U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

91–844PDF 2015

THE UNITED STATES AS AN ARCTIC NATION:

OPPORTUNITIES IN THE HIGH NORTH

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND 

EMERGING THREATS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

DECEMBER 10, 2014

Serial No. 113–235

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., USCG, Retired, U.S. Special Representative for 

the Arctic, U.S. Department of State ................................................................. 5

Scott Borgerson, Ph.D., chief executive officer, Cargo Metrics Technologies ..... 32

Mr. Andrew Holland, senior fellow for energy and climate, American Security 

Project ................................................................................................................... 34

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., USCG, Retired: Prepared statement ......................... 9

Mr. Andrew Holland: Prepared statement ............................................................ 37

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 58

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 59

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and 

Emerging Threats: Statement of the Honorable Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska ......................................................... 60

The Honorable Steve Stockman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas: Material submitted for the record ...................................................... 63

(1)

THE UNITED STATES AS AN ARCTIC NATION: 

OPPORTUNITIES IN THE HIGH NORTH 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. The subcommittee is called to order 

and even though this will be the final Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee hearing for the 113th Congress, we will 

be discussing an important topic—the Arctic and the opportunities 

for America as an Arctic nation. 

In 2009, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on 

the High North, which approached the Arctic through which, of 

course, what has been happening since then as people have been 

only seeing this through the lens of global warming. 

While we all recognize that there is receding ice, the purpose of 

this hearing is not to debate science. Rather, what is taking place 

is part of a natural cycle as happens—as happened so many times 

in the past in the Earth’s history, or it can be traced to 

humankind’s use of CO2-producing internal combustion engines. 

The fact—whatever it is, the fact remains that the Arctic is more 

accessible now than it has been in decades and Arctic policy should 

not be just reduced to one particular issue, especially a disagreement on why the climate is changing. 

I am honored that today’s subcommittee hearing will be the first 

time Admiral Robert Papp testifies in his new role as the U.S. Special Representative for the Arctic, and I thank you for being with 

us today and look forward to hearing your testimony and being 

able to get some of the strategy that you are going to be laying 

down and some of your perceptions of which way we should go. 

As the Arctic geography has changed, new opportunities have 

emerged and those are the opportunities to access deposits of oil, 

natural gas and other minerals. Additionally, Arctic sea lanes have 

become passable for increasingly longer periods of time during the 

summer months, cutting around 4,000 miles off the distance required to sail between Asia and Europe. 

A version of the long-sought Northwest Passage may be materializing right before our eyes. The increased activity has challenged 

the governments of Arctic nations to effectively govern the High 

2

North, build new infrastructure and expand capabilities to operate 

in such harsh conditions. 

To help realize some of these new opportunities, the eight Arctic 

countries including the United States created a high-level diplomatic forum called the Arctic Council. 

In April 2015, it will be America’s turn to assume the rotating 

chairmanship of this council for 2 years. This will give our Government the ability to set an agenda. Just in time, Admiral. 

Today, the subcommittee will hear key details about what will be 

on that agenda, how to prioritize and what priorities we should 

have, which ones will serve our national interest and promote responsible development. 

Let me just note that there are 50,000 Americans who live in the 

Arctic. But this is much more than just a local issue for Alaskans. 

The vast resources of the Arctic can and should be wisely promoted 

and used to increase our prosperity and the well being of our people. 

If the Arctic nations can do this successfully, so can we. Our Government’s role is to ensure private industry follows the rules and 

uses good practices but not to block progress. 

We should all be mindful that other Arctic nations are seeking 

ways to use the Arctic for their own advantage. Chinese scholars, 

for example, have taken to calling China a near-Arctic state. 

Chinese military officials have commented that China has an indispensable role to play in the Arctic. Well, if we don’t put in place 

effective policies for the Arctic and then follow through on those 

policies, we know who is waiting in the wings to fill the void. 

We also cannot ignore Russia’s prominent role in the Arctic, and 

while the Russian relationship with the Trans-Atlantic community 

is at its lowest point since I was elected to Congress—since 1989—

we should not ignore the possibility of a productive relationship 

with Russia in this polar region. 

Perhaps—let me put it this way—we can cooperate with people 

like this even though we have disagreements with them and maybe 

by cooperating in those areas maybe we can overcome some of 

those other challenges. 

Lastly, I want to hold this hearing now to let our friends and allies in the Arctic Council know that their cooperation and their collaboration on key projects is being noticed and appreciated on Capitol Hill. 

It was also important to hold this hearing before the U.S. chairmanship began to take place to lay down some clear benchmarks 

and some of the metrics that we can use to judge whether or not 

your chairmanship and our leadership is actually accomplishing 

the goals we wanted to accomplish. 

So I thank all the witnesses for being with us today. We will 

have two panels—the first, as I say, with Special Representative 

Papp, and the second panel of private experts. Without objection, 

all members will have until the end of this week to submit additional written questions or extraneous material for the record. 

And I now would like to have Mr. Keating, our ranking member, 

give his opening remarks. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this meeting, the last one of our—of the year and it is been 

3

a pleasure working with you during this period and it is very 

thoughtful of you to have this meeting at this time, talking about 

the North Pole area at a time of year when so many millions of 

children are anxiously awaiting this. 

Now, I must concede that there is an element of skepticism about 

this, but as you said you are not a person that believes in scientific 

evidence. So anything is possible. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is good. 

Mr. KEATING. And for the benefit of my staff, that was not written in my notes. And Admiral Papp, it is been a pleasure working 

with you as I have on Coast Guard issues. 

I have so many Coast Guard stations in my district and thank 

you for your service there and thank you for sharing your first opportunity to testify before Congress in your new capacity. It is an 

honor to have you here today. 

Across the Arctic, many challenges are faced by those living and 

working in the North. These challenges include higher living costs, 

skilled labor shortages, the ramifications of climate change and 

other black carbon phenomena and harsher weather conditions, to 

name just a few. 

Yet, in these challenges lie immense opportunities to coordinate 

efforts, increase outreach and to make potentially life-altering scientific discoveries. It is these common challenges and experience 

that demonstrate why the Arctic Council is necessary and why 

your position, Admiral, will be so critical as the United States prepares to chair the council. 

By bringing together the eight countries bordering the Arctic, 

various stakeholders, NGOs and businesses the Arctic Council can 

engage in a dialogue that enables cooperative strategies to tackle 

common problems. 

The Arctic Council can serve as a forum for dialogue even as tensions exist in other areas amongst members. That being said, I believe that a lack of transparency in certain behaviors may also 

raise questions. 

In this regard, I will be interested in your thoughts on how to 

ensure peaceful cooperation, particularly given the recent increase 

in Russian long-range aviation, i.e., strategic bombers, and in over 

the Arctic and Russia’s plans to establish a new military command 

and bases in the Arctic. 

These plans seem to belie Russian assertions that their interests 

are strictly peaceful. There are, of course, a plethora of examples 

of cooperation through the council. 

For example, under Canada’s leadership the council empowered 

Northerners with its focus on the indigenous population of the 

North, their traditions and their knowledge. 

Canada’s promotion of the Arctic Council is something that can 

move this region forward while also maintaining the unique landscape and the environment. 

Sweden and the U.S. are also working together on a partnership 

on Arctic resilience and the effect of changing ecosystems and as 

this is occurring, the U.S. continues to partner with Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Russia and other members to coordinate on search and rescue efforts, monitoring vessel traffic, oil polVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:37 Jan 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\121014\91844 SHIRL
4

lution preparedness and, of course, integral climate change initiatives. 

As these operations move forward through the council, the North 

will inevitably be more interconnected and we can learn from each 

other, particularly as the U.S. Coast Guard prepares to visit countries like Finland in March to examine Arctic acquisitions and 

bring back the knowledge to the U.S. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, Admiral Papp, I would like to thank you 

for including climate change in the U.S. national Arctic strategy as 

well as for the U.S. chairmanships of the Arctic Council. 

It is a huge step for us and one that I know has been recognized 

by proponents of the environment worldwide and for that I thank 

Secretary Kerry and I thank you, Admiral Papp. I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and we also have with 

us Congressman Larsen from Washington and if you would like to 

make an opening statement, feel free. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

and I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to be waived on 

for a brief time onto the subcommittee in order to participate in today’s hearing. 

I really do appreciate that, and I will be—I will be brief. My colleague, Don Young, and I created the U.S. Congressional Working 

Group on the Arctic a few months back, sort of bring some attention, highlight some of the issues that we see in the Arctic that are 

important and important for U.S. policy. 

A lot of times, the Arctic is seen as out of sight and out of mind 

to many. But for we in the Northwest it is certainly part of kind 

of the everyday economy, probably more so for my colleague, Mr. 

Young, from Alaska, but my district in the Puget Sound as a whole 

tends to be the winter home for a lot of people who are—have activities and employment in Alaska over the spring, summer and 

fall, including the major fishing industry fleet headquartered in—

basically in the Seattle-Puget Sound area as well as a lot of the 

shipyards doing work in the Puget Sound supporting that activity 

and as well with the potential of leases—oil and gas leases in the 

U.S. portion of the Arctic. 

A lot of those companies are looking to Puget Sound to be their 

winter home for maintenance and repair. But there are other 

issues. 

It is not just economic—there are environmental issues, national 

security issues as well as the concerns and rights of native peoples 

that are to be on the U.S. agenda for Admiral Papp as the Arctic 

Council gets together. 

I got involved with this in part because my district is the—either 

the first or second closest to Alaska in Washington State, up there 

in the northwest corner of the Lower 48, but also being the—on the 

Coast Guard Committee and working with Admiral Papp and his 

predecessors on the icebreaker issue introduced me to these broader issues in the Arctic. 

So I have got a real strong interest in what occurs there, and I 

won’t speak on behalf of Congressman Young, who was here before 

votes, but I do appreciate his willingness to allow somebody who 

is not from Alaska to be interested in the Arctic. 

5

Our Alaskan friends are very protective of what happens there 

and we want to be supportive of that. So thank you very much. I 

appreciate it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Admiral Robert Papp is the State Department’s first Special Representative for the Arctic, having been appointed in July of this 

year by Secretary Kerry. Before his current position, he was the 

24th Commandant of the Coast Guard, the good guy branch of the 

services. 

We Californians, we all love the Coast Guard and especially the 

surfers love the Coast Guard. He has held numerous important positions while serving our nation, including commanding four different Coast Guard ships. 

He is a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy and holds advanced degrees including from the Naval War College. Admiral, 

you may proceed with your statement. 

We would hope that you could summarize in a 5-minute summary for us and then we will have questions for you, and you may 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ROBERT PAPP, JR., USCG, RETIRED, 

U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ARCTIC, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Keating, good 

to see you, and Mr. Larsen, good to see you again, as always, and 

thanks for having me here this afternoon to speak a little bit about 

the Arctic. I really appreciate the opportunity. 

When I heard that the theme was to be the United States as an 

Arctic nation, I was very pleased because the importance and recognition of that concept could not be more timely for all of us. 

As you mentioned, there are only eight nations in the world 

whose territory above the Arctic Circle gives them the right to 

claim being an Arctic nation. 

The United States is one, although it has been my experience 

that Americans do not embrace or fully understand the concept of 

being an Arctic nation and that is unlike what I have observed in 

the other seven Arctic countries. We hope through our chairmanship to be able to raise the awareness for all Americans. 

The story of the Arctic is defined by intense and arduous relationships between humans and the environment. Arctic residents, 

including more than 50,000 of our fellow U.S. citizens, know not 

just how to survive but also how to thrive in the harshest of conditions on the Earth. Theirs is a story of continuous adaptation and 

survival. 

Today, however, the harsh and challenging environment is transforming at an unparalleled rate. Average seasonal temperatures in 

the Arctic are rising twice as fast as the rest of the world, and 

though the region seems remote to most Americans, last month we 

watched as the entire country experienced abnormal weather, the 

result of a storm that passed through the Bering Sea, creating that 

weather phenomenon which we have known to be called the polar 

vortex. 

And this is just one illustration of how things happening in the 

Arctic are not only impacting the rest of the United States but the 

6

rest of the world. Melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets are 

contributing to rising sea levels and threatening some of our coastlines and cities. 

The future of America is inextricably linked to the future of the 

Arctic and will undoubtedly include increasing maritime commerce, 

exploration and management of resources. 

In line with the President’s commitment to elevate Arctic issues 

in our nation’s foreign policy, Secretary Kerry appointed me in July 

to serve as the country’s first Special Representative for the Arctic 

and I gratefully accepted that responsibility and welcomed the opportunity to advance the Arctic discussion in our Government and 

with American citizens. 

The Arctic Council chairmanship agenda is an important part of 

that discussion and it will provide the international stage upon 

which we can promote our priorities. 

But there are many other issues at play, some on the world stage 

as we navigate our relationships with countries like Russia and 

China, and others that will require domestic action at home. 

As the former commandant of the Coast Guard, I have extensive 

experience working in northern waters, especially in Alaska where 

I began my Coast Guard career as a young ensign assigned to a 

cutter home ported in Adak in the Aleutian Islands. 

During that assignment, I crossed the Arctic Circle for the first 

time almost 40 years ago. Later, I toured Alaska extensively during 

each of my 4 years as commandant. 

In my new role as Special Representative, I have already been 

to Alaska twice to see and hear first hand from the people living 

in our rapidly changing Arctic region. 

Now, while I am a sailor and not a scientist, over the course of 

my lifetime I have observed firsthand the dramatic changes that 

are taking place in this incredible region. While the natural environment is changing at an accelerated pace, the geopolitical situation is changing quickly as well and must be taken into account. 

Russia’s continued violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty are an affront to a rules-based international system. The United States has 

joined the international community, including the other Arctic nations, in opposing these violations and imposing costs on Russia for 

its actions. 

Nevertheless, the Arctic has been a zone of cooperation and free 

of conflict. We will continue to work with Russia on global issues 

related to the Arctic through our multilateral engagement at the 

Arctic Council. 

We remain cognizant of how changes in the Arctic have created 

significant challenges and opportunities for every Arctic nation. 

The warming climate threatens traditional ways of life for indigenous peoples and wildlife but it also opens up new opportunities for 

maritime trade and prosperity, new shipping routes, increased oil 

and gas exploration and tourism, to name a few. 

The challenge of charting a course toward a sustainable future 

in the Arctic is important to all of us. The State Department is 

committed to working within our abilities to improve the future of 

this region. 

The Arctic is quickly becoming a global cornerstone for scientific 

and academic research, trade and tourism. Four million people live 

7

in—across a region that crosses 24 time zones. Some areas are incredibly developed while parts of our own American Arctic are 

struggling to provide the basic necessities like clean water and affordable energy. 

The United States will have the opportunity to address some of 

these Arctic challenges as we take over chair of the Arctic Council 

this April. 

Considering my appointment began in late July, my first months 

on the job have been spent getting out and talking to a wide range 

of constituent groups, both domestically and internationally, while 

making preparations for a chairmanship agenda that will generate 

forward-leaning actionable goals and quantifiable results. 

Our leadership at the Arctic Council will focus on three primary 

initiatives—first, Arctic Ocean safety, security and stewardship; 

second, improving the economic and living conditions of the people 

of the North; and third, addressing the impacts of climate change. 

We are currently discussing our proposed program with the Arctic states and the permanent participants who represent the indigenous groups, and we hope to have their full support prior to our 

chairmanship. Our themes reflect some of the most important 

issues in the region. 

Arctic Ocean’s accessibility is increasing and a maritime nation’s 

first responsibility is to ensure that any activity taking place off its 

shores is safe, secure and environmentally responsible. 

To do so requires a delicate balance but affords secure and sustainable sources of food, energy and commerce for generations to 

come. 

For many Americans residing in the Arctic, their communities 

are remote and their quality of life is dependent upon Northern 

economic activity. The cost of living is high and not only is it difficult to find employment but it is a challenge to obtain the basic 

necessities we as people need to survive. 

As part of our chairmanship, we aim to focus on improving local 

access to sources of clean water and renewable energy to address 

some of these vital needs. 

We also hope to utilize public-private partnerships as a tool to 

help these remote communities throughout the Arctic region to 

make advancements to improve their day-to-day lives. 

And, of course, we must focus on some effort in the regional impacts of climate change and continue the council’s work to mitigate 

black carbon and methane emissions. 

As an Arctic nation and a global leader, we have an obligation 

to use our diplomatic, economic and scientific resources to help 

those in the region find ways to adapt to a changing Arctic. 

We must set the bar high and pursue ambitious domestic and 

foreign policy agendas to address these challenges and opportunities. 

I have no doubt about America’s ability to embrace the responsibility and succeed, and I welcome the efforts of our partners including Alaska natives, students, academia, private industry, state and 

local governments as we focus all of our energy on this critical global issue including the recognition that the United States is and always will be an Arctic nation. 

8

So I thank you for interest in the Arctic and I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Papp follows:]

9


91844a-1.eps
10


91844a-2.eps
11


91844a-3.eps
12


91844a-4.eps
13


91844a-5.eps
14


91844a-6.eps
15


91844a-7.eps
16


91844a-8.eps
17


91844a-9.eps
18


91844a-10.eps
19


91844a-11.eps
20

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much for that testimony. We 

have been joined, of course, by Don Young, one of our more famous 

Members of Congress for his knowledge of that part of the world 

and I kid you not, I have heard about him—I was elected 26 years 

ago and I heard about him even then. 

Don, if you have an opening statement feel free to join us. We 

are also joined by Steve Stockman. If you have a opening statement 

please feel free and then we will proceed with questioning. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I have a written statement I will submit for the record, without objection. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. YOUNG. Just an off the cuff type thing, and I am one of the 

few people that really lives in the Arctic, eight miles above the Arctic Circle, and my interest in this is, of course, the lack of exposure 

of the Arctic to the Lower 48 and where we are going. 

And Admiral, I compliment you for your role but keep in mind 

we just finished, I believe, 6 years with another chairman from another country, and not much happened. That concerns me. 

In your testimony you bring up some very valid points and we 

will discuss those in the questioning part of it. But Mr. Chairman, 

I thank you for your interest and, of course, my good friend from 

Washington is here and understands my interest and he and I together are working on, hopefully, some solutions to some of those 

challenges we are faced with. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I will submit this for the record and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. And Mr. Stockman, do you have an 

opening statement or a few thoughts? 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I will just quickly state that I think this is a very 

important area in which, as you know, could cause confrontation 

among many countries and the observations you made are important and I think that United States needs to be, I think, more aggressive in its posture. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and thank you for 

joining us. We appreciate Mr. Young and Mr. Larsen who, obviously, have taken a very serious interest in this issue. 

We have—what I am planning to do as chairman I will move forward and let Mr. Keating, our ranking member, ask his questions 

first. I will then go and then we will proceed with our fellow colleagues. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Papp, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on 

Russia’s increased use of bombers in and over the Arctic as well as 

their new Arctic military command, which I alluded to in my opening remarks. 

Since the Arctic Council does not deal with political military affairs, how will the U.S. be prepared to address the lack of Russian 

transparency in the Arctic and as well as the impact on the cooperation on the Arctic Council, and should NATO be lending more 

situational awareness to the region as well, particularly since much 

of the Arctic is under NATO’s area of responsibility? 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Mr. Keating. That is a pretty broad 

topic and I would start off with the over flights. 

21

You know, first and foremost, those are strategic movements and 

physical statements by Russia that can be interpreted a number of 

ways, and I would leave it up to my colleagues in the Defense Department to give probably a better assessment on that. 

I do get regular intelligence briefings and I have been doing 

readings on all the articles I can that we get in the open press on 

activities along Russia’s northern border. 

I think the construction that they have going on and their focus 

is partially a reflection of the fact that they have got about 4,000 

miles of coastline that is opening up now, and they are stepping 

out smartly in terms of adding ports, search and rescue facilities. 

Some of these are referred to as dual-use facilities, both civilian 

and military. I suspect if we were to build a Coast Guard base in 

Barrow other people could point at us and say that we are building 

dual-use facilities as well. 

But I have been impressed with what I have seen so far in terms 

of their investment along that northern sea route, and rightly so, 

because they are going to have a significant increase of traffic 

there. 

So I think a lot of the activities are to be expected. We look at 

some of them with some skepticism but, on the other hand, they 

are right in terms of building facilities so they can provide for 

search and rescue, pollution response and other things that could 

happen along that northern coast. 

As far as NATO goes, NATO’s responsibilities does not stop at 

the Arctic Circle. It includes the Arctic as well. I think that the European Command and our NATO commander all take this into account. 

There are plenty of venues, whether it is the Arctic Chiefs of Defense and other things that are looking at the military security side 

of the equation. 

I think the good thing about the Arctic Council is right from its 

start nearly 20 years ago we have put defense issues—military security issues—off the table so that we can keep the discourse going 

between the eight countries and I think that that will continue 

under our chairmanship. 

Mr. KEATING. Another follow-up to my opening remarks, in regard to the U.S. chairmanship’s priorities, as you know, permafrost 

on the Arctic tundra contains twice as much carbon as currently 

exists in the atmosphere. 

Over time, the thawing of this permafrost could lead to an increase in annual emissions equal to the current annual emissions 

of a major emitter such as China or the United States. This could 

greatly complicate international efforts to curb climate change. 

You have lived in the Arctic and have been up there, as you mentioned. Could you explain in your own words what evidence of the 

changing climate you have seen during that time as chair of the 

Arctic Council? 

How does the United States plan to educate the public about our 

interest in the Arctic including the imperative to address this kind 

of climate change as well? 

Admiral PAPP. As I said, Mr. Keating, I am not a scientist. I am 

a sailor who has been in the Arctic and I made observations. They 

started 40 years ago. 

22

Forty years ago, the ship that I was on got beset in the ice in 

the Bering Strait in July 1976 trying to make it to Kotzebue, I flew 

by helicopter into Kotzebue and, descending, there was ice as far 

as I could see. 

I went back to Kotzebue 34 years later as commandant, flying in 

the same time of the year, and as far as I could see from thousands 

of feet in the airplane I could see no ice. And I went back and 

looked—it was not an anomaly in 1976 to have that much ice and 

it is not an anomaly now to have no ice. 

So there has been some drastic changes. But there are other 

things as well. I have taken time to speak to the elders in Barrow 

who talk about ice cellars where they have stored their whale meat 

for centuries that they have dug down hundreds of feet into the 

permafrost. 

Those ice cellars are now filling up with water. They have never 

seen it before. My most recent visit to Barrow their utility system 

was almost breached this year. 

There is a tunnel that runs for about four or five miles under the 

city and the pumping station was relatively close to the shore. 

Now it is over the shore because the permafrost is thawing and 

the seas that are not buffered by shore ice now ate away at the 

cliffs, the permafrost fell into the sea and their pumping station 

was almost breached by the seas, and they have been working feverishly up there to replace the shoreline. 

So these are very visible things. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure out things are changing and we have some very rudimentary 

things in basic food, water, shelter issues that need to be taken 

care of within our American Arctic. 

Mr. KEATING. And these areas you think the council can work on 

in a collaborative—the effects of it—is that going to be the focus 

more than the science of it? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. Now, the experiences around the Arctic 

are quite different. You know, the conditions that you find in Scandinavia, which has had open water for centuries and is much more 

developed and sophisticated, there is a difference from some of the 

challenges that we are facing. 

We are literally centuries behind on our North Slope in some circumstances because the water was never open before. We never 

worried about it. The debate over climate change, in my mind, is 

a moot point. 

It has changed, and we would not be here talking about all this 

if the climate had not changed. So there is going to be increased 

human activity, whether it is maritime or on the shore, and infrastructure—governmental functions have not caught up with where 

we are right now in terms of humankind starting to come to the 

area. 

Mr. KEATING. It sounds that some of the experiences of the other 

participating countries could be beneficial to us where the changes 

might be more pronounced, learning from their experience. 

Admiral PAPP. And that is where we are very helpful. Yes, sir. 

For instance, in Scandinavia it is a very rocky shoreline. They don’t 

have to deal with permafrost, but some places, particularly Canada 

and the United States and in certain circumstances Greenland—

23

the Danish portion of our Arctic Council—have less development 

and increasing activities now and different geography. 

Mr. KEATING. Yes. I recently had a tour of the latest asset we 

have with the National Science Foundation, and I can’t pronounce 

the name of the ship—you are probably familiar with it—but I 

think it will be a great resource as well because it will give us more 

opportunities for actual mobile assessment on the site. Are you familiar——

Admiral PAPP. It will be for research, yes, sir. But in terms of 

accessibility, I am sure we will get into an icebreaker topic here at 

some point. But while we always welcome those assets from the 

government, it doesn’t replace a heavy icebreaker. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Just—I would suggest that we must struggle as hard as we can 

to make sure that the Arctic is an area that reflects cooperation 

rather than military confrontation, and it is always easy for us to 

try to be fearful and I think if there is one place that we can actually reach out and demonstrate where people can work together, 

even if there are some other conflict areas in the rest of the world, 

it is the Arctic, and especially with people from Russia who, I 

think, share some basic, how do you say, goals in their country 

maybe for the Arctic as well. 

Let me note that when you were talking about the icebreaker in 

1976, was it, that was caught in the ice, at that time all the scientists were telling us it was global cooling and they used that as 

an example of why they believed that we were entering this era of 

global cooling and, obviously, now the scientists are saying the opposite. 

But what we do know is that what you described is there is a 

change going on, and do you know, Admiral, is there a history at 

all—I understand that at a time when the Vikings were there that 

there was this similar changes and openings and then they were 

frozen out. Is that right? 

Admiral PAPP. I am not sure about the Vikings. I have done a 

little bit of reading about Alaska and if you go back about 10,000 

years ago, of course, there was a bridge that went between—the 

scientists believed there was a bridge that went between Siberia 

and what is now Alaska and that is how the current natives who 

migrated over thousands of years, actually entered into Alaska and 

then down the Western coast of North America. 

So things go in cycles and we tend to see things in a short term 

but——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Ask Congressman Young about that because 

he knows all about bridges. 

Mr. YOUNG. It went somewhere. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. With that said, what do you—let me tell you, 

one of the concerns that I have is that when we have not defined 

actually what we want out of the—out of the Arctic and out of that 

region of the world, that instead we may leave a void and not just 

when I am saying the Chinese that I mentioned earlier on who 

want a share but other powers that may want a share of the authority to control what events are going there—may try to come up 

with schemes that would deny the United States and those eight 

24

countries that you are talking about the ability to keep control of 

the situation. 

I think it is in the interest of the United States to develop a plan 

that will—that will define authority so that we maintain a higher 

level of authority and other of those Arctic states—a higher level 

of authority than, for example, if we would turn this over to an 

international body like the United Nations, which might be susceptible to countries like China that have, we know, bribed foreign officials and get votes. 

Is your—what is your reaction to the idea of trying to maintain 

authority rather than going to a total international authority in the 

Arctic? 

Admiral PAPP. I believe that all eight nations within the Arctic 

Council are firm in maintaining their sovereignty over their portions of the Arctic. 

There are many stories about land grabs and people trying to 

compete for space up there but the reality is the boundaries are 

fairly well defined. 

There are a couple little disputes here and there and, certainly, 

as we progress—as the other seven nations progress under the Law 

of the Sea Convention to outline their extended Continental Shelf 

claims, those other remaining issues will resolve as well. 

You know, one area that we are concerned about is the high seas 

portion of the Arctic Ocean, which right now is frozen but at some 

point in time will be at least open during certain portions of the 

year and as the waters warm, if what the scientists are saying is 

correct, there will be species of fish that will begin migrating. 

So one of the things that we are working on within the Arctic 

Council is to come up with some sort of either nonbinding or binding agreement on a fisheries council program based on science that 

would regulate that high seas portion and allow us to control who 

goes in there and conducts fishing in the future. 

Now is the time to start working on something like that before 

people get up there on the high seas portion and start exploiting 

those resources and the council gives us that opportunity. 

And you made the comment about cooperating with others. My 

experience is that while there are some strategic movements that 

Russia is conducting and we are rightly concerned about those 

things, at the tactical and operational level there has been great 

cooperation and we have worked well. 

The Coast Guard in the 17th District in Alaska works very well 

with the Russian Border Guard—their counterparts—and within 

the council we have a good working relationship. 

I went to the Arctic Circle event in Reykjavik, Iceland just a couple of weeks ago. I had a one on one bilateral meeting with Artur 

Chilingarov, who is Russia’s Special Representative for the Arctic, 

and I have an upcoming trip to the Scandinavian countries and we 

are including a trip to Moscow as well to talk with our counterparts there. 

So we are intent on keeping these lines of communication open 

because it is important for the safety and security of the Arctic region and to maintain its condition. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Admiral, and Mr. 

Larsen, would you like to proceed? 

25

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say nothing forced the Vikings out. They left of 

their own accord because that is how—that is how we Vikings are. 

Admiral Papp, in May the GAO issued a report that the U.S. had 

not prioritized its commitments to the Arctic Council and it lacked 

sort of an organizational head. Also, the report stated the State Department had only two employees at the time working on Arctic 

policy full time. 

Can you update us on what the administration has done to respond to GAO findings—these GAO findings? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, first and foremost, we have appointed a Special Representative and the Secretary has given me broad responsibility to manage the Arctic portfolio—the large Arctic portfolio 

across the State Department. 

I was a little concerned when I first came in about the same 

issues in staffing, and I think back at that point what they were 

talking about is our Senior Arctic Official and the one person that 

was working with her. 

There were always plans to expand that staff in preparation for 

the Arctic Council. There are probably at least a dozen people, depending on how you count them, that are associated with that right 

now, not even including myself. I have a staff of four. 

The Arctic Council is part of my portfolio, and as you look across 

the State Department, part of my job has been inventorying all 

those people across the regional and functional bureaus who deal 

with the Arctic and coming up with a matrixed organization. 

And I say when you do that we probably have closer to about two 

dozen people within the State Department that actually have Arctic responsibilities and that we can call on from time to time. 

In terms of prioritization of program, it is prioritized now, certainly. The first thing that I was tasked with when coming in was 

to review our program, and I was very pleased to find out that 

there was an awful lot of work that was done and it may not have 

been prioritized but there were a lot of issues out there. 

What we needed to do was lump them into these categories and 

what I wanted to do was have those categories relate back to the 

National Arctic Strategy and that Strategy’s Implementation Plan. 

Clearly, the Arctic Ocean’s safety, security and stewardship is 

linked back to activities that are in the Implementation Plan that 

the National Security Council put out, as are many of the other 

things in the other two categories. 

So the first process was to prioritize and organize those. Then we 

had to do listening sessions so we had input of the people that will 

be affected by it, both internationally and within Alaska. 

We took two trips up to Alaska to do our listening sessions and 

then made our presentations to various NGOs and other interest 

groups in preparation for the Senior Arctic Officials meeting in 

Yellowknife, Canada, which occurred about a month ago, for our 

initial presentation of our program. 

That is being negotiated right now. The Arctic Council operates 

on a consensus basis so we have to work our program. Our initial 

reports are wow, that is pretty aggressive—that is a lot to do—and 

the primary feedback I got from most people I spoke with was they 

thought we were being too aggressive. 

26

When I took it to Secretary Kerry, he wanted to know could we 

do more. So we probably hit the sweet spot in terms of balance and 

I think we have a very good, aggressive program, which is 

operationalizing some of the agreements that have been done in 

the past like search and rescue and marine pollution prevention response, and I am very pleased with where we are right now. 

Mr. LARSEN. So the committee staff supplied the org chart for the 

Arctic Council and it includes a list of observer countries, and the 

EU has applied. I know Singapore is interested or actually is an 

observer country. Mongolia, Switzerland—a lot of folks getting interested in the Arctic Council. 

Does the administration have a thought or feeling—an assessment about the growth of observer states at the Arctic Council and 

their impact? 

Admiral PAPP. I think we believe that the more countries that 

are interested and would like to participate, the better. 

This is—the Arctic, clearly, is the responsibility of those eight 

Arctic nations but the Arctic has an impact on the rest of the world 

and the rest of the world would probably like to use the Arctic, particularly if those shipping lanes free up. 

So I think it is our view that the more people who want to join 

the party, participate and have input, the better. If they get a better understanding what is going on, that is in our—in our interest 

as well and, by the way, if you would like to participate then perhaps those countries can devote resources to some of the issues 

that we would like to do. 

They can come up with some public-private ventures and other 

things to help us with research projects in the Arctic. So we believe 

it is a good thing. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, could you indulge me one last question? It is a yes—I think it might be a yes or no. Can you tell—

can you give us an assessment about whether the lack of U.S. involvement with the Law of the Sea Treaty helps or hurts the U.S. 

in the Arctic? 

Admiral PAPP. It hurts us. First and foremost, I would save probably hours of discussions if I didn’t have to go into every bilateral 

meeting and respond to the first question that is out of their 

mouths on why the United States hasn’t acceded to the treaty. 

I mean, it gets monotonous that every bilateral meeting that I 

have attended, not just since taking this job but over my 4 years 

as Commandant, when you deal with another country they are embarrassed for us because this great nation has not acceded to a 

treaty that nearly every other nation in the world has including the 

other seven Arctic nations. 

Right now, it is not hurting us greatly because we abide by most 

of the provisions. There will be some time in the future, I believe, 

that when we want to affirm our claim on extended Continental 

Shelf we will not have standing. 

I guess if we want to create a navy and enforce it or something 

like that we could. But we are a country that lives under the rule 

of law and I think we should be a part of that and it would give 

us standing and a venue to legitimize our claims for extended Continental Shelf as well. 

27

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And we now and are grateful that Congressman Young has joined us because, again, let me reiterate this man 

knows more about the natural resources of Alaska both fish and 

furs and——

Mr. YOUNG. Whales. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Whales, the whole business, and 

during my tenure in office he has been an incredible source of information and inspiration. So Congressman Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind words. 

Admiral—and welcome—what is your 50-year vision of the Arctic? You will be gone and I will be gone but what do you see out 

of all this council work and meetings and stuff? What do you envision in the Arctic? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, first of all, good to see you again, Mr. 

Young, and I have benefitted greatly for many years from your wisdom and guidance and I am humbled to be here talking about the 

Arctic in front of you because you have much, much, much more 

experience than I do. 

But having said that, I have some experience and, clearly, during 

my tenure as Commandant I put the Arctic strategy as part of 

what I thought was one of the most important things. 

And I did that because as a nation—this is not just as a Coast 

Guardsman or former Coast Guardsman—but as a nation we have 

the opportunity to get out in advance of development. 

The analogy that I have used as I have gone around the world 

and talked to other people or around the country is where I live 

out in Fairfax County. I have owned a home out there for 25 years 

and when I first bought the home it was surrounded by farms. 

But developers bought up all the farms, started building other 

homes and it takes the government years to catch up in terms of 

roads and infrastructure and schools and other things because the 

government is inherently bureaucratic. 

The Arctic is ripe for development now but it is also a pristine 

environment, which we would like to preserve. We need to come to 

a balance of economic development with preserving that beautiful 

region that we have and——

Mr. YOUNG. Let me interrupt. How can you preserve something 

that is changing? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, I think what you can do is you can protect 

the environmental quality of it. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, and again, I don’t want to get into this climate 

change deal. This whole issue—I am a flatlander. 

I have 57 scientists I think are the best in the world including 

Russian scientists who don’t agree this whole thing it is changing. 

Now, how do you preserve something that is changing? You do not. 

You adapt. 

And that is why I am asking you what is your vision? How are 

we going to adapt to the changes in the Arctic, which you already 

said in your testimony. 

Admiral PAPP. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. YOUNG. How—what are we going to do in the Arctic to adapt 

to the change? 

28

Admiral PAPP. Well, for the United States, while there are a lot 

of people who would like to self-actualize and come up with lofty 

ideas on things, the reality is we are at the base of the pyramid. 

We are concerned right now about food, water and shelter issues. 

It is like Barrow having their utility system at risk. It is like those 

villages that don’t have fresh water and sewers. 

Mr. YOUNG. Again, Barrow would not exist if it wasn’t for the 

white man. It wasn’t a permanent town. It exists because we discovered gas. 

We invested in infrastructure. They have done so themselves, 

and now we are going to have to adapt because you can’t—if you 

don’t—you can’t preserve something in its changes. 

That is why I am asking you. I am interested in what you see. 

We are not going to be able to put firewalls up. We can’t freeze the 

ground again. How do we adapt? What is your council going to talk 

about adapting? 

Yes, their conduit was possibly going to get flooded. Yes, they 

have some erosion problems. Yes. So how—what are you going to 

do as the council to help them adapt to what is changing? That is 

what the—I don’t want just a bunch of meetings. 

What is your plan when you get done with this term of the 

United States and your being in charge of it—what is going to be 

the result and how is it going to affect 50 years down the road? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, in terms of adapting to what is occurring up 

there, we are looking at projects where we would be able to adopt 

some of the recommendations that have been made in the adaptation study that has been done between Sweden and the United 

States, see what things that have come out of that study that we 

might be able to pursue in terms of objectives and pursue funding. 

Some of these are going to ultimately come back to domestic 

issues and resource issues and policy issues that the United States 

will need to address. 

We are involved from the State Department side in this international body in coming up with cooperation on looking at the impacts and seeing what other countries are doing, what best practices we might be able to adopt. 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay, which brings me up another question, Mr. 

Chairman. Resource extraction is going to take place. Is that correct? 

Admiral PAPP. It looks likely it will. 

Mr. YOUNG. Looks likely it will. Now, how does that—is that a 

conflict with the goals of this administration and the council on climate change—the extraction of fossil fuels? 

Admiral PAPP. No, it is not in conflict at all. Reading the National Strategy for the Arctic and the Implementation Plan, it calls 

for sustainable development of the resources of the Arctic. 

Mr. YOUNG. Okay. Now, lastly, Mr. Chairman—Admiral, I always get a kick out of the permafrost—I have heard that term—

the permafrost is melting. What is permafrost? 

Admiral PAPP. Permafrost is an accumulation of sediment, soil, 

animals, other things that have accumulated there over centuries 

and because of the temperature as——

Mr. YOUNG. What was it before it froze? 

Admiral PAPP. What was it before it froze? 

29

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Admiral PAPP. It would have been probably swamp or——

Mr. YOUNG. It was soil and it grew those animals and all the 

other things we talk about, and I go back to the concept of change. 

What I don’t want your council to do is get involved—and I know 

what you talk to the people in Barrow—I represent that area—and 

just the climate change issue itself. 

This is—as you mentioned, 11,000 years ago there was no ice in 

the North Pole. I know that is amazing, you know. The ice was all 

the way—12 million years ago, not 11,000—12 million years ago 

there was ice in New Mexico. 

It melted all the way to the North Pole and that was before automobiles were around—now, keep that in mind—or mankind of any 

kind. So we don’t know what melted it. 

But permafrost is a body of orgasms, if you call it, of soil, of—

well, it could be orgasms. But then it froze. It froze, and I just—

I just—you know, I get so concerned that I have seen these meetings—and I know the time is up—council meetings and everything 

else and we will talk and we will talk and we will talk. 

Because you haven’t answered that first question—what is your 

vision where the Arctic is going to be 50 years from now? I will give 

the Coast Guard credit. They do put out some shipping channels. 

They just did that this week, which is good. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I probably should be asserting a little chairmanship authority here, although the conversation is getting kind 

of hot. 

Mr. YOUNG. No, I just—I sit here and I have been through this 

so many years and listened to talk with no goal and position. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Let us give the admiral 60 seconds to 

answer that question, then Steve Stockman to have his time for 

questions. 

Admiral PAPP. The vision I personally would have for 50 years 

from now is there will probably be sustainable development that 

will be extracting oil and gas from the offshore region, whether it 

is the extended Continental Shelf or closer to shore. 

I would see new connections to the pipeline, probably innovations 

in terms of renewable energy and natural energy for the residents 

of the Arctic and the north part of Alaska. Clearly, we are extracting a large percentage of the oil that we use in this country from 

Alaska yet your Alaskans pay the highest prices for fuel in the 

country, and most of them rely upon diesel. 

So we need to have some innovative solutions to power for people 

in northern Alaska and I foresee that happening, whether it is 

wind power, thermal, wave generated, hydro power, new solutions 

for power and providing clean water for the people in the north. 

There are going to be a lot of people that are interested in tourism. In 2016, there is going to be a cruise ship with 1,200 passengers that is going to leave from our West Coast, go around Alaska, making ports of call up there, even though there are no ports 

to pull into—they will run boats ashore. But I see an increase in 

shipping up there. 

There will be a need for permanent bases on the North Slope—

not just seasonal things that the Coast Guard and other agencies 

do but there will have to be a permanent presence up there. 

30

All these things are going to require investment by our country—

investment that we have not done yet but is looming out there. I 

talked about how Russia is investing along its North Sea route. We 

are going to have to do very similar things. 

Mr. YOUNG. And, Admiral, that was what should have been the 

first answer you gave of what your vision was. You were skirting 

the visions. Well, that last answer was good. So thank you. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And Mr. Stockman. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Some may ask why I am here because I am from 

Houston, Texas, where we do have global warming, around the 

year. They say we have two seasons—waiting for summer and summer. It is pretty hot down there at this time of year, even now. 

But in my district we have 87 refineries. We produce almost half 

the gasoline in the United States. I have the Port of Houston, and 

so oil and gas is a very, very important commodity to our district 

and what happens around the world impacts directly in our district. 

Therefore, I am interested in what you had to say today and interested in the dynamics. I was told that the Department of Homeland Security was calling for more icebreakers—I think three 

heavy ones, three medium ones. 

Currently, we don’t have anywhere near that, and I was wondering do you have a vision, as Don was saying, of where we are 

going? Is this administration going to execute what was recommended to them in terms of icebreakers? Are you going to increase the number of icebreakers? 

I think I was reading in the paper one time where, you know, 

we had to get help from other countries even. There was one that 

was—remember it was frozen and then they kept sending other icebreakers and it kept freezing the other icebreakers, which is amazing for how they were—that passage was supposed to be open but 

it wasn’t. 

Could you address those concerns that the other committees here 

have in reference to the icebreakers? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir. My public statements are record on that. 

Even though there is a new Commandant who may have a different opinion, I don’t think his opinion would be too varied from 

what mine has been. But in this job as well, it is my opinion that 

we are woefully inadequate in terms of national icebreakers. 

We have only one. Russia, on the other hand—granted, they have 

a much longer coastline but they have got at least a dozen, six nuclear-powered heavy icebreakers, and what I would say also is a reminder that we are just not focused on the Arctic. 

We are a bipolar nation, literally. We also have Antarctic responsibilities as well and we have got one icebreaker that can probably 

operate about half the year and then has to go in the shipyard because of the rough usage. We do have a medium icebreaker, the 

Healy, that can operate. But that is——

Mr. STOCKMAN. But that is decommissioned or not, or is that—

is that operating? 

Admiral PAPP. Healy——

Mr. STOCKMAN. That is a medium one or is that a large? 

31

Admiral PAPP. Healy is a medium icebreaker and is about now 

about 14 years old. It is in pretty good shape and it is used primarily for Arctic research. Polar Star is the only heavy icebreaker 

that we have. 

Its sister, Polar Sea, is laid up in mothballs in Seattle, and what 

we have been trying to do is get construction on a brand new icebreaker to replace Polar Sea and Polar Star, which are approaching 

40 years of age each. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Can I ask you what the goals are and what is 

the impediment to those goals? 

Admiral PAPP. It is money. It is new construction. In theory, 

right now it should be within the Coast Guard’s budget to build 

those. 

But it was denied for many years and they are involved in other 

projects, and it is like the rest of the Federal Government—there 

is no growth, and a new icebreaker costs somewhere between $800 

million and $1 billion and it is hard for any agency in the government to absorb right now. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. But didn’t Canada have—they were buying an 

icebreaker and they bought, like, the plans from another country 

and that saved them a lot of money? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, that is not unusual. When our shipbuilders 

in this country—oftentimes what they will do is they will buy plans 

from another country. 

Even Navy ships or Coast Guard cutters, oftentimes they will 

buy a design from another country but then build it in the United 

States. Our laws require us to build it in the United States. 

Canada—I think they got their design from Finland, if I am not 

mistaken. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Right. 

Admiral PAPP. Finland is probably the leading country for icebreakers. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. But I am saying could we emulate what Canada 

did in order to facilitate—you know, expediting these icebreakers 

I think is pretty important, given that your vision of increased activity you would probably want more icebreakers and if that is the 

case and we could save money by buying it from Finland, I would 

think that we should do that. 

So I guess, Mr. Chairman, what he is suggesting is we should 

bring back earmarks. That is my opinion I have. But thank you so 

much for coming down today and I would just request that there 

be something you can tell us to do to increase the—make sure that 

additional icebreakers could happen and you can tell us in Congress what we need to do. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Being from Texas I would be surprised if we 

would earmark those icebreakers. But——

Mr. STOCKMAN. As long as we had oil getting out of it we would 

be very happy. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Listen, thank you very much, Admiral. We 

appreciate your testimony. We appreciate your testimony. We appreciate your service. 

I am speaking for my ranking members—the other members of 

the committee here—our doors are open to you in your new chairmanship. Let us work with you. 

32

I take this responsibility very seriously because I believe that the 

Arctic area is an area that people have not paid attention to the 

vast potential that could be available to the people of the United 

States and these other countries and, yes, the world, if we have the 

right kind of policies—if we try not to be in a conflict there but instead try to find ground rules that will actually fit with all the 

countries and respect each other’s rights. 

And thank you very much for testifying and we have another 

panel now. 

Admiral PAPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me here 

today. God bless. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we have had 

a fairly lively hearing so far. We have with us two witnesses, Dr. 

Scott Bergerson. How do you—pronounce that for me, please. 

Mr. BORGERSON. Borgerson. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Borgerson. Got it. Dr. Scott Borgerson, who 

is the co-founder of an organization called the Arctic Circle, a 

prominent NGO, and he is also the chief executive officer of Cargo 

Metrics Technologies. 

He has previously been a visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and has written numerous scholarly articles on the 

Arctic. He is a former Coast Guard officer. Do they allow you to 

have the beard in the Coast Guard? 

Mr. BORGERSON. They did. This is new. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Isn’t that something? Okay. And having 

graduated from the Coast Guard Academy and later he earned his 

Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law in diplomacy. 

We also have with us Mr. Andrew Holland. He is a senior fellow 

at the American Security Project. His work focuses on energy, infrastructure and the environment. In the past, he has held various 

policy staff positions on both sides of Capitol Hill. He is a graduate 

of Wake Forest University and the University of St. Andrews in 

Scotland. 

Gentlemen, we would like you to, if you could, summarize your 

testimony in about 5 minutes and then be able to go and we will 

have questions for you after that. 

You may submit anything else, of course, for the record. You may 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT BORGERSON, PH.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, CARGO METRICS TECHNOLOGIES 

Mr. BORGERSON. Thank you, Chairman, and it is a great pleasure to be here. I am honored to be invited and I testified actually 

before your committee in 2009, along with Admiral Papp. 

So it is great to be back, and I went back to reread my testimony 

in preparation for this today and some things have changed and 

many things haven’t, like icebreakers, the Law of the Sea, et 

cetera. I will touch on that in a bit in my comments. 

But, really, I am pleased to be back today as a private citizen. 

Thank you for inviting me. I am going to detour from my prepared 

comments to answer the question Congressman Young asked Admiral Papp, if I could, about my vision for the Arctic in 50 years. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is fine. 

33

Mr. BORGERSON. I think there are two answers for that, depending on how the United States chooses to invest or not invest today, 

and if you look at the Korean Peninsula you can see two very different kinds of policies at a line of latitude—one, at night by satellite, is all lit up. 

There is a viable industry there. They build ships—really, a vibrant economy in South Korea. And in North Korea there is the opposite policies and it is dark at night, and I think when you look 

at the Arctic in 50 years you will see some countries, like Russia 

and Norway, having vibrant bright coastlines with vibrant communities and economies and industries because they are investing in 

infrastructure today, and if the United States does not you will see 

something that looks like North Korea today from space—what 

Alaska is today, which is basically open wild coastline. 

From Adak to Barrow is the same distance as from about Key 

West to Maine. It is a massive state. Everything is bigger in Texas, 

of course, except for Alaska, which is two and a half times the size 

of the Texas, and there is virtually no infrastructure there, and we 

have to invest in infrastructure today. 

So I will summarize my comments very briefly and to, first, climate change, just touching at the wave tops; second, infrastructure—I think we need to invest there; and lastly, I think, some foreign policy opportunities for the United States and chairmanship 

at the Arctic Council. 

First, climate change—5 years ago, when I testified I talked 

about the pace—the rapid pace of sea ice melt then. In the 5 years 

since, every year is a record or a near record. 

In the past 30 years, the Arctic has lost half of its area and 

three-quarters of its volume of sea ice. These are historic unprecedented melting of sea ice. It is without debate, as we have discussed on this panel. 

I am a big fan of Alaska. My heart is in Alaska. I love the state. 

I am in constant contact with people there including my friend, 

Dan Sullivan, who is now a senator-elect from Alaska, and this is 

one of the warmest Novembers ever there and winter is 2 months 

behind. The rivers have not yet frozen. 

So we have—we can talk about mitigation strategies, and I personally believe carbon needs to be priced, whether it is tax or capand-trade. But separate from the point of this hearing, which is 

about adaptation, the Arctic is melting. The United States has to 

respond because the rest of the country or world is. 

Second, infrastructure—so what might we do? I would ask you 

to channel your Lee Kuan Yew, the great Singaporean leader, who, 

when they left Malaysia in 1965 had relatively little infrastructure 

and a small economy, and it is now the wealthiest nation in Southeast Asia because of very forward-looking progressive ideas about 

how to invest into port, into rail, roads, et cetera. 

I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times 10 years ago, the first 

op-ed about the Arctic, saying that it would take 10 years and $1 

billion to build a new icebreaker, and if we started today—this was 

10 years ago—that we might have one when we need it as the 

Polar Sea and Polar Star are being decommissioned. 

34

As we just heard from our Ambassador, here we are literally 10 

years later with not a nickel appropriated to build a new one and 

this country needs to. It is late. 

We need a deep-water port. We need road, rail and other intermodal infrastructure. We need pipelines. We need airports, et 

cetera. I would really encourage the committee to think big about 

Alaska and think big about the Arctic. 

Lastly, we need to be much, much bolder in our approach to Arctic foreign policy. I don’t think we are being bold enough as, as we 

approach chairmanship of the Arctic Council, starting with, before 

I suggest some new ideas, an old one is get off the list of Syria, 

North Korea and Iran as nonsignatories as coastal states the Law 

of the Sea Convention and join officially. 

I know this is the House, not the Senate, which has constitutional authority to get advice and consent to treaties, but it is embarrassing that we don’t—aren’t officially party to the treaty. 

I think we should create marine preserves in the Arctic. I think 

we should work through the Arctic Council to help protect the high 

seas and maybe perhaps even make all the high seas off limits. 

I think we should work with Canada to create a new compromise 

of the Northwest Passage. We have a maritime boundary line dispute with Canada there. I think we should engage energetically 

with Russia. 

And, lastly, I see I am about out of time. I am pro-development. 

I think this should be done hand in hand with development. 

I think there should be a strategic approach to the Arctic where 

we look to invest in infrastructure in the Arctic and develop the 

Arctic with conservation in mind but do so in a very progressive 

forward-looking way that also protects the environment. 

Thank you. 

[Mr. Borgerson did not submit a prepared statement.] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Doctor—Mr. Holland, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW HOLLAND, SENIOR FELLOW FOR 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE, AMERICAN SECURITY PROJECT 

Mr. HOLLAND. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking 

Member Keating and members of the committee for inviting me to 

testify at today’s hearing. 

I am going to begin by noting that I cannot claim to be an expert 

on Arctic affairs. Though I have written and spoken extensively 

about it, I have not yet been above the Arctic Circle, unlike some 

of our folks who have spent time on Coast Guard cutters or Navy 

submarines. 

My research at ASP focuses on energy, the environment and how 

they affect America’s national security. What that means is that I 

care more about geopolitics than I do about polar bear habitats. 

I think my role in today’s hearing will be to offer perspective as 

an outsider, someone who understands international relations and 

America’s national security needs more than I understand the intricacies of how the Arctic Council works. 

So to back up—for most of human history, the annual melt and 

refreezing of the Arctic Ocean was a consistent trend that kept it 

closed to all but the most intrepid explorers. 

35

It was only in 1909 that Admiral Robert Peary’s expedition became the first to reach the North Pole. In a telegram to then President Howard Taft, he said, ‘‘I have the honor to place the North 

Pole at your disposal.’’ Taft replied, ‘‘Thanks for your interesting 

and generous offer. I do not know exactly what to do with it.’’

As I will explain, I think that American policy to the Arctic has 

not changed that much since Taft. We still do not know exactly 

what to do with it. Today, melting ice is opening the Arctic. 

As we heard, the administration has made climate change in the 

Arctic a focus of the U.S. Arctic Council chairmanship, and that 

should certainly be a part of it. The unraveling of the Arctic will 

have huge costs to all of us, but I am concerned that U.S. policies 

must go further in planning for an opening Arctic. 

During question and answer time, I am happy to discuss commercial Arctic shipping, Arctic cruises, or drilling for energy resources. My statement for the record includes extensive analysis of 

these. But I will concentrate my oral statement on the geopolitical 

and military imbalances I see in the Arctic. 

At first glance, there is a clear story line here—a gold rush leads 

to a 21st century scramble for the Arctic with contested territorial 

claims, which leads inexorably to conflict. 

But that does not fit. The institutions governing the Arctic are 

simply too strong. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and 

the Arctic Council have legitimacy among Arctic nations and cooperation has reigned for decades. 

That does not mean, however, that there is no threat of conflict 

over the Arctic. I contend that the danger, in fact, comes from an 

imbalance of attention and of power. Put simply, the United States 

is weak where others are gaining in strength. 

We are way behind our competitors in planning for an open Arctic and this imbalance is most apparent in the military power 

available in the Arctic. As the region warms and the ice melts, Arctic nations are constructing new military bases and building new 

ships that can operate in the harsh environment. 

At the same time, countries far from the Arctic, including the 

two most populous nations in the world—China and India—are 

scrambling to find new geopolitical advantages in the melting ice. 

While countries like Russia see Arctic power as central to their 

national affairs, the United States pays little more than lip service 

to our status as an Arctic power. In nowhere else in the world is 

the U.S. Navy so clearly outclassed in its ability to perform surface 

operations as in the Arctic. 

Russia’s Northern Fleet is its largest and most powerful. It has 

conducted extensive exercises in Arctic waters. Russia has reopened Cold War-era bases all along their Arctic coast and just 2 

months ago they opened new radar bases on Wrangel Island; that 

is only 300 miles from the Alaska coast. 

That means that the Russian military would be much closer to 

any drilling operations in American waters than any U.S. military 

or Coast Guard operations. 

Today, neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships or the political ambition to be able to sustain 

surface operations in the Arctic in a similar manner to the Russians. 

36

Reading the Department of Defense 2013 Arctic strategy you 

come away with the impression that it is a worthy document, but 

there is no budget to back it up. Regardless of why the U.S. has 

failed to act in the Arctic, the result is a missed opportunity. 

The U.S. Government, under the leadership of both Republican 

and Democratic administrations, has all but ignored the Arctic. So 

we must do more. 

In the harsh environment of the Arctic a laissez-faire approach 

does not work. Governments must put in place the policies, appropriate the funds and give the political legitimacy to Arctic development in order to exploit the real opportunities that are available 

up there. 

So far, the United States has, notably, combined only tentative 

policies with very little funding and no high-level political visibility. 

So I have a few concrete steps that Congress could quickly take 

in order to exert power in the Arctic. First, and I know this is for 

the other side of the Hill: Ratify U.N. Law of the Sea Convention. 

Second, increase funding for U.S. military presence. This is about 

Coast Guards but it is also about port facilities. It is also about 

permanent Coast Guard facilities. 

Third, we need to make a final decision on whether to approve 

and regulate offshore oil drilling. We need to decide one way or the 

other and then get moving on figuring out regulations. 

Fourth, elevate Admiral Papp—or his successor’s—role to a permanent Senate-confirmed Ambassador-level position. Right now, he 

is just a special envoy appointed to the Secretary of State. It would 

be better if he was an Ambassador. 

Other nations have Arctic Ambassadors—all the other Arctic nations as well as the Chinese, the Indians, Singapore, others. 

And fifth and finally, raise the Arctic’s profile by regularly participating in Arctic-focused events. By that I mean Members of 

Congress, not just Representative Young. We need to raise its profile, and I know I am over time but I will finish up here by saying 

in the absence of clear statements of policy, backed by high-level 

attention and resources from the United States, there is a danger 

over the long run that other countries will misread U.S. intentions 

about what we perceive as our core interest in the Arctic. 

The United States is an Arctic nation but we should start acting 

like one. Thank you, and I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holland follows:]

37


91844b-1.eps
38


91844b-2.eps
39


91844b-3.eps
40


91844b-4.eps
41


91844b-5.eps
42


91844b-6.eps
43


91844b-7.eps
44


91844b-8.eps
45


91844b-9.eps
46


91844b-10.eps
47


91844b-11.eps
48

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Mr. Keating, would 

you like to proceed? 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. I do 

think you addressed some of the unanswered questions we had 

with the admiral. 

I do want to give you the opportunity—I guess, first, Scott and 

if you would like to—you both addressed it but if you had some 

time to go a little further, I am curious. 

Our inability to accede to the Law of the Seas Convention—what 

are some of the results of that? If you could detail them a little bit 

more I think that would be helpful. I will give you a little more 

time to do that. 

Mr. BORGERSON. I will start. First, I would like to say that was 

fabulous testimony, I thought, from Mr. Holland and I agree with 

every one of his policy recommendations. 

When at the Council on Foreign Relations, I published a special 

report called ‘‘The National Interest and Law of the Sea,’’ which detailed all the reasons why hurting the convention—why not joining 

the convention hurts specific concrete aspects of our national interest. 

This isn’t sort of a airy fairy feel-good thing about international 

treaties. This is about national interest, hard power. A few examples—one, under the provision Article 76 of the convention, without 

being officially a party you can’t formally submit your claim to extended Continental Shelf. Not only can we not submit our claim, 

we can’t officially have a seat at the table to review other claims 

that are being submitted. That is a problem. We literally don’t 

have U.S. representation on that committee. 

Second, under Article 234, which has to do with additional legal 

authority to enforce shipping rules and regulations in ice-covered 

waters, that is undermined by not being a party to the treaty. 

And then lastly, and it is difficult to sort of quantify, but Admiral 

Papp sort of spoke to it and I feel this also, traveling the world 

talking about the Arctic and interacting with other Arctic sovereign 

heads of state—we have really little lessons or a moral authority 

on Arctic issues. 

The law—we led the writing of the Law of the Sea Convention. 

The world changed the Law of the Sea Convention to address 

President Reagan’s problems with it. The rest of the world has 

signed up for the rule book that we follow and yet still, as a great 

maritime nation such as ours, we still can’t get our act together 

and join the convention, and it does undermine us from a moral 

and diplomatic point of view in all these forums. 

So I would refer you to the book I wrote, ‘‘National Interest and 

Law of the Sea’’ for a stimulating read on all the sort of other legal 

details. But I will just end by saying it is the one issue in Washington that you can find the oil and gas industry, heads of the militaries, environmental NGOs, Republicans, Democrats across the 

aisle agreeing that we should join this treaty. 

Mr. HOLLAND. I would just add that the only thing—it is about 

legitimacy and it is about our ability to exert our will up there. 

You know, the Russians made headlines last decade in 2007 by 

planting a little Russian flag on the sea floor under the Arctic and 

that is a part of their claim to an extended Continental Shelf. 

49

The Canadians have now claimed a similar thing, claiming the 

North Pole. The Danes, through Greenland, have also claimed up 

to the North Pole. 

I don’t know whether we could or we would want to or anything 

like that but I would—I would note that when I was doing my research for this, Admiral Peary was the first one to put a flag up 

there and it was an American flag. 

Mr. KEATING. You know, it is interesting. The chair and myself 

went to Russia and it was prior to the aggression in Ukraine and 

other areas, but we were in Russia and we had occasion to meet 

with Mr. Rogozin, and during that meeting I was impressed with 

how much time he spent talking about their plans in oil exploration and as the ice was melting and how that, you know, offered 

all kinds of opportunities. 

So I think it is clear that our country has almost adopted—it 

might be too severe to say—an isolationist policy but, clearly, one 

of not paying attention to the economic issues, the—some of the jurisdictional issues that are going to come about, some of the environmental issues—you know, oil, fishing. 

You could go on and on with what we are—but we are—it is 

clear, and that is why I hope this hearing raises, you know, the 

consciousness around this because we will be dealing with this one 

way or another at a certain period of time, and we can deal with 

it before some of these conflicts occur, before some of these opportunities are lost, before our ability to influence things diminishes 

but—or we can wait and all those things will occur. 

So I thank you both for your testimony—very important points—

and I hope we can—hope it raises the level of interest in this because it is inevitable that we will be dealing with all of these 

issues. 

Better—we would be better served as a country doing it in the 

front end. Thank you. 

Mr. BORGERSON. You are welcome. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me just ask some specifics here. I 

have heard a lot about the Law of the Sea Treaty here. I was not 

necessarily prepared to discuss the Law of the Sea Treaty but 

would the Law of the Sea Treaty be contradictory then—you mentioned—I guess you just mentioned or maybe you just mentioned 

that one country had made a claim—was it Denmark? Made the 

claim all the way to——

Mr. HOLLAND. To the Pole. The Russians and the Canadians. The 

Canadians are preparing their claim to the Pole. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Claims—territorial claims that go all the way 

to the Pole in the sort of a pie——

Mr. HOLLAND. Correct. Yes, like a pie piece. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Pie piece. So that is one approach that we 

have to setting down a strategy of how to approach who has authority and rights and power over those areas in the Arctic that we 

are talking about. 

Is there a conflict between the Law of the Sea Treaty and the 

idea of a territorial claim by individual countries? If we claimed 

them—a pie shape to the Pole—would the treaty then be contrary 

to that? 

50

Mr. BORGERSON. So I will take that. The answer is no, and the 

treaty actually outlines the rules under which the adjudication 

would be made under a organization called the Commission on the 

Limits of the Continental Shelf, which has a very technical prescribed set of rules to make that determination and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do we at that point rely on the United Nations in order to settle disputes then within that context? 

Mr. BORGERSON. So maybe, not necessarily. So they can be resolved bilaterally in certain circumstances. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, yes. But if they can’t—but if someone 

comes——

Mr. BORGERSON. There is a Law of the Sea Tribunal and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, but somebody comes up and they are 

challenging your authority and your rights and, of course, there is 

not going to be someone who says well, I will just give in to arbitration. You know, if this person has no rights to this particular territory——

Mr. BORGERSON. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. We would then be letting the 

United Nations settle that dispute? 

Mr. BORGERSON. No. I mean, no different than China’s allowed 

the United Nations to solve the Spratly Island dispute in the South 

China Sea or our disagreement with Canada over the status of the 

Northwest Passage or——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. BORGERSON [continuing]. Our dispute with Canada on the 

maritime boundary line in the Arctic. Those aren’t——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Of course, in this particular case it is a particular pie—you know, the Spratly Islands, of course, are 200 miles 

from the Philippines and 800 miles from China and maybe China 

would like the United Nations to settle that because they have a 

tendency to bribe countries in the United Nations. 

Mr. BORGERSON. I can’t speak to Chinese bribery of U.N. member 

states as it relates to the Law of the Sea claims but what——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, just remember—let us put it this way. 

If the Law of the Sea Treaty is dependent on the United Nations 

for any type of enforcement, what you have done is you have taken 

authority and put it in the hands of enforcement into an institution 

in which if you look at the membership of the United Nations and 

you look at the General Assembly, you realize that over half the 

nations are governed by crooks or lunatics, and we—as people who 

would never be elected and given authority to anything in the 

United States. 

So if the Law of the Sea Treaty verification would in some way 

put us under an obligation to let the United Nations solve disputes, 

I think that is rather—something I would not be supportive of. Let 

us put it that way. 

The—in terms of this is the warmest—this is the warmest winter 

that Alaska has had, we all—the question as in global warming, of 

course, is who causes this—as whether it is a natural phenomena 

or a manmade phenomena because of CO2 being put into the air. 

That is the only real debate going on on that issue. But we also 

should note that this has been the coldest winter in large portions 

51

of the United States. I mean, it is still the coldest winter they have 

ever had in Wisconsin and Minnesota and those places like that. 

So while we note that it is warmed up here, we know it is getting 

colder over here, and we also know that down in the Antarctic it 

seems to be an expansion of ice rather than a contraction. 

So these things indicate something about the environment of the 

world that is taking place, and I think it is really—it is important 

that if, indeed, these changes in the world that are taking place 

changes the reality of the Arctic, we need to set down policy so that 

we don’t have to worry about giving up authority to a international 

body that may or may not be overly influenced by crooks and, 

frankly, that is, of course, a matter of some people have a different 

philosophy of how we are going to have a better world. 

So that—and I—that is just my point of view. With that said, I 

appreciate both of your testimonies today. It has been very valuable, and we——

Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, can I—can I——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, you are——

Mr. STOCKMAN. Oh, okay. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. I am not finished yet. I am just 

going to say that Mr. Stockman has got his chance. Then there will 

be closing statements from the ranking member and the chairman. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I think we may have votes pretty soon too. So 

I thank you for coming out today. I asked—Chairman, may I submit for the record articles by Phyllis Schlafly from Eagle Forum on 

this topic? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So ordered. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Thank you. I have a question for you. I like your 

ideas on development. However, I am questioning—I mean, if I presented this to some of our environmental friends, they would 

have—well, to be blunt, they would be rather upset with your position which, by the way, I agree with. 

But how would—how do you address that when you are confronted with people who have really strong feelings against everything you suggested? They want it to be never touched. 

I mean, actually the policies we are doing now is exactly the policies they want, and I agree with you—I think it is a tragedy to look 

forward and to see us, again, like you said, 10 years down the road 

and you have such advanced development with Russia and other 

countries and yet we are—excuse me, we are kind of stuck in the 

Ice Age. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So to speak. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes. 

Mr. BORGERSON. The metaphors on this panel are great. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. So how do you address when I come up—I am 

going to come up to you and say, you know, I am angry at you for 

your positions, but I am not. 

Mr. BORGERSON. Yes. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. How do you—how would you recommend I address that? 

Mr. BORGERSON. Okay. I would love to answer that. If I could, 

though, I got to respond to the chairman and say that there is not 

debate on the scientific community about global warming. 

52

I mean, the debate among scientists is over. So I would refer you 

to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me note that that just isn’t true. There 

are 3,000——

Mr. STOCKMAN. Doesn’t sound like it is over. It is still going on. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is 3,000 scientists who have signed a 

petition who—most of whom are Ph.D.s in science that have said 

they disagree with that assessment. But there is a honest debate 

about it, and I could be wrong and other people have trouble admitting they could be wrong. 

Mr. BORGERSON. So in answering Congressman Stockman, I 

come at it from the point of view of global warming is happening. 

The scientific community, I think, agrees. The ice is melting and 

so there are two ends of the spectrum, right. There is——

Mr. STOCKMAN. I know, but I am saying that you are making a 

statement about development. 

Mr. BORGERSON. Yes. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I agree with your statement on development. I 

am not going to argue global warming because if you actually go 

through the record of the statements by the global scientists every 

2 years, including Al Gore said right now that the polar bears were 

not going to have any ice to walk on. 

By the way, if you want to save polar bears stop giving hunting 

licenses to hunters to kill polar bears. We have an abundance of 

polar bears and he predicted they were all going to be dead and 

floating in their Jacuzzis or whatever. I want to address the thing 

on—I don’t want to argue over global warming. 

Mr. BORGERSON. I will answer it. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I want to—I got someone coming to my office. 

They are going to be screaming at me and I will say oh, I agree 

with this global warming guy who wants development. They go, 

well, that sounds contradictory. That is like jumbo shrimp. 

Mr. BORGERSON. So I am a pragmatist—there are jumbo shrimp 

so you can have—you can have both. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. The cocktail size. 

Mr. BORGERSON. I am a—I am a pragmatist in the sense that the 

environmental far end of that spectrum that wants to turn the Arctic into a park is not going to happen, and it isn’t happening. 

I mean, the largest zinc mine and nickel mine are already in the 

Arctic. The Prudhoe Bay is in the Arctic. The Russians, especially, 

are—and others are going to develop the Arctic. 

So that perspective is fantasy. The other end of sort of what I 

call the ‘‘drill, baby, drill’’ crowd that wants to just develop without 

having rules and conservation in mind and do so in a very thoughtful, progressive and strategic way we know what that looks like 

and I would say China, if they could do things different in terms 

of development with more environmental and conservation ethic in 

mind and turn back the clock, they would do so. 

So I try and take sort of a balanced approach to say how can we 

smartly develop. This is an amazing opportunity for us. The Arctic 

is pristine and new and here we have a chance—you have a chance 

as a leader to set in place a vision in which to develop it but develop it sustainable. 

53

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yes, but I am saying I want to do role reversal 

here. I am arguing you come into my office and you say, I want 

nothing—I want that not to be developed. That is—that is not an 

argument which is—it is a small sliver of people. 

That is—a lot of people buy into that argument that nothing 

should be done. It is not a few people. There is a large number of 

people. I mean, we have proposals before drilling in ANWR which 

I think are—could be extremely safe and that is not that big of a 

footprint—let us be honest. It is a huge geographic area and the 

footprint would be very small and they are blowing up over that, 

predicting, you know, every caribou is going to die. 

Mr. BORGERSON. I don’t disagree with you. I would maybe package it as part of a broader conservation effort that included things 

like marine protected areas and other places that would be protected and investments in infrastructure and education and a long 

list of things that you could do to have both development but also 

do so with an eye to the future. You can have both. 

Mr. HOLLAND. And I would add, too, you know, the Arctic is a 

relatively small enclosed sea. So if the United States just stops all 

development that doesn’t mean the Russians will stop all development as well, and what happens there if they have spills—if we are 

not, you know, partaking in and trying to set high standards in the 

Arctic, if they spill it won’t stay in its Russian waters. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. But that doesn’t—that doesn’t disavow my point. 

For instance, in Florida, if you look at the line in the Gulf it is a 

direct line. Right where Florida is they stop drilling, and now the 

Cubans basically—you know, the pool of oil doesn’t just, like, oh, 

it is Cuba—we got to stop, and they are going to basically stick a 

straw in there and they are going to take Florida oil and they are 

able to drill out there and get it, and so that doesn’t stop Cuba 

from drilling but that still—in this country Florida is not drilling 

and Cuba will. 

And I trust you, Cuba is not going to have the same environmental concerns or ethics as the Floridians and you are going to 

see the same thing up in the Arctic Circle. We are—I predict 10 

years from now we are still going to be in the situation we are in 

right here today. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. I think we should let the two witnesses—seeing that we have also—all expressed our opinion here 

why don’t we give you 1-minute summaries? 

So if you had something you needed to say to some points that 

we made up here, we will start with Mr. Holland. 

Mr. HOLLAND. Great. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Keating. It has been an honor to be here today. 

Just to sum up, you know, I would say that the national security 

case for why we care about the Arctic is about what other countries 

are doing in the Arctic and what else is going on up there. 

We have to—we can’t just retreat into a hole and put our heads 

under the sand on anything like this. We have to look at what—

not only what our opponents are doing but also what our allies are 

doing and we have to support them and we have to think about 

better ways to plan for the future on this. 

So the Arctic requires a lot of planning, a lot of foresight and we 

are not doing it. So we need to do that more. 

54

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Borgerson? 

Mr. BORGERSON. Thank you for holding this hearing and, really, 

my compliments to the committee for thinking about the Arctic. 

America is—needs to think more about the Arctic and, as we have 

heard, is late to this region. 

If I wasn’t clear before, I do believe global warming is real. But 

as Congressman Stockman pointed out, there is some can be perceived as contradictions in my world view in that I would love to 

see us take a very progressive and thoughtful approach where we 

invest for the future where, as you lay the Florida example, every 

time it rains Miami is under water and is—and working hard to 

pump the water out. 

You can have development in south Florida that maybe then 

takes into account infrastructure to keep Miami from flooding, has 

public-private partnerships that can be with development but also 

adapt to climate change, et cetera. We should take that exact same 

approach to the Arctic. 

So we should maybe leave you with the idea of Manifest Destiny. 

If we were having this hearing 150 years ago, 100 years ago, thinking about the American West, we would be talking about the no canals or no railroads—it is just wilderness—it is great in Washington, DC—we will never develop America’s frontier. 

That is what Alaska is, and so 50 years from now we might put 

our Manifest Destiny hats back on as American visionaries and develop it with a conservation ethic and one that we will be proud 

of for our children. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well said, and we had some national parks 

dedicated that we are very grateful for that now. Mr. Keating, 

would you like to make a 1-minute or——

Mr. KEATING. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Whatever—however long. 

Mr. KEATING. I will be brief. I view myself as a pragmatist and 

I think the concerns Mr. Stockman brought up, the analogy I see 

from an environmental and growth standpoint is sustainable 

growth or smart growth and that kind of planning where there is 

going to be growth anyways, that is inevitable. 

Let us do it the right way and let us do it in a way that complements and minimizes the effect on the environment. That is why 

planning ahead is so important. Also, I would suggest too, when we 

are looking at the areas of the Law of the Sea Convention, we can’t 

ignore the fact that right now the other members—the other people 

that have agreed to this—they are making those decisions. 

They are using whatever governing authority, whether it is 

United Nations or not, already. The difference with the U.S. is we 

are shut out of that so we have no voice or the lone voice in those 

issues, and along the same lines it is important to be a part of that. 

Either you are there as a part of it or you are left out, and I 

learned those things that are being emphasized in this hearing as 

well. 

I hope the fact that we had this publicly there is more attention 

and awareness to this because there has a lot of work to do, and 

in the absence of that other countries will be doing things that 

could potentially conflict with us and we won’t have a voice in dealVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:37 Jan 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\121014\91844 SHIRL
55

ing with that, and if we do at some later juncture it could be too 

late to effectuate the kind of change we need. 

So I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think maybe we timed this just perfectly, 

didn’t we? I mean, I think that sounds like we have some votes 

coming up. Let me just say there is no disagreement about whether 

there is climate change. 

The only disagreement is whether mankind is causing it, and 

there are many scientists on both sides of that issue. But we are 

going through a period of climate change and your testimony, 

whether how we believe that it is coming about, both of you and 

the admiral earlier are testifying that we are not taking the steps 

necessary to make sure that we are positioning ourselves so that 

that change that is happening in—up in the Arctic will be to the 

benefit of the people of the United States and, yes, the people of 

the world. 

I would—and I appreciate the admiral being here and I was very 

serious about our doors are open to him. He is now going to be part 

or the head of the Arctic Council of eight nations. 

So we need to make sure that, number one, rather than giving 

any type of authority to an international body that may be affected 

by other countries outside those nations, I think it would benefit 

us better to make sure that we establish a very cooperative relationship with those eight nations and—which that makes more 

sense to me, and I really appreciate the insights both of you have 

given and the admiral is—you know, I can’t think of a better guy 

to have there representing us there. 

So with that said, I thank you and this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(57)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

58

f


91844n.eps
59

f


91844m.eps
60

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS


91844c-1.eps
61


91844c-2.eps
62

f


91844c-3.eps
63

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE STEVE STOCKMAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS


91844d-1.eps
64


91844d-2.eps
65


91844d-3.eps
66


91844d-4.eps
67


91844d-5.eps
68

Æ


91844d-6.eps