[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 56 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2170-S2173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ARCTIC DEVELOPMENT

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to 
discuss the opportunity we have as a nation to truly take a leadership 
role when it comes to responsible development of the Arctic region. As 
we discuss the great opportunities and the challenges that face us, I 
think it is fair to say that I will also be expressing some 
disappointment with the general lack of resources our Federal 
Government has invested in this important issue, including, just most 
recently, through the President's annual budget request.
  Back in May 2013 the Obama administration released its ``National 
Strategy for the Arctic Region.'' The national strategy was really 
designed to set forth this government's strategic priorities for the 
Arctic--pretty important to recognize what our priorities are going 
forward. While that might sound impressive--a national strategy for the 
Arctic region--what we ended up seeing was just an 11-page document, 
and it is really hard to describe it as strategic. Perhaps a more 
accurate description is that it was a glorified memo, a general 
outline, but there were a lot of gaps that needed to be filled.
  Recognizing that this is a new area for us in terms of opportunities 
and, really, for vision, I was prepared to sit back and listen to what 
the administration had to say and work with them as they built this 
strategic vision. So when they released their implementation plan for 
the national strategy in late January, I was looking forward to it. I 
was looking forward to what had been gathered in meetings not only in 
Alaska--the State of Alaska is what makes the United States an Arctic 
nation--but it was broader than just Alaskans' input; it was input from 
so many of our agencies, so many of our departments. Yet, when the 
implementation of our national strategy was released, I have to admit 
that, again, I was underwhelmed.
  I made certain the President and members of the administration knew 
my concerns, and I told him--these were my words when I wrote to him--
my concern was that his plan does not offer a vision to make the United 
States a leader in the Arctic, particularly as we prepare for the 
chairmanship of the Arctic Council in May 2015, nor does it suggest 
that the Arctic is a national priority. Instead, the plan provides a 
snapshot of existing Arctic-related programs and projects with numerous 
assessments to be undertaken but no real path of action.

[[Page S2171]]

  It was important to me as someone who cares very deeply about our 
role as an Arctic nation and our role not only within the confines of 
the Federal Government but our role going forward in the world among 
the other Arctic nations and truly all of the nations throughout our 
planet in terms of where the United States sits when it comes to our 
vision and our view for the Arctic.
  The administration's plan would maintain our rather meager status quo 
in the Arctic while the other Arctic nations--the rest of the 
international community--seem to be devoting increasing amounts of 
resources to the region.
  It would also leave the residents of the Far North--U.S. citizens up 
there in Alaska--out in the cold when it comes to the U.S. Government's 
own priorities. Rather than advance an agenda that will benefit those 
who live in the Arctic, they are, instead, regulated to being part of a 
science project for observation and conservation.
  Let me give you an example of that.
  One of the proposed initiatives within the implementation plan is to 
``Improve Arctic Community Sustainability, Well-being, and Cultural and 
Linguistic Heritage.'' I have to say, that is a pretty laudable goal. 
We certainly want to maintain, we certainly want to pass down the 
culture of our indigenous populations to future generations. We 
certainly want to improve their quality of life. Yet within this 
initiative, the administration has designated the Smithsonian 
Institution to be the lead agency for this particular initiative. It is 
as if the people of the Far North--it is as if the Inuit, the Eskimo, 
the Aleut, the Yupik--are somehow or other people to be observed as 
part of a museum exhibit or perhaps placed under a glass bubble.
  Combine this with the implementation plan's heavy emphasis on 
conservation, research into climate change, and preemption of 
development on State Native and Federal lands, and it is difficult for 
me to see any support by this administration for economic development, 
for job creation, or really for a better quality of life for the people 
who live in the Far North.
  So again, when we talk about the ``Implementation Plan for the 
National Strategy for the Arctic Region,'' climate is absolutely an 
issue that needs to be discussed and addressed--absolutely. Development 
issues clearly need to be addressed. Conservation clearly needs to be 
addressed. But we have to remember there are people who live and raise 
their families and work up in the Arctic. So making sure we are 
thinking about them as we advance an implementation plan is key.
  But even with the implementation plan being rolled out in January, I 
thought: OK, there is still not enough meat on the bones here for me to 
understand how we move forward with a set of priorities, a real vision 
for the Arctic. But I knew the President's budget was going to be 
coming out in March, and that is the opportunity for any President to 
establish his or her priorities when it comes to the budget.
  So I held out hope that when we saw the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request that was where we would finally start to see some kind of a 
coherent strategy come together. I expected it would at least 
demonstrate the administration's desire to show some level of 
leadership in the Arctic. My office was told that part of the purpose 
of the implementation plan and the designation of lead and support 
agencies was to gain an ability to propose jointly supported Arctic 
projects that OMB would then deem important enough to be included in 
the budget request.
  But, again, we looked through the budget, and I am disappointed, 
sorely disappointed. My immediate reaction to the budget request was we 
are seeing so much spending here through the budget proposal, but yet 
so very little attention paid to our needs and our opportunities in the 
Arctic.
  A search of the 1,400-plus page detailed appendix for the 
administration's budget reveals only 5 requests--5 requests--for 
Arctic-related activity. Two are for longstanding programs that have 
been funded for many years. One is the U.S. Arctic Research 
Commission--very important--and then, of course, the North Pacific 
Research Board. Another is for international fisheries work done 
through the Arctic Council. And the last two are for climate change-
related activities. That is it. Five references--five references--out 
of a 1,400-plus page appendix for the budget speak to any Arctic-
related activity.
  Now, you may ask why I am disappointed, underwhelmed, perhaps a 
little bit agitated about where we are with advancing an implementation 
plan, a strategic vision for the Arctic. Well, in about a year from 
now, the United States will take over the chair of the Arctic Council. 
That chairmanship is currently held by Canada.
  I have had opportunities to sit down with the chair of the Arctic 
Council, Leona Aglukkaq, who is from the Nunavut area, and talk about 
what Canada is doing to really lead in so many different areas when it 
comes to Arctic policy and Arctic strategy--not only for their nation 
but all the Arctic nations and beyond.
  I look with a little bit of longing at how Canada has truly embraced 
their leadership role as an Arctic nation, not only with statements of 
intention that are backed up by real resources, but an appreciation for 
what the future can hold for the Arctic.
  So over the last several weeks we have had our Appropriations 
subcommittees that are really starting to kick into gear here, and I 
have had the opportunity to ask several Cabinet members--Secretary 
Johnson from the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Jewell 
from the Department of Interior--I have had a chance to ask both of 
them about their Departments' budget priorities for the Arctic and, 
specifically, the programs for which their Departments have been 
designated as the lead agency within this implementation plan for 
fiscal year 2015. And both Cabinet members have assured me, they have 
said, yes, the Arctic is a priority, it is important to the United 
States. But neither one of these Cabinet members could tell me what 
their Department's budget request contained for the Arctic. They have 
assured me they are going to be going back and seeing if they cannot 
fill in those details for me, but, to me, that is symbolic of the 
Arctic's overall standing within the administration. There are lots of 
good words when asked about it. Everyone is saying, yes, it should be a 
priority. But yet it does not seem to be important enough to be 
proactive on or to even be familiar with without prompting.
  We all know that any President's budget request, regardless of party, 
is not likely to be enacted word for word, and, quite honestly, 
recognizing politics, more likely than not it is not going to be 
enacted at all. But if a budget request does signify something, it is 
the message, it is the signal of what the administration's priorities 
for that fiscal year and beyond are.
  So it is apparent, at least in my view, that this administration is 
not willing to devote the resources necessary to make the Arctic a true 
priority. That, to me, is very shortsighted. I think it is a failure of 
leadership, a failure to think ahead and to take the long view.
  I recognize, as we all do, that we are at a time of budget constraint 
and restraint, that there is competition for all dollars, as we look to 
make wise decisions here. But as we are setting priorities, as we are 
thinking toward the future and a longer term view, we have to ensure--
we have to ensure--that the Arctic is placed as a priority. Some people 
would ask why we should care about it. Is this just an Alaska-specific 
issue? Are these just Alaska projects we are talking about? Why should 
the Arctic really matter to the United States?
  First, the reality is that the Arctic is a relatively blank slate 
right now. It is not presently an area that is subject to longstanding 
disputes or entrenched views. Think about the significance of that. 
When you look at the Arctic, you have your eight Arctic nations around 
it, but whether it is Finland, Norway, Canada, the United States, 
Russia, the area that occupies the Arctic is not one that is known for 
conflict.
  Think about the role Secretary Kerry has. He does not have to worry 
about hotspots in the Arctic in the sense of political hotspots. You 
just do not have those longstanding disputes. It is not a hotspot for 
potential conflict. It is, however, a region that is garnering 
increased international attention and recognition because of its 
tremendous potential, and it is generating cooperation amongst Arctic 
nations. Now,

[[Page S2172]]

isn't that a concept--that something is actually generating 
cooperation?
  Let me give you an example. I was at the 2013 Arctic Council 
Ministerial Meeting in Sweden, and I was there with Secretary Kerry. 
When you think about the issues in front of our Secretary of State, at 
that time back in May, there was no shortage of differences and 
disagreements with the Russian Government at that moment. Yet at that 
ministerial meeting, we had Secretary of State Kerry and Russian 
Foreign Minister Lavrov side by side signing a binding agreement on 
oilspill preparedness and response capabilities in the Arctic. But this 
was all going on while differences over Syria and U.S. Embassy spy 
charges were hanging over their heads. So despite all the other issues 
those two gentlemen were dealing with, they were able to come together 
in Sweden and join on to a joint document of cooperation among Arctic 
nations as it related to oilspill preparedness and response 
capabilities. From a foreign policy perspective, the Arctic is an area 
for cooperation and relationship building, and that is a good and a 
positive that we should look to build on.
  From an economic perspective, our neighbors--Russia to the west and 
Canada to the east--continue with aggressive national plans that 
include state investment to develop northern resources and advance 
commerce in the region. They know--they know all too well--that this 
will help create jobs and economic growth in areas that face 
extraordinary challenges.
  A recent report by the Norwegian Shipowners' Association shows that 
the regions bordering the Arctic Ocean are experiencing higher annual 
economic growth than the rest of their respective nations on average 
and are considered drivers for economic growth in the Arctic countries.
  Russia's territorial claim to a large swath of the Arctic seabed 
received a boost when an area in the Sea of Okhotsk was recognized as 
part of its extended continental shelf by the same commission examining 
its Arctic claims. These are territorial claims that Russia is able to 
make because they are a party to the Convention of the Law of the Sea, 
while the United States is not.
  I will just make a particular aside at this point in time that I have 
long been a proponent of the U.S. Senate ratifying the Convention on 
the Law of the Sea. As we engage in the Arctic, as we not only work on 
areas of cooperation, I think we need to ensure that we, as an Arctic 
nation, have a seat at the table on the issues that face the Arctic. 
While we sit on the sidelines, because we have failed to ratify the law 
of the sea, we miss out. We miss out.
  Even non-Arctic nations are embracing the opportunities that come 
with diminished polar sea ice representing the transit benefits, 
conducting scientific research and moving ahead with resource 
exploration and development activities. Nations such as China, South 
Korea, and Japan each have icebreakers. China is in the process of 
constructing a second larger icebreaker. It is even India's intention 
to have an icebreaker by the end of 2016. Think how far India is from 
the Arctic.
  You may ask the question: Well, where is the United States when it 
comes to its number of icebreakers?
  We have one heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star. We have a second, the 
Polar Sea, which is going to effectively be mothballed. We have a 
medium breaker, the Healy, which is primarily used for research 
missions, and the useful life of the Polar Star is expected to be 
concluded in less than 10 years.
  Right now, as I talk to those within the administration about the 
plans to move forward on a polar icebreaker, it is pretty dismal. The 
proposal thus far in the President's budget is that there will be $6 
million to advance, as far as studies go. We know we need a heavy 
polar-class icebreaker. In fact, we know we need three heavy 
icebreakers and three medium icebreakers. But it is a big capital 
investment. It has not been made a priority. It is yet one of those 
initiatives that I think we look at from a shortsighted perspective by 
failing to place an imperative on it now.
  Even Singapore--not exactly synonymous with the Arctic--has 
designated an Arctic ambassador and is actively participating in the 
Arctic Council and other Arctic-related forums around the globe.
  So there are non-Arctic nations that are building ice-capable ships. 
There are non-Arctic nations that are asking to be observers in the 
Arctic Council. There are non-Arctic nations stepping forward and 
saying: We want to have an Arctic ambassador, somebody who is there as 
part of the discussions on issues in an area of the globe that is 
evolving so quickly; where there are so many opportunities; where there 
are challenges, yes, but where there are so many opportunities. We want 
to be part of that.
  You would think the United States would not only jump in and say ``me 
too,'' but that we would be leading as one of the eight Arctic nations. 
This activity by other nations is going to continue--in fact, 
accelerate--regardless of whether the United States engages. But if we 
do engage, we will also benefit and we will also be in a better 
position to ensure that any development, that any commerce, that any 
activity is carried out safely and responsibly.
  There is a lot of discussion about the energy potential, the 
potential for natural resource wealth and what that might bring to the 
Arctic. This is a map that shows the extent of the yearlong ice in the 
Arctic. Setting aside the natural resource potential, which is in the 
range of 30 billion barrels of oil and 220 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas in the United States Arctic OCS alone--we recognize that 
the natural resource potential is significant, but it is not just about 
the natural resources. Let me give an example of the activity that is 
already underway in the Arctic, its impact on us here in the United 
States, and the opportunity our Nation has to embrace that potential.
  With the decreasing amount of sea ice in the Arctic, we are seeing a 
corresponding increase in maritime activity.
  So, again, this is a chart that shows the extent of the sea ice in 
the year 2000. So your sea ice is the whiter area, with your 
opportunities for maritime activity limited as you are moving through 
Canada here and even through Russia there.
  This next chart shows the extent of the sea ice and vessel activity 
in the Arctic in 2011. So you can see increased activity is taking 
place where the sea ice used to be. So here is the sea ice now, but 
notice the passage you have transiting through the Bering Strait, over 
the top of Alaska, through the Northwest Passage, and out over to 
Europe.
  Notice also going through the Northern Sea Route from Russia over to 
the Baltic States. The colored lines you see are not necessarily oil 
and gas exploration ships; they are cargo ships, they are tankers, and 
they are icebreakers. They are fishing vessels, research vessels, 
passenger vessels, cruise ships, and others. So in a decade, what you 
are seeing is a level of maritime traffic that is really 
unprecedented--and unprecedented because we have not had the ability to 
transit in these waters because they were locked by ice for almost the 
full extent of the year.
  So here is a closer look at the vessel activity in the Bering Strait 
region in 2013. So this is going to look like this amazing blur of 
color. But here we have Alaska. This is Russia. Where all of these 
lines seem to be converging, at the center here, is where we have 
Little Diomede and Big Diomede. Big Diomede is owned by Russia, Little 
Diomede is held by the United States, and 2.5 miles separates the two 
islands. In truth, we can see Russia from Little Diomede. I was there 
last summer.
  But when you appreciate that the distance between Alaska and Russia 
outside of the very narrow area between Big and Little Diomede is just 
57 miles--we have a 57-mile choke point here in the Bering Strait where 
we have incredible amounts of maritime commerce coming through: 
tankers, cargo ships, tugs, towing ships, passenger vessels, fishing 
vessels, search and rescue, military, law enforcement, and others. This 
is what we are seeing in the year 2013. Transits have doubled in the 
past 5 years.
  The next chart comes from the recently released U.S. Navy Arctic 
Roadmap. This map shows the predicted sea ice coverage by the year 
2030. So here we were at 2012 with the sea ice covering all of this. By 
2020 it is shrinking. Here it is by 2025, by 2030. This is the

[[Page S2173]]

predicted model for our sea ice coverage by 2030. We can see an even 
larger portion of the Arctic is expected to be open to maritime 
commerce.
  The Navy predicts that the traffic through the Bering Strait will 
double again in the next 10 years. Again, that is going to happen 
whether or not the United States participates. Foreign vessels, if not 
American vessels, will be traveling across Alaska's western and 
northern coast. That is a given.
  The last chart I have shows the Bering Strait as the gateway between 
the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans. Again, when we talk about Alaska, we 
are talking about its strategic geographic location, where it is on the 
globe. We are very proud of the military opportunities we have for 
amazing training ranges in Alaska when it comes to our assets in the 
air and on the ground.
  But look at where Alaska sits in terms of its strategic location to 
not only Asia--we are sitting literally halfway between Nagoya, Japan, 
and Seattle, Washington, when you are at Adak. It is just as easy for 
me to get to Japan as it is to get to Seattle if I go as the crow 
flies. Unfortunately, I do not have anything that will take me as the 
crow flies.
  But I think it is important for us to recognize this: That whether it 
is passage over the Northwest Passage, which is still relatively 
problematic, the increased traffic we are seeing from the Northern Sea 
Route coming over Russia, or potentially the transpolar route at some 
point in time, everything funnels through the Bering Strait here--the 
57 miles between Russia and the United States--and then has to exit or 
cut through the Aleutian chain here.
  So when we think about where Alaska sits, we truly are the gateway 
between the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans. With the predicting of a 
doubling of vessel activity in the Arctic via the Bering Strait in the 
next 10 years, the time to develop the infrastructure and support 
capacity to handle this growing amount of traffic is now--actually, it 
was yesterday.
  This is not a region that is devoid of activity, but it is a region 
that lacks adequate levels of investment, government resources, and 
attention. Deepwater ports, navigational aids, search and rescue 
capabilities, and icebreakers are all needed now and, in addition, the 
basic charting of many of our Arctic waters, which some of us have 
recognized is seriously lacking. This is going to take a very 
collaborative effort across all of our agencies and working with our 
Arctic neighbors to achieve that.
  With a vision, it is not difficult to see how we could have a 
transshipment facility developed in the Aleutian chain to capitalize on 
the intersection between the North Pacific great circle route and the 
three Arctic Sea routes. Imagine you have cargo that is transiting the 
Arctic from Europe, coming from the Northwest Passage or coming over 
the Northern Sea Route.
  Imagine that cargo then being offloaded at Adak. Adak is a former 
Navy base and, quite honestly, the infrastructure that is there is--
well, it is a little bit old--pretty amazing. You could then offload in 
either Adak or Unalaska and load that cargo onto ships transiting the 
North Pacific and to the west coast--and vice versa.
  Ice-strengthened ships could be used entirely within the Arctic, 
rather than traveling all the way to Singapore or Hong Kong. It would 
save time, it would save money, and it would allow for an increased 
number of transits. I am looking at it and saying: This could be a real 
win, a win for consumers, a win for business, and a win for national 
security by being able to keep a closer eye on commerce traveling to 
the United States.
  It is clear--I hope it is clear--that people recognize that we have 
such opportunity, we have such capacity for opportunity and growth 
within the Arctic. But we have to be careful, we have to be 
considerate, and we have to be sure that the necessary resources and 
infrastructure necessary are there.
  The United States has never been last in a race to the future, but 
absent visionary leadership and meaningful resourcing, we will continue 
to take a back seat and fail to capitalize on all that the Arctic has 
to offer. We will miss out on resource development and shipping 
efficiencies and, in turn, new opportunities to create new jobs and 
generate needed economic growth.
  I don't believe that we can afford to sit idle any longer, which 
means that it is time for our Federal Government and this 
administration to really start taking the Arctic seriously and dedicate 
the necessary resources to the region.
  I don't mean to suggest that the efforts that have been made to date 
are not important. We have come quite far in the past few years, but 
you have to remember, we were starting from ground zero. There was 
nothing, really. We have made some strides, and it is important that we 
have these documents coming out of our agencies, and it is important 
that we have framework because it is on these that we will build. But I 
feel like I need to lend an air of urgency that it is not just about 
methodically chipping away year by year with yet another document--
another strategy plan that will sit on the bookshelf.
  I have a lot of those on the Arctic. I think many do. It is how we 
are a true participant in a level of engagement in a region that holds 
such excitement and such potential that nations around the world are 
turning their eyes northward with excitement and enthusiasm.
  The United States should be leading with equal enthusiasm about what 
our opportunities hold.
  I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________