S. position on the Law of the Sea Treaty? 
When is the Senate going to move on this treaty? The U.S. delegation 
reiterated its support for the ratification of the Convention for the 
Law of the Sea. I happen to believe it is crucial that the United 
States be a party to this treaty rather than an outsider who hopes our 
interests are not going to be damaged. Accession to the Convention 
would give current and future administrations both enhanced credibility 
and leverage in calling upon other nations to meet Convention 
responsibilities. Given the support for the treaty by Arctic nations 
and the drive to develop national resources, the treaty will also 
provide the stability and the certainty that is vital for investment in 
our maritime commerce.
  It should be pointed out that the United States is the only Arctic 
nation that is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. The treaty 
was first submitted to the United States for approval back in 1994. It 
has not been approved yet. Canada and Denmark joined the treaty in 2003 
and 2004, respectively. But until the United States accedes to the 
treaty, it cannot submit its data regarding the extent of its extended 
continental shelf to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental 
Shelf established under the treaty. Without a Commission recommendation 
regarding such data, the legal foundation for ECS limits is much less 
certain than if the United States were a party to the treaty.
  Russia submitted an extended continental shelf claim in 2002 that 
would grant them 460,000 square miles of the Arctic Ocean's bottom 
resources. We can see the green is Russia's extended Continental shelf, 
but this lighter green is the area Russia has submitted to the 
Commission. This is an area the size of the State of Texas, California, 
and Indiana combined. Denmark and Canada are also anxious to establish 
their own claims in the Arctic. Norway's claim is currently under 
review by the Commission on Limits of the Continental Shelf.
  According to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, if the United 
States were to become a party to the treaty, we could lay claim to an 
area the size of the State of California. So if you look again, 
Alaska--again, up on the top--this area here is the area that is within 
the United States EEZ, this 200-mile area. But this area here--an area 
again about the size of the State of California--is what our mapping 
indicates we would be able to submit a claim to the commission for if 
we were party to the treaty.
  So this whole area, again, would be area the United States would be 
able to claim. If we fail to accede to the treaty, and we are sitting 
on the outside, we have no right to move forward with our claim. If we 
do not become a party to the treaty, our opportunity to make the claim 
and have the international community respect it diminishes 
considerably, as does our ability to challenge the claims of any other 
nation.
  Some have described the scenario in the Arctic as a ``race for 
resources'' or even an ``arms race.'' But after seeing the 
international cooperation at the Arctic Council, I believe what we have 
is an opportunity. This should be a race for cooperation, a race for 
sustainable management within the Arctic. The Arctic offers a great 
opportunity to work collaboratively. It is one area where the Obama 
administration can highlight the international cooperation in the 
implementation of its U.S. foreign policy. Think about what the 
administration is poised to do with the ``reset'' with Russia. I think 
the Arctic is a perfect area to do just that.
  What does the future hold for the Arctic? I believe the pace of 
change in the Arctic absolutely demands greater attention be focused to 
the Arctic. It was music to my ears to hear the Secretary of State 
acknowledge the United States is an Arctic nation. We are an Arctic 
nation because of Alaska and its people. That was incredibly 
significant to hear that not only as a U.S. citizen but for the other 
Arctic nations to hear

[[Page S3208]]

that statement from our Secretary of State.
  The implications of the dynamic changing Arctic for U.S. security, 
economic, environmental, and political interests depend on greater 
attention, greater energy, and greater focus on the Arctic itself. But 
it will take robust diplomacy and very likely recognition, as Secretary 
Clinton has reminded us, that the interest in the Arctic is not just 
limited to the five Arctic coastal States or even the eight countries 
that make up the permanent members of the Arctic Council. It will take 
a level of cooperation, a level of collaboration to include the non-
Arctic states as well. But I am pleased that ever so slowly the United 
States seems to be waking up to the fact that we are an Arctic nation 
and willing to take up the responsibilities as such.
  I am confident with the leadership of the Members of Congress, the 
administration, and from the Arctic community at large, we can continue 
to highlight the strategic importance of the Arctic for the United 
States. I believe the Arctic Council meeting may be just the turning 
point for American leadership in the Arctic.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank you for your attention, I yield the 
floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________