[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 149 (Tuesday, September 24, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6345-S6347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Michael Sfraga

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this morning 
to speak about the nomination of Dr. Michael Sfraga. He is an Alaskan, 
and he has been nominated to be our Nation's very first Ambassador at 
Large for the Arctic.
  We are going to have this vote very shortly, and my hope is that 
colleagues will see not only the imperative for an Arctic Ambassador at 
this moment in time but also to recognize that this nominee, Dr. 
Sfraga, is absolutely impeccable in terms of his qualifications for 
this position.
  He is one who is known widely throughout Arctic circles as our Arctic 
expert and the expert in everything from research to policy, to 
national security.
  We are the only Arctic Nation that lacks an Arctic Ambassador. I 
think colleagues are at that point in time where they recognize it is 
past time that we have that representation in the room when issues are 
as contentious as they are.
  Let me just share with you a few reminders about what is happening in 
the Far North. We were all made aware, on July 24, when Russian and 
Chinese bombers flew a joint patrol for the first time off the coast of 
Alaska. What was unusual was not the fact that Russia and China were 
flying together, but it was the fact that it was the first time they 
had done it jointly in the Arctic.
  We see the Russians regularly fly into our air defense identification 
zone--or ADIZ--but this was the first time to see the Chinese flying in 
this area with a joint mission. And we have just seen events continue 
to unfold throughout the summer.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, September 10, Russia began a massive, 
weeklong, worldwide ``Ocean-24'' exercise with hundreds of warships, 
more than 100 aircraft, and nearly 100,000 troops. This exercise is the 
largest since the fall of the Soviet Union, but it also had Chinese 
participation.
  Between its start and end, NORAD and the air forces stationed in 
Alaska detected, tracked, and intercepted four different Russian 
incursions into our Alaska ADIZ.
  So we have come to expect incursions throughout the year, usually 
about six or seven. Think about that. In just 5 days, our air defenses 
were tested as much as they tend to be tested in any given year. So we 
are now way ahead on publicly reported intercepts this year, up to 10. 
We have got 3 months left.
  There has also been an unprecedented level of naval activity off the 
coast. We saw the U.S. Coast Guard detect four Russian naval vessels 50 
miles northwest of Point Hope. Just take it back a couple of years when 
Russian warships chased Alaska fishermen out of an area within our EEZ. 
That was back in August of 2020. Those are not isolated incidents 
either.
  Last August, the Coast Guard detected and shadowed a Russian 
intelligence ship operating off of the Aleutians. This July, the Coast 
Guard detected and shadowed a Chinese surface action group within our 
EEZ and the Bering Sea.
  We all remember the Chinese surveillance balloons that transited 
above Alaska and the Arctic last year.
  And then just last night, I received notification from NORTHCOM of 
yet further intercepts of four Russian aircraft.
  I hope that we can all agree that this is an unprecedented time for 
the region. Normally, we think of the Arctic as ``High North, Low 
Tension,'' but right now it is ``High North,'' and it is ``Rising 
Tension.''
  One thing that is missing is a Senate-confirmed diplomat who will 
spend his or her time focused on Arctic issues, working with our 
allies, engaging our adversaries, and sending these very clear messages 
that we will protect America's interest in the Arctic.
  I had a chance to talk to Dr. Sfraga just literally hours ago. We 
were talking about this very intercept and what

[[Page S6346]]

we are seeing. He wanted to issue a statement as to his concern 
regarding what we are seeing with these air incursions into our ADIZ 
and into our EEZ off of Alaska shores.
  He says as follows:

       If confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador at Large for Arctic 
     Affairs, I commit to do everything in my power to 
     relentlessly push back against these malign actors in this 
     new era of authoritarian aggression and press for more 
     military assets and infrastructure in the Arctic region to 
     protect America's economic and security interests.

  So it is clear, we need an Arctic Ambassador. And we need this 
individual, Dr. Mike Sfraga, to be that Arctic Ambassador.
  He was nominated in February of last year. His nomination was 
reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee in March, and today we 
have got an opportunity to confirm him.
  I have mentioned that I think his qualifications are second to none. 
All you need to do is look at this gentleman's background: 30 years 
focused on the Arctic, a career of service in this area.
  He is an accomplished geographer, a researcher, a teacher with a 
Ph.D. from the University of Alaska. He helped establish the University 
of the Arctic. He co-created, co-led the State Department's Fulbright 
Arctic Initiative. He established the Polar Institute at the Wilson 
Center, which has become the Arctic Public Square for high-level 
conversations about the Far North.
  He chairs, currently, the US Arctic Research Commission, which 
advises us in Congress and the President on international research in 
the Arctic.
  When I spoke to him--he is in Helsinki, and he is going be to 
attending the Helsinki Security Conference. Next week, he is going to 
be at the Warsaw Conference.
  This man is in every conversation--every conversation--that surrounds 
the Arctic. He has the respect of those within the military, within the 
academic community, within policy. He is the person who knows the 
Arctic best.
  And his vast experience means that he knows how to handle our 
adversaries like Russia and China--across the interagency process with 
allies and partners--and doing it through a position of strength.
  Some have argued that perhaps his past interactions with regional 
players disqualify him from serving in this role.
  He is an Alaskan. We share a maritime border with Russia. We used to 
have regular nonstop air service to Russia, believe it or not. That is 
part of a time when, obviously, relations were better and Putin hadn't 
decided to invade Ukraine. But it wasn't uncommon for Alaskans to visit 
and work and know people who live there.
  He has also been criticized for attending international forums. 
Remember, he is not the only American or U.S. Government official in 
attendance at these meetings. I can't count the number of times I have 
gone as the U.S. representative to these meetings, and Mike Sfraga is 
there in the room, leading the conversation.

  Another area of criticism is that he failed to disclose fully before 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when his application came 
forward. Keep in mind, he is at every conference on the Arctic 
happening out there.
  I am told--I am told--that attendance on panels or conferences are 
not required for inclusion in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
questionnaire. When the committee came back and said: We know that 
there are other conferences you have attended. You have failed to 
disclose these. He went back, and he fully--fully--amended his 
disclosure to make sure that there were no omissions.
  So he then, when he submitted that to the committee, realized, 
through looking at his airline records, that he had failed to disclose 
yet another conference. So he went back voluntarily to do it. He has 
made sure that everything that has been asked has been provided.
  I tell you, the criticisms that Dr. Sfraga has faced, I think, are a 
great way to ensure that the United States never has an Arctic 
Ambassador or that we ultimately have to confirm an individual who has 
never even been there, who knows very little about it, and won't do 
anything to protect or advance our strategic interests. That would be a 
loss because the Arctic is no longer this isolated, distant region. It 
is the place of strategic importance, economic potential, and growing 
competition.
  And the United States must be prepared to lead. We have to be sitting 
at the table. We have to have that representation that we have lacked--
that we have lacked.
  Personnel is policy, and Dr. Sfraga is ready to take this on. So I 
urge the Senate to see through the challenges, the attacks, I think, on 
Dr. Sfraga.
  There is nothing in his past or in his file that is disqualifying. We 
know exactly what we are getting. He has been a public figure. He has 
shared his views on the Arctic for years, and he continues, to this 
day, to do just that.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting yes to confirm Dr. 
Sfraga.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to speak for up to 4 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I rise today in opposition 
to the nomination of Michael Sfraga to be Ambassador at Large for 
Arctic Affairs, not because I don't think we need an ambassador--we 
do--and not because I don't think Mr. Sfraga has the knowledge and the 
expertise to do this--I think he does--and not because he is not a nice 
person--I have met him. He is very engaging. I think he is a nice 
person, generally.
  The Arctic is a critically important region under threat from 
increasing Russian and Chinese activity. An Arctic Ambassador should 
help advance U.S. leadership, but this person must demonstrate 
experience and sound judgment, not just in science but also in matters 
of national security. Dr. Sfraga is not qualified in that regard as far 
as I am concerned. In fact, I believe he makes the situation worse.

  Based on his evasiveness during his vetting by the Foreign Relations 
Committee, I believe Dr. Sfraga could pose a counterintelligence and 
foreign malign influence threat to our Nation. I don't say that 
lightly.
  Dr. Sfraga was asked repeatedly to provide his foreign travel, his 
foreign contacts, and his appearances on panels to the vetting 
personnel, and he failed to be open and transparent. He updated his 
file four times--maybe a new record--each time only after being 
confronted with additional information he tried to conceal.
  For instance, while at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Dr. Sfraga 
negotiated no less than 27 MOUs with Chinese academic institutions tied 
to China's intelligence services. Only after confronting him did Dr. 
Sfraga admit that he negotiated these MOUs. One in particular was with 
a Chinese university with ties to Chinese intelligence services, and 
the MOU gave the Chinese access to the university's IT systems, 
exposing it to substantial cyber threats.
  On Russia, Dr. Sfraga failed to disclose a panel he spoke on in 
November 2021. Transneft, a sanctioned Russian state-owned energy firm, 
sponsored this conference.
  He also failed to disclose articles he wrote and events he spoke at 
where he advocated for Arctic engagement with Russia and China, as 
required by the SFRC's questionnaire. There is no one questioning that 
engagement is necessary. I really think that he is naive, at best, as 
far as dealing with Russia and China. And, in his defense, the entire 
academic community, for that matter, shares this naivety when compared 
to our national security Agencies.
  In May 2023, I took the unusual step of formally requesting the FBI 
to conduct a supplementary background check. In the 16 years that I 
have been here as a Senator, I have never asked the FBI for any kind of 
an investigation. I asked that this be supplemented. The FBI's response 
stated it could not conduct this investigation without White House 
permission, which the White House would not grant.
  This means the Senate does not have a complete picture of the 
counterintelligence or other risks to our national security posed by 
Dr. Sfraga. The majority leader should never have scheduled a vote on 
Dr. Sfraga until a full

[[Page S6347]]

vetting was complete and until this body, which is a safeguard for our 
national security, had all the information that it needed. It doesn't.
  Despite the poor due diligence on this nominee, there is still time 
for the Senate to do the right thing. I know it won't. I know this is 
essentially going to be a party-line vote. The Democrats want this 
person; they are going to get him.
  If we truly care about advancing American and U.S. leadership in the 
Arctic and tackling the threats posed by our adversaries, we must do 
better--a lot better--than deliberately putting personnel in place that 
can pose a risk to national security. This appointment is such an 
appointment. This is not some political person going into a place where 
they can't do any harm. This is a person who is going to be at the 
crossroads of national security, dealing with people from China, for 
instance, every one of whom is an agent of the Chinese Communist Party, 
because every Chinese national is an agent of the Communist Party, and 
they have no ability to conduct themselves freely.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the nomination of Michael Sfraga 
for Ambassador at Large for Arctic Affairs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Colorado.