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

97–634PDF 2016

CHARTING THE ARCTIC: SECURITY, ECONOMIC,

AND RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND 

EMERGING THREATS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 17, 2015

Serial No. 114–127

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 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

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 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

(V)

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 ................................................................. 7

Vice Admiral Charles D. Michel, USCG, Vice Commandant, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security .......................................................................................... 23

Rear Admiral Timothy C. Gallaudet, USN, Oceanographer and Navigator, 

U.S. Department of Defense ................................................................................ 31

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., USCG, Retired: Prepared statement ......................... 10

Vice Admiral Charles D. Michel, USCG: Prepared statement ............................. 25

Rear Admiral Timothy C. Gallaudet, USN: Prepared statement ........................ 34

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 50

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 51

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

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

Emerging Threats: Questions submitted for the record to Admiral Robert 

Papp, Jr., and Vice Admiral Charles D. Michel, USCG .................................... 52

(1)

CHARTING THE ARCTIC: SECURITY, 

ECONOMIC, AND RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging 

Threats) presiding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This hearing will come to order. This hearing 

is called to examine the Arctic-focused agenda, and I am pleased 

to be joined by Chairman Duncan and members of the Western 

Hemisphere Subcommittee. 

Just under 1 year ago, the Europe, Eurasia and Emerging 

Threats Subcommittee held its first hearing on the Arctic. Since 

then, the United States has assumed the chairmanship of the Arctic Council, and the level of congressional interest in our Government’s Arctic agenda has grown. While the Alaskan congressional 

delegation, Don Young in particular, or as—or he perhaps is the 

whole delegation, has been in the forefront of efforts to champion 

the U.S. Arctic positions. 

Elected representatives from the lower 48 have increasingly come 

to appreciate the potential of the Arctic to benefit the entire country. 

As I noted last time, while we all recognize the receding ice, the 

purpose of this hearing is not to debate science, whether or not 

what is taking place is part of a natural cycle, or whether it can 

be traced to the human production of CO2. The fact remains the 

Arctic is in stark contrast to the Antarctic, and is now more accessible than it has been for decades. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to ask and discuss what are we 

doing with the Arctic? And what do we want to do with the Arctic? 

Scientific programs and research into topics such as ocean acidification and science of the ice flows help us to understand the Arctic 

environment, but to what end? Is our Government working with 

private industry and our allies, such as Canada, to build the infrastructure which enables strategic economic development, mineral, 

oil, natural gas extraction, as well as the possibility of commercial 

fishing? Or, as I fear, is this administration so focused on global 

2

warming, that we are passing up ways of expanding prosperity and 

the well-being of these emerging opportunities in the Arctic? 

Let me note that while sometimes the rhetoric associated with 

the so-called race for the Arctic can be a bit exaggerated, the Arctic 

is not immune from the same forces of geopolitics which apply to 

other areas of the globe. One disturbing element, at least to me, 

of the Arctic discussion is the Cold War analogy that everything 

Russia is doing in the Arctic is a national security threat. We 

should not be finding ways—excuse me. We should be focusing on 

finding ways to cooperate in mutually beneficial development with 

Russia rather than approach the Arctic issues with hostility and 

belligerence. 

Admiral Papp, during your testimony in December, you laid out 

a vision for the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council. I look forward to hearing about the progress we have made and how those 

concepts have been put into action. 

Admiral, and I will pronounce it Gallaudet——

Admiral GALLAUDET. Gallaudet, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay—and Michel, the subcommittee—we all 

on the subcommittee look forward to learning about how the Coast 

Guard and Navy are preparing to carry out their missions in the 

Arctic and where those lines of authority rest at this moment. 

It would be especially useful to hear about how our country is 

working with our allies and Arctic partners to leverage and to build 

on the experiences that we have so far in order to have some real 

progress that we can demonstrate in the years ahead. Additionally, 

is the current division of labor between the Coast Guard and the 

Navy the best way to carry out our Arctic strategy, or might some 

realignment allow our Government to be more effective? I would be 

interested to hear your opinions on that. 

I hope that our hearing today will help illuminate answers to 

these and other questions, so I thank you all for appearing today. 

And without objection, all members will have at least 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions or extraneous materials for the record. 

And with that, Mr. Meeks, you are recognized. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher. And it is great 

to be with Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Sires. And I 

thank everybody for holding this hearing to provide us with an opportunity to examine our policy toward the Arctic and the opportunities within the region. At the 6-month mark of the American 

chairmanship, we can now honestly assess the progress thus far, 

and the challenges that lie ahead. The Arctic has become a popular 

topic recently. It is the new geopolitically relevant region where energy, trade, military, and environmental interests intersect and 

perhaps clash. I am specifically concerned about our economic interest in the region, given the changing landscape. And when I say 

‘‘changing landscape,’’ I mean it literally. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Changing landscape. 

Mr. MEEKS. I am referring to the melting ice caps, and the subsequent new trade routes, reachable—trade routes, reachable resources, and uncharted territory. Recently, we saw, for example, 

where Shell abandoned its Arctic drilling plans due to low energy 

prices, regulatory pressure, and a misunderstanding of the geology. 

3

There are other private actors that are considering business and 

trade in the region as well. 

In America’s role as chairman of the Arctic Council, what drives 

the economic opportunities in the region, and are we taking the environmental impact of economics into account? We need look at all 

of those things. Furthermore, from a geopolitical perspective, one 

can sense that a number of nations are scrambling to be the first 

mover in the territory. Russia, for example, is ahead of everyone 

in the ice-breaking capabilities. This has both economic and military implications. And I would like to encourage cooperation between all of the actors and acknowledge the Arctic Council for 

being an instrumental organization in the effort to bring all concerned nations together, including China, because it is important 

for every nation that we have a clear understanding, because it affects all of us that share this place that we call the Planet Earth. 

You know, on one of my first trips that I was able to take as a 

Member of Congress back in 1999, I had always dreamed of going 

to Alaska, and I saw a trip, and I went to Alaska. And if the truth 

be told, I did not know what I was in for. I thought that the trip 

to Alaska was going to take me someplace where I had a nice hotel 

room and I would get to see, you know, some of the ice by air, and 

get back home. 

No one—I didn’t realize that it was a camping trip. Even though 

I had camping gear, I didn’t realize it. I didn’t realize that they 

were going to take me on a small plane and I would fly over and 

I would see the glaciers and everything and caribou that were moving and—and I didn’t realize that polar bears and grizzly—so I 

didn’t realize that. I didn’t realize this little plane would land in 

the middle of the tundra and they would tell this guy from New 

York City, who had never gone camping in his life, that that plane 

then would take off and they would tell me, we will see you in 4 

days. 

And so now I am stuck out on this place 4 days, and it was fortunately, in one extent, that it was unusually warm at the time, but 

what I did not realize with that warmth came trillions of mosquitos. And so I thank God, though, for the 24-hour sun, so it never 

got dark and I was able—I had to eat some of those mosquitos as 

we tried to, because that was the only thing, but I saw the beautiful landscape. I saw, even though it was unusually warm, the rivers full of salmon swimming, and some of it still iced. I saw and 

had and tasted some of the greatest tasting water I have ever tasted as it came down off the mountain. I can still taste it as I sit 

here. 

I saw golden eagles flying and hawks with the nests with their 

babies. I saw nature as I had never seen it before. Even though 

while I was there, I was praying saying, God, just get me home and 

I promise you I won’t do this again, but when I got home, I saw 

the magnificence of this place, great place that we call Alaska, and 

the significance it has to us as mankind, as humankind, no matter 

where we are or where we come from on this planet. 

So the interest that we have in it, I believe, has something to do 

with the essence of who we are as human beings. And by every nation being a part of this, and why we are chairing it, it is tremendously important to know the outcome of what we can do to let—

4

the common good of all of us. If there is anything that we should 

unite on, is that we are protecting and making sure that this place 

we call home, Earth, is taken care of, and we weigh and utilize the 

economic opportunities with the environmental concerns and the 

benefit for all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I would have to say, that is very inspiring. And let me just announce, I will be giving the hammer here 

to—or the gavel, I should say, to Mr. Duncan, who is, of course, the 

chairman of the subcommittee overseeing the Western Hemisphere, 

and I will be gone for about 10 to 15 minutes and then I will return. 

And, Mr. Duncan, you may proceed and be in charge. 

Mr. MEEKS. You don’t want me to have the gavel? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You got to win the election first. 

Mr. DUNCAN [presiding]. Okay. So I am just going to stay here 

while the chairman is gone. Let me just start by saying when I 

came to Congress, I, too, wanted to go to New York City, and while 

I was in New York City, it was a different environment than South 

Carolina. Meeks, you are funny. 

I am glad you had a good experience up in Alaska; beautiful part 

of the world, as Chairman Young will say. 

But today we meet to examine the enormous potential of the Arctic, a region that is too often overlooked and misunderstood. Lands 

and ocean above the Arctic Circle are home to oil, minerals, and 

other natural resources. These resources also represent economic 

opportunity in the form of investment and job creation. Beyond 

these considerations, there are also major security components to 

the Arctic puzzle. All these issues must be addressed during our 

Nation’s tenure at the helm of the Arctic Council, as it provides an 

excellent platform for the advancement of U.S. interests. 

The energy opportunity in the U.S. Arctic territory is vast. There 

is an area offshore of Alaska totaling about 1 billion acres. Reportedly 6,000 miles of coastline as a potential for energy development. 

Moreover, a change in the patterns of sea ice will mean that there 

will be more time to explore for oil and gas each year, and also indicates that the time frame for offshore drilling and activity will remain open longer. 

A 2008 geological survey, Appraisal of Undiscovered Oil and Gas 

Resources, state that the extensive Arctic continental shelves may 

constitute the geographically largest unexplored area for petroleum 

on the earth. Further studies propose that 30 percent of the planet’s undiscovered natural gas and possibly 13 percent of undiscovered oil are in the region. Developing these energy stores and 

other mineral resources in the north will also generate economic 

progress in the form of investment and jobs. Currently, there is an 

absence of adequate infrastructure for proper development. Many 

of the natural resources are far from existing storage facilities, 

pipelines, and shipping lanes, so construction of better infrastructure will represent yet another economic opportunity. 

In terms of security, the Arctic presents a unique set of challenges. Traditional concerns exist, such as the ability to monitor 

geopolitical rivals operating in the same area. Both Russia and 

5

China are active in the north, and an increased U.S. presence is 

necessary to demonstrate that we are not falling behind. 

Russia has shown a commitment to establishing a strong presence in the far north, beginning construction on bases on Alexander 

and Kotelny Islands. Though these installations are mostly suited 

for limited operational capacity and surveillance, the intention is 

very clear: To project power and stake claims in the Arctic. However, security is far more complex than merely positioning assets. 

The Arctic is home to some of the harshest conditions on the planet, with strong storms and deadly cold temperatures. 

As tourism in the region expands, so, too, must military cooperation and preparation. Joint exercises with our Arctic Council allies 

would help countries prepare for any disasters that might befall 

travelers or workers in the north. Search and rescue coordination 

and disaster relief exercises will be important initiatives, as more 

people begin to flow into the region and energy activities would certainly expand. 

In the near future, cruises will explore the northern coastline of 

Alaska and Canada, and it is imperative that both the U.S. and 

Canada are prepared to navigate the harsh landscape in an event 

of an emergency. I think we can learn a lot from our allies in Canada and other Slavic nations that participate already in those 

search and rescue operations. 

In addition to these concerns, it will be crucial to respect the 

rights of these American citizens already occupying the land in the 

Arctic. I am sure Mr. Young will talk about some of those. Each 

Arctic nation has citizens that already inhabit Arctic territory, and 

it is in the U.S. national interest that American citizens and these 

other citizens join in the development through job creation and economic opportunity. 

It is crystal clear that the Arctic is not a one-dimensional area. 

There are economic, energy, security, infrastructure, and human 

rights concerns in the region, yet the Obama administration is focused on climate change at the expense of these other important 

U.S. interests. Indeed, the U.S. Arctic Council chairmanship has 

become a platform for the extension of President Obama’s climate 

change agenda, another page in the legacy that he has pursued 

without regard to proper constitutional checks and balances in a lot 

of ways. 

Additionally, the recent decision by the Obama administration to 

close the possibility of drilling in Alaska’s Arctic Ocean over the 

next 2 years by terminating options for drilling rights is a disservice to our national interests. It would be a shame to let the 

pursuit of a more economically viable, energy-rich Arctic fall by the 

wayside for the U.S. at the expense of an aggressive climate change 

regime, all the while, Russia and China stand poised to reap the 

benefits through their active engagement in the far north. 

In conclusion, the Arctic is of immense economic and strategic 

value for the U.S. national interest. We need to make sure that we 

are using the platform of the chairmanship of the Arctic Council 

and our own tools of power to advance U.S. national interests, support our allies and friends of similar interest in the common area. 

And with that, I will look forward to hearing from the witnesses 

today on how the State Department, the Department of Defense, 

6

and the Department of Homeland Security are cooperating and coordinating to support our interests in the far north. 

And with that, I will turn to the ranking member, Mr. Sires, for 

an opening statement. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both Chairman 

Rohrabacher and Duncan, for holding today’s timely hearing on 

America’s role as an Arctic nation. As a member of both the Western Hemisphere and Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittees, this topic is particularly important to me. 

Since Alaska’s inclusion into the Union over 50 years ago, the 

United States has had a stake, an interest in Arctic relations. Over 

the past decade, our interests have increased with receding ice caps 

and diminishing glaciers as a result of climate change. The changing geography of the Arctic places the United States in a unique 

position to work with other Arctic nations to ensure security of the 

region, including the people, wildlife, and resources. An increase in 

navigable waters opens the platform for new trade routes and economic benefits. Trade routes can be shortened by as much as 30 

percent, saving money and avoiding prior infested waters. Even 

though these Arctic routes aren’t safe at the moment, that time is 

approaching, and countries like Russia and China are greatly interested in increasing their footprint in the Arctic and securing these 

routes for themselves. 

The melting ice in the Arctic also poses security concerns we 

need to consider. Within the last few years, we have witnessed 

Russia’s continued pattern of encroachment with Ukraine, Crimea 

and Syria. Now Russia is racing to control the Arctic, operating 

over 30 icebreakers, where the U.S. only has two. We must remain 

vigilant to the growing aggression and ensure that it does not 

spread to the Arctic, running counter to U.S. interests. 

The administration’s selection of Admiral Papp as the first U.S. 

Special Representative for the Arctic and the implementation of the 

national strategic—of the national strategic for the Arctic region 

are encouraging signs of increased engagement in the region. 

I look forward to hearing from Admiral Papp and other members 

of the esteemed—of the panel on how Congress can best work with 

the administration to realize the goals and our plans for the high 

north. 

And I wanted to say that if you go to my friend, Don Young’s office, half of the wildlife in Alaska is hanging in his office. Beautiful 

ones. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Meeks has flashbacks when he goes there. 

As the one Member of Congress that has a territory, a district 

that actually touches the Arctic, so I am going to use some leniency 

here and recognize the gentleman from Alaska for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this 

important hearing. And I want to thank the people in the Arctic 

Council. I will tell you, Alaska sort of feels like the ugly debutante. 

No one paid any attention to the Arctic until recently. We kept saying, we are here, we are here, and there was little acknowledgement of, and now we have a great deal of interest. And I think it 

is our responsibility as a Congress, especially this committee, that 

we look at the total picture. I don’t want us to become the 

7

spokeschild for the climate change battle. I want us to say, what 

can we do to adapt to it, how we can compete and work with the 

neighbors that are trying to grasp it right now? 

We talk about Russia as a security issue, but they really want 

to claim that area with China, and we sit on our hands. We have 

two worn-out icebreakers, which I funded for 40 years ago. We 

need new icebreakers, we need new docks. We don’t have any 

docks. And there has been a lack, and this is what this council, this 

Arctic Council, and this group here has to recognize the economic 

side of it, not just the environmental side of it. 

This Congress has to recognize we have to put an infrastructure 

in place. Where will we build our docks? Will we be able to service 

the navigational needs? What role will the Navy play? What role 

is the Coast Guard playing? What role is the Corps of Engineers? 

There has to be an Arctic policy. It can be established through this 

group right here, but you better work together. And if all I hear 

about, you know, we are not going to listen to the local people, 

which just recently occurred with this administration. We talk 

about the indigenous people, they are not being heard. They are 

being heard by the industry, but not this administration. This is 

a big picture. I represent that whole State, every lick, and including the mosquitos, Mr. Meeks. 

Did they give you a 410 with your survival gear? 

Mr. MEEKS. They did. 

Mr. YOUNG. Because 410s will shoot the mosquitos, by the way, 

and knock them out. 

So I want this hearing to bring out where are we going to be 10 

years, 5 years, 2 years, 1 year, next month. I don’t want to hear 

a lot of talk, we have a tendency to do that, and allow Russia and 

China to take over the Arctic. It is too important to this Nation. 

And without Alaskans, we wouldn’t even have this hearing. People 

forget that. That is why we are an Arctic nation. But the potential 

of the Arctic nation, the potential of the Arctic, not only the minerals, but the potential to improve the well-being of the people of 

the United States has to be done with a concrete plan with everybody working together. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman. 

And other members are advised they can submit opening statements for the record. 

We also have a lighting system for our panelists. You will be 

given 5 minutes. If you could stay as close to that as possible. Your 

biographies are already provided to the members, so we are not 

going to read those. 

And I will now recognize Admiral Papp for a 5-minute opening 

testimony. Admiral. 

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

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

Admiral PAPP. Well, thank you, Chairman Duncan. And I look 

forward to seeing Chairman Rohrabacher back here in a little bit. 

Ranking Member Meeks, Ranking Member Sires, and welcome as 

well to Chairman Young, who has been such a great supporter to 

8

us for so long. And, yes, sir, I have had the taxidermy lecture in 

the office in the past, and I agree with you, it is educational. 

I know it is perfunctory to say that we are delighted to be here. 

I am, in fact, delighted to be here, because I was supposed to be 

in Belgium today speaking at an Arctic conference, and all things 

considered now, I think I would rather be here, but also, because 

we get a chance to talk about this program and give it broader exposure. So thank you for having me here. 

As the Special Representatives for the Arctic, my broad charge 

is to lead the Nation’s international efforts to promote our priorities to advance U.S. policy in the Arctic region. I also represent 

the Department of State at the Arctic Executive Steering Committee that was a result of the President’s Executive order on implementation of the Arctic Strategy. 

The State Department recognizes that significant changes in the 

Arctic are creating new challenges and opportunities for the United 

States and other Arctic nations. A rapidly warming Arctic offers 

new shipping routes, increased opportunities for trade and tourism, 

and the potential for resource exploitation. But it also threatens 

traditional ways of life and increases the risk of environmental disasters. 

Our Arctic engagement takes place primarily through the Arctic 

Council, and the Arctic Council is the preeminent forum for international diplomacy on Arctic matters. The United States assumed 

the chairmanship at the Arctic Council in April of this year. Our 

chairmanship theme, One Arctic: Shared Opportunities, Challenges, and Responsibilities, echoes the belief that all eight Arctic 

states must work together to address the challenges of a changing 

Arctic, to embrace the opportunities it presents, and to face the responsibilities we all have as stewards of this vast region. 

We are already a quarter of the way through our U.S. chairmanship, and have already convened two meetings of the senior Arctic 

officials and several meetings of the council’s various working 

groups, task forces, and expert groups. These groups are pursuing 

an ambitious work plan for the next 2 years under the themes that 

we have chosen to highlight during the U.S. chairmanship: The 

first, Arctic Ocean Safety Security and Stewardship; the second, 

Improving Economic and Living Conditions; and the third, Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change. 

We are off to what is perhaps the most aggressive start to an 

Arctic Council chairmanship. The April ministerial in Iqaluit, Canada, was followed in rapid succession by a kickoff event at the 

State Department, and then the earliest convening ever of the senior Arctic officials in memory. 

We have already just recently conducted a second senior Arctic 

official meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, and initial meetings of all 

working groups. We have cosponsored an Arctic energy summit in 

Fairbanks, Alaska, and hosted an Arctic search and rescue exercise 

with the United States Coast Guard and the Department of Defense. 

I believe our most significant accomplishment to date has been 

the conference on Global Leadership in the Arctic, Cooperation, Innovation, Engagement and Resilience, otherwise known by the acronym GLACIER, which took place in late August in Anchorage. 

9

While technically not an Arctic Council event, GLACIER served as 

a centerpiece of the mission of the U.S. chairmanship to broaden 

awareness of the Arctic, both domestically and abroad. GLACIER 

featured keynote speeches from Secretary Kerry and President 

Obama and other senior U.S. officials. 

Twenty-one countries participated in GLACIER, including seven 

foreign ministers. The White House and Department of State are 

continuing to build upon the momentum created by GLACIER, fulfilling the obligations as set forth in the Presidential commitments 

and strengthening relationships with Alaskans in our American 

Arctic. 

It is important to note that the United States and other Arctic 

states are pursuing our mutual interests in what is currently a safe 

and stable Arctic region marked by international cooperation and 

governed by international law. We cannot ignore that our international efforts in the Arctic are taking place during a difficult 

time in our relationship with Russia. Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its aggression in Ukraine, and its efforts to intimidate its 

neighbors are an affront to a rules-based international system, and 

put at risk the peace that we and our allies have worked so hard 

to achieve in Europe. 

The international community’s disagreements with Russia have 

complicated our efforts in the Arctic, but have not stalled them. It 

is not business as usual, but we have worked with Russia on Arctic 

issues during past political crises, and are maintaining multilateral 

activities within the Arctic Council, such as those to protect the 

Arctic environment, ensure maritime safety, and promote scientific 

cooperation. 

The Arctic region has enormous and growing geostrategic, economic, environmental, and national security implications for the 

United States. 

We are at a pivotal point in history as the Arctic is rapidly 

changing, creating significant challenges and opportunities for 

every Arctic nation. The challenge of charting a course toward a 

sustainable future in the Arctic is important for all of us. The 

world looks to the United States for leadership, and as chair of the 

Arctic Council, we have a unique opportunity to demonstrate our 

leadership as an Arctic nation. In this role, we look forward to advancing national priorities, pursuing responsible stewardship, and 

strengthening international cooperation in the Arctic. 

So I, once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I 

look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Papp follows:]

10


97634a-1.eps
11


97634a-2.eps
12


97634a-3.eps
13


97634a-4.eps
14


97634a-5.eps
15


97634a-6.eps
16


97634a-7.eps
17


97634a-8.eps
18


97634a-9.eps
19


97634a-10.eps
20


97634a-11.eps
21


97634a-12.eps
22


97634a-13.eps
23

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Admiral. 

The Chair will now recognize Vice Commandant Michel for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CHARLES D. MICHEL, USCG, 

VICE COMMANDANT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Admiral MICHEL. Well, thank you, Chairman Duncan, Ranking 

Member Meeks, Ranking Member Sires, Representative Young, distinguished members of the subcommittees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on Coast Guard operations in 

the Arctic, the Coast Guard’s Arctic strategy, as well as our international and domestic efforts to ensure safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime activity in this region. 

Mr. Chairman, Coast Guard and our predecessor agencies have 

been operating in the Arctic since 1867, when Alaska was purchased from Russia. For example, the Revenue Cutter Bear was essentially the sole face of Federal presence to many remote parts of 

the territory of Alaska for over 40 years. Then, as now, our missions are to enforce U.S. laws and regulations, conduct search and 

rescue, assist scientific exploration, foster navigation safety and environmental stewardship, and provide assured access in preserving 

U.S. sovereignty. 

Unlike the days of the Revenue Cutter Bear, today we find significant growth in human activity because the region is more accessible. There is water where there used to be ice, and the Coast 

Guard must increasingly be present to exercise our authorities and 

protect the Nation’s maritime interests. 

I have spent a significant amount of my career focused on Arctic 

and polar issues, and have traveled throughout the polar regions 

to better understand the challenges of operating in these extreme 

environments, the range of national and international issues and 

the impacts of increasing human activity. I can personally attest 

that these regions are remote, hostile, and unforgiving, distances 

are vast, weather is a constant factor, ice conditions are very dynamic, and infrastructure is almost nonexistent. 

Operations in both polar regions demand detailed and deliberate 

planning supported by specialized, reliable, and unique equipment, 

and they often demand close coordination with Federal, State, 

local, academic, industry, and indigenous community stakeholders. 

The polar regions also offer valuable opportunities for international 

cooperation and interoperability. 

The national strategy for the Arctic region and its implementation plan establish U.S. Arctic policy. The Coast Guard’s supporting 

Arctic strategy includes three strategic objectives: Improving 

awareness, modernizing governance, and broadening partnerships. 

These three objectives directly support national policies. 

With these objectives in mind, I would like to highlight four specific areas of emphasis. First, the Coast Guard conducts mobile and 

seasonal operations in the Arctic region as maritime activity and 

environmental conditions warrant. Highlights from this year’s Arctic Shield deployment include establishing temporary forward operating locations along the north slope. The national security cutter 

Waesche and high endurance cutter MUNRO operating in the 

24

Chuckchi and Bering Seas conducting maritime patrols and providing response and command and control capabilities during 

Shell’s drilling operations. The medium icebreaker Healy conducted 

a perimeter circuit of the U.S. exclusive economic zone and an historic expedition to the North Pole. 

Second, in facilitating safe global shipping, the Coast Guard was 

instrumental in the development of the Polar Code, a suite of safety and environmental protection regulations adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 2015. These regulations will 

enter into force in 2017. 

Third, the Coast Guard continues to provide strong support to 

the Arctic Council and the U.S. chairmanship, including policy and 

programmatic support as well as being a key sponsor of various 

contingency response agreements and exercises. 

Fourth, the Coast Guard is increasing engagement with peer 

maritime services from all Arctic nations, including Russia. Three 

weeks ago, the Arctic Coast Guard Forum was formally established 

at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, with eight Arctic nations’ heads 

of Coast Guards or equivalents, and Secretary Johnson in attendance. 

Before closing, I want to emphasize the importance of assured access to the polar regions. The ability to operate year round safely 

and reliably, means having heavy icebreakers. Year-round access is 

vital to our Nation’s security and economic interests. In August, at 

the GLACIER Summit in Anchorage, Alaska, the President expressed clear intent to maintain our ability to access polar regions 

year round, affirmed the Coast Guard’s responsibility to provide 

heavy icebreaking capability, and announced plans to accelerate 

the acquisition of new heavy icebreakers. 

Today the Coast Guard operates two icebreakers in the polar regions, the heavy icebreaker Polar Star, and the medium icebreaker 

Healy, which mainly provides scientific support to the National 

Science Foundation. 

Polar Star is over 40 years old, and our only other heavy icebreaker, Polar Sea, is currently inoperable. The Coast Guard needs 

at least two heavy icebreakers to provide year-round assured access, and self-rescue-ability in the polar regions. The Coast Guard 

is moving forward at best speed to meet the President’s intent to 

recapitalize our aging heavy icebreaker fleet, and we look forward 

to working with Congress on this important effort. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and 

thank you for your support of our men and women in uniform. I 

look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Michel follows:]

25


97634c-1.eps
26


97634c-2.eps
27


97634c-3.eps
28


97634c-4.eps
29


97634c-5.eps
30


97634c-6.eps
31

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Commandant. 

The Chair will now recognize Admiral Gallaudet. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL TIMOTHY C. GALLAUDET, 

USN, OCEANOGRAPHER AND NAVIGATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE 

Admiral GALLAUDET. Good afternoon, Chairman Rohrabacher, 

Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Meeks, and Ranking Member 

Sires, and other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss the Navy’s ongoing future activities in the 

Arctic. I have submitted my full statement to the committee, which 

I ask be made part of the hearing record. I will now give a brief 

opening statement. 

As a global force, the U.S. Navy must be ready to operate in all 

the world’s oceans, including the Arctic, as we have done for many 

decades. The risk of conflict in the Arctic region is currently low, 

and as such, the Navy’s current posture in the region is appropriate to address existing defense requirements, primarily through 

the use of undersea and air assets. However, in the event that 

these requirements change, we must be ready to operate in this 

challenging and changing environment. 

In support of the U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic Region 

and the Department of Defense Arctic Strategy, the Navy has identified four strategic objectives: Ensure U.S. Arctic sovereignty; provide ready Naval forces; preserve freedom of the seas; and promote 

partnerships. The recently revised cooperative strategy for 21st 

century seapower builds on the heritage and complementary capabilities of the Navy, Marine and Coast Guard team to advance the 

prosperity and guarantee the security of our Nation. 

The sea services will continue to evaluate Arctic access and presence requirements, improve maritime domain awareness, and pursue cooperation with Arctic partners to enhance maritime safety 

and security of the region. 

The Arctic is a major driver of global climate and weather. This 

region is experiencing change at an accelerated rate compared to 

the rest of the world. The diminishing sea ice is gradually opening 

the region to the potential for increased economic activity and tourism, including in commercial shipping, fishing, oil and mineral extraction, and tourism. These changes will necessitate more accurate 

and long-range forecasts to ensure safe transit in the region. 

The U.S. drew the Arctic roadmap for 2014 to 2030, which aligns 

with the National Arctic Strategy, includes a plan that directs the 

development of Arctic capabilities and capacity in step with the 

changing environmental conditions. 

The Navy will continue to develop our strong cooperative partnership with the Coast Guard, in addition to other interagency and 

international Arctic region stakeholders, to address the emerging 

opportunities and challenges caused by the seasonal opening of the 

Arctic Ocean waters. 

The Navy will continue to take deliberate steps to develop Arctic 

expertise through exercises, scientific missions, and personnel exchanges that provide sailors with opportunities to learn best practices. The Navy will limit surface ship operations in periods of projected—pardon me—to periods of projected peak activity associated 

32

with open water conditions. Even during open water conditions, 

weather and ocean factors, including sea ice, must be considered 

when conducting operational risk assessments. 

The Navy will emphasize low cost, long lead time activities to 

match capability and capacity to future demands, and will continue 

to study and make informed decisions on operating requirements 

and procedures for personnel, ships, aircraft, with interagency partners and allies. 

Through ongoing exercises, such as the Navy’s biennial ice exercise, or ICEX, and the associated scientific ice expeditions, as well 

as research in transits through the region by Navy submarines, 

aircraft and surface vessels, the Navy will continue to learn more 

about the evolving operating environment. 

The Office of Oceanographer of the Navy and the Office of Naval 

Research are leading efforts to better understand the complex polar 

environment, and, more accurately, predict the operational environment in support of safe navigation, including research on sea ice 

dynamics, acoustic propagation, Arctic waves and swell, and ocean 

stratification. 

Our Marginal Ice Zone Research Initiative is an example of the 

types of programs designed to develop new observing technologies 

and gather observations using a mix of autonomous sensors and 

platforms, allowing Navy funded scientists to investigate ice ocean 

atmosphere dynamics and characterize the physical processes that 

govern seasonal evolution of ice cover. These observations are critical to enabling improvements in numerical predictions of the polar 

operational environment. Understanding the importance of partnerships and addressing common concerns, the Navy is partnering 

with Defense Research and Development, Canada on an acoustic 

propagation project to better understand surface losses due to 

interactions with ice cover, and acoustic fluctuations in ambient 

noise in open water during the summer in the marginal ice zone. 

The Navy will continue working to solve the difficult problems 

that arise from Arctic operations to ensure our force can operate 

safely in the Arctic when needed. 

The Navy will likely be called upon to support the U.S. Coast 

Guard and other government agencies by providing marine data 

collection, sea ice forecasting and predictions, and the forecasting 

of hazardous weather and ocean conditions. 

With the Coast Guard, through the implementation of the national fleet plan and our respective Arctic strategies, the Navy and 

Coast Guard are identifying opportunities to increase commonality 

and interoperability. While balancing all our global defense responsibilities, the Navy will continually assess its preparedness in response to changes in the Arctic environment and changes in the security environment. Maritime security and international naval cooperation have always been critical components of U.S. Arctic policy. The Navy’s approach underscores the need to strengthen our 

cooperative partnership with interagency partners, especially the 

Coast Guard and the Arctic stakeholders. 

The key will be to balance potential investments with other service priorities and leverage interagency and international partnerships. By taking a proactive flexible approach, the Navy can keep 

33

pace with the evolving Arctic region while continuing to safeguard 

our global national security interests. 

Again, thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, Chairman Duncan, 

Ranking Member Meeks, Ranking Member Sires, and other members of the subcommittees for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. This concludes my statement, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Gallaudet follows:]

34


97634b-1.eps
35


97634b-2.eps
36


97634b-3.eps
37


97634b-4.eps
38

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I thank all of our panelists. And Chairman 

Rohrabacher will be back in just a minute, but I will go ahead and 

recognize myself for some questions. 

This is a question for all of you. I am fascinated with technology 

and the ability for unmanned technologies, drones or underwater 

vehicles, and is there a possibility to use those in the Arctic for exploration, for whatever we are looking for, whether it is minerals, 

whether it is the determination of sea ice thickness? I would love 

to hear your thoughts about using technology in that environment 

and some of the challenges that maybe that environment presents 

to the use of technology. So, Admiral. 

Admiral GALLAUDET. Thank you, Congressman Duncan. Yes, sir, 

we have the Naval Oceanography program that has significant experience in concert with the Office of Naval Research in operating 

unmanned systems across the world to better characterize the 

ocean in support of our warfighting requirements, and we have 

conducted experiments and exercises in the Arctic region with autonomous systems and remotely—pardon me—autonomous sensing 

systems, including unmanned underwater vehicles and drifting 

floats and profilers, and actually we will demonstrate another example of these technologies during this ice exercise I alluded to in 

my opening statement. 

There are challenges in operating in this difficult environment 

due to the nature of sea ice and the hazardous conditions it imposes on sensors, but as we continue to practice and experiment, 

we are learning how to address those challenges. But in my opinion, if you look at the nature of and the need for unmanned systems to address the dull, dirty, and dangerous type of work they 

are best suited for, the Arctic is an environment perfectly suited for 

those kind of technologies. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We are seeing this international space station and 

a lot of satellite data being used looking at the Arctic for changes. 

Do you trust being able to measure sea ice thickness or temperature from space? 

Admiral GALLAUDET. Yes, Congressman, we do, actually. We are 

actively employing a Canadian synthetic aperture radar sensor on 

one of their satellites as part of the mission of our Naval and National Ice Center, which provides operational predictions of ice 

movement, sea ice movement for operating forces in the region. 

This is an international collaborative effort with the Coast Guard 

and their Canadian allies. And, again, that center will be used in 

a prominent way for this ice exercise in March 2016 to best locate 

the ice camp where our two submarines will surface and conduct 

the exercise. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yeah. Is there any margin of error there? Have you 

noticed any differences between measurements taken from space 

and what you may find actually on the surface? 

Admiral GALLAUDET. Yes, sir. There is a fair amount—there is 

uncertainty. I couldn’t characterize the exact amount, and I would 

like to take that for the record, but we have a strong confidence 

in our satellite-sensing capabilities. But as in any region, the best 

use is sort of a suite of capabilities that include in situ sensors as 

well as remote sensors from satellite, for example, or radar, and 

those work in a complementary way to best characterize a given 

39

physical environment. So that applies in the Western Pacific as it 

does in the Arctic. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you. I am going to shift gears 

here, Admiral Papp. We see China’s incursions into the South 

China Sea, specifically the Spratlies. These are atolls, underwater 

shallow reefs that have been built upon. So as they continue to violate what I think the international law in the South China Sea, 

has the administration considered moving to revoke some of the 

privileges we have granted China in the international community, 

such as their observer status in the Arctic Council? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, sir, part of the response has been in that 

particular area of the world, work between the State Department, 

the Department of Defense, freedom of navigation exercises demonstrating U.S. will and commitment to stand against those—those 

illegal proclamations of waters in the South China Sea, but it is 

isolated. Much like we have isolated the sanctions on Russia in response to their incursions into Ukraine and Crimea, yet we are still 

able to work within the Arctic, we are hopeful that we can use the 

Arctic as a place where we can continue to have communications, 

primarily through the Arctic Council where China is an observer 

state. 

So at this juncture, we are not under consideration—or not considering revoking their status as an observer, but certainly that is 

one of the options we could look at in the future. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Thank you for that. 

Admiral Gallaudet, this—while the Arctic is a low threat environment and likely will remain so, I think our Navy needs to be 

ready to serve anywhere anytime. Does the Navy have the gear 

and infrastructure to operate in the high north if needed? Just help 

educate us, and what some of the challenges and the type gear that 

you see the need for or are utilizing today? 

Admiral GALLAUDET. Yes, Chairman Duncan. The short answer 

is yes for the current requirements. And the combatant commanders that operate in the Arctic region, the U.S. Northern Command and U.S. European Command and U.S. Pacific Command, 

they have not stated a requirement for continuous presence by 

Navy surface vessels. However, our submarine force is well 

equipped to operate in the region and has been doing so since 1958 

with the first under-ice deployment of the USS Nautilus. And in 

fact, just this year, the USS Sea Wolf just returned from a very 

successful operational deployment across the Arctic. So—and we—

the primary requirements we see today are through maritime domain awareness, or Arctic domain awareness, and we have aviation 

assets as well as remote sensing capabilities that can fulfill that 

mission as well as the undersea requirements that our submarine 

force is well suited for. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, our Arctic roadmap is 

designed to look at future requirements in concert with the demands that the combatant commanders may levy upon the U.S. 

Navy to ensure that we build that capability and capacity for increased surface presence or any other kind of operations. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. My time has expired. Except for Mr. 

Meeks, most of the equipment you use may be foreign to most 

40

members of the committee, but apparently, he was able to survive 

with that, so I am going to turn to him for his line of questioning. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Chairman Duncan. 

Let me ask you quickly, first, a few, I guess, environmental questions in that the U.S. Geological Survey reports that 50 percent of 

the U.S. coastline is at a high or very high risk of sea level rise 

impact due to global warming-induced ice melting, threatening 

many of the 16.4 million Americans that live in the coastal flood 

plain. So my first question is, what are the options that are available or that are being drafted for those populations in case of imminent danger for their lives and their livelihood? Mr. Papp? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, Mr. Meeks, the—first and foremost, we already have people who are in danger. We have villages along the 

Alaska coastline, Shishmaref, Kivalina, and others that are literally falling into the sea now because they are not protected by 

the fast ice along the shore, permafrost melting—or permafrost 

thawing, rather, and their villages being overrun sometimes by the 

waves, by the surf, by the storms. 

From all that I have seen, they probably will have to be relocated 

to higher ground. It is going to be tremendously expensive. That is 

not a State Department issue per se, it is not even an Arctic Council issue per se, but I know that discussions are going on. President 

Obama himself flew over Shishmaref during his 3 days in Alaska 

this August to be able to see firsthand, and he also landed and 

spoke to some of the Alaska natives and residents in the area up 

there, and has a better appreciation of what is going on. And I 

know the interagency is looking at the potential for how do we pay 

for moving the villages or doing other remediation up there. 

Mr. MEEKS. So the same thing, environmental concern, you 

know, with these fisheries that I am hearing about, that the future 

of the Arctic, and specifically of its ecosystem is of great concern, 

and I think that is of interest to anyone who is interested, as I 

talked about earlier, in our planet, regardless, I think, if you believe in climate change or not. The United States and four other 

nations that border the Arctic Ocean plans to prohibit commercial 

fishing, for example, in the international waters of the Arctic until 

more scientific research can be done on how warming seas and 

melting ice are affecting fish stocks. 

So my question is, what are the greatest concerns of the administration regarding the Arctic’s ecosystem, and are their effects reversible? And two, how badly are the fish stocks damaged? And are 

other nations’ fishing practices affecting the stock of fish regardless 

of the ban? 

Admiral PAPP. Well, sir, the declaration concerning the prevention of unregulated high seas fishing in the central Arctic Ocean 

was a great step forward. Ambassador David Balton, who also sits 

as chair of the senior Arctic officials for us during our chairmanship, negotiated that with what we called the Arctic 5, as you recognized, and it was a good first step toward coming to some meaningful action in terms of, first and foremost, taking a pause, which 

we have done in U.S. waters, to develop the science to determine 

what is happening with migration of species up toward the Arctic. 

So we are at work with that. 

41

The other concern, though, is that there is a large portion of the 

central Arctic Ocean that is international waters. Other countries 

can use innocent passage transit through our exclusive economic 

zones and then fish in the Arctic in the foreseeable future when 

there is, at least during the summertime, no Arctic ice in the Arctic 

Ocean. 

So what we hope to do now is take the next step of bringing in 

those other countries, the major fishing countries, like China, 

Korea, Japan, and others and bring them in and start working toward an agreement as well on what the future is. 

And it is primarily focused on taking the time to gather the 

science. We have regional fisheries committees all around the country, and the world, that look at fish stocks and regulate the species 

so that they will be sustainable. We hope to be able to gather the 

science with this migration of species for the Arctic Ocean as well 

and then in future years, come to some regulated process for the 

fisheries. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you. Very good point, in my estimation. Let 

me just check one other thing, and I guess I will ask this to either—either to the Admiral or to the Vice Commandant. That is, 

the Arctic Council is an excellent area to promote cooperation, that 

is what I am all about, between nations and Arctic territories. Nevertheless, there seems to be a push to militarize the region. So my 

question is, are we concerned over the military nature of the Arctic 

development? I think Mr. Papp would be the best one to answer 

that question. 

Admiral PAPP. Well, it is definitely a concern, Mr. Meeks. And 

we spent an awful lot of time watching this. I get the intelligence 

briefings within the State Department nearly weekly, and I have 

gone to other three-letter agencies around the city as well to make 

sure that we are monitoring things properly. And what I see, and 

I think we are focused primarily on Russia, is a country that is 

concerned about the security of a developing waterway, that is reestablishing facilities, air fields and bases along a coastline which 

encompasses almost half the Arctic, and I don’t see that as militarization. I think you can pick certain aspects of what they are 

doing and trumpet them as militarizing the Arctic. But I have had 

a chance to watch this, and what I think they are doing are, in 

most cases, some reasonable things in terms of being prepared for 

providing security along a sea route that is increasing in traffic 

right now. Some of the things the Russians are doing I wish that 

we were doing along the north slope of Alaska right now in terms 

of preparing infrastructure for future human activity. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you very much. I am out of time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yeah. I thank the ranking member. 

I now turn to the gentleman from Alaska for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the witnesses. I would like to have each one 

of you, without talking to one another, give me a view of where 

Alaska is, where it should be even regardless of Admiral Papp’s position. What do you see and how are you putting it together collectively? I am not happy with the administration. I try to keep from 

getting involved politically, but when they shut down all the leases 

for 2 years without any consultation, lack of communication with 

the Corps of Engineers, where they were going to study for a port, 

42

they are not doing it. Private investment in the local communities 

was disregarded. And I want to know where is the—and who is 

going to be—should it be Congress setting up where Alaska is 

going to be 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 50 years from 

now, because I see it, I read it, I see it, the constant harping on 

climate change. That doesn’t change the fact if it is occurring and 

if man is doing it, how are we going to adapt to it? 

We are the only people I know of in this whole chain who is not 

trying to adapt. We are trying to keep things stable. I know the 

Admiral is thinking militarily, Coast Guard is thinking about icebreakers, which he is not going to get until finally listens to me; 

Admiral Papp has got a position. 

I don’t think there is any correlation with the local people, State 

of Alaska or anybody else. So I need a report from you where you 

think we are going to be, so we can make some decisions. Are we 

going to be an Arctic nation? Or are we going to be still playing 

Mumblety-peg, probably none of you ever played Mumblety-peg. It 

is with a knife—and I am very good with that, by the way—and 

you try to see how close you can come to your opponent’s toe without hitting it. Not much agreement to one another. 

So I am just saying, I want to hear that later on. This is part 

of your role, because I can tell you, other than myself, and I have 

a sketchy view, no one really knows the Arctic. And if you don’t 

help us get together where there is going to be a plan, then we are 

not going to be able to achieve it, we will sit around and run 

around the mulberry bush all the time. 

So that is your job, not just Admiral Papp’s position, but where 

is the military going to be in this? The Corps of Engineers, got out 

of a study for a port. We going to need a port. Might have it later 

on, but right now. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I will turn the gavel back over to Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, not because you are coming back, I 

am just leaving. It is not because of you. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. [presiding.] Congressman Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Admiral Papp, you know, I was happy to hear that 

we are monitoring what is going on there in terms of the Russians, 

but can you tell me, they have 30 icebreakers, we have two. That 

is a whole fleet to me. Why do they need 30 and we can only deal 

with two? I mean, something—I mean, the Russians are not there 

to go fishing. Why do they need 30? Are they trying to establish, 

I guess, ownership by working in these different areas, and then 

when we raise our voice, they will say, well, we have had 30 icebreakers there for years and it was never an issue. 

Admiral PAPP. Well, yes, sir. The—I would have to say that the 

Russians are much more connected to their Arctic than the people 

of the United States are. Culturally, the Arctic is a part of Russia, 

and they have been involved there much longer, and they now have 

an opening sea route which is directing their attention to it even 

more. And they have half the coastline in the Arctic. The Arctic—

if you look at a polar projection down on the North Pole——

Mr. SIRES. I am looking at it right—is that the same map you 

have got up there? 

43

Admiral PAPP. It is. So the predominant feature, if you put approximately 66 north latitude, a circle on there, which I don’t see 

on there, but encompassed by the Arctic Circle, it is mostly an 

ocean. So it is a maritime environment, and Russia has half the 

coastline around the Arctic Ocean. So it is understandable, when 

they have larger populations than us, that the waterway is open 

more than ours has been for centuries, that they are going to have 

more activity up there. 

So they are doing legitimate things they do that they should be 

doing as an Arctic nation and preparing for increased human activity. I don’t begrudge them having the icebreakers. We should be 

doing the same thing. Our Arctic is opening up, there is much more 

human activity, and the United States Coast Guard needs to provide assured access for security issues, and the only way you can 

do that, guaranteed year round, is by having icebreakers. 

So it is woeful that we have gotten to the point where we only 

have two icebreakers. During World War II, we built eight icebreakers and, in fact, were loaning icebreakers to the Russians 

until after World War II. So we have declined quite a bit, and we 

need to be about the business of correcting that. 

Admiral MICHEL. Yeah. If I can add in here. I agree with everything Admiral Papp said. You know, the Russians understand that 

in order to have governance, and in order to enforce sovereignty, 

you have got to have presence. And if you are talking about icecovered waters of this caliber, you need heavy icebreaking capability. 

When I came in the Coast Guard, we had five heavy icebreakers. 

When my commandant came into the Coast Guard, we had seven 

heavy icebreakers. We have allowed that to atrophy all the way 

down to one heavy icebreaker that is over 40 years old that has 

been refurbed for another 5 to 8 years of use, and one medium icebreaker. That is a long history as to why we find ourselves where 

we do, but I can tell you as a Coast Guardsman, right now, I cannot guarantee the United States of America global year-round access to all the ice covered areas where we have sovereign interests, 

and that is where we are today, sir. 

Mr. SIRES. You want—would you like to add something and 

then——

Admiral PAPP. Well, yes, sir. What I would say, though, is, you 

know, finally, and I used to be working with Admiral Michel, and 

I would say not only did I start my career in Alaska 40 years ago, 

but over the last decade, I have spent a lot of time focused on the 

Arctic and trying to advance the issue of building icebreakers. 

You know, the President has committed now, he has committed 

to speeding up the construction of the first icebreaker, and he is 

now talking plural in terms of icebreakers, and I have—I am assured that we are moving in that direction. But we got it, we got 

that commitment because we finally got him to Alaska. I mean, 

there are a lot of other issues that our President, our administration, our Congress is focused on, and there has been a lot of discussion about, well, it is only about climate change. Well, yes, that is 

a legacy issue for this President, and it is what brought him to 

Alaska. And I for one, having responsibility for Arctic activities, am 

44

glad that he came up there for any reason, I don’t care what reason, but he finally got up there. 

And coming back from Alaska now, these are now top priorities 

for the administration. And I have been over to the White House, 

to the national security staff, and there are commitments now to 

start moving these things forward. So while it may not be moving 

fast enough for some people, I am grateful that now we have 

progress on these issues. 

Mr. SIRES. I just find the disparity being so large, how can anybody be comfortable with security? I mean, you—what were you 

going to say before? 

Admiral GALLAUDET. Yes, sir. I can give you the Navy and the 

Department of Defense perspective on that. With respect to Russia, 

in general, in the Arctic, we do have concerns, and we are watching 

the Greenland, Iceland, U.K. gap very closely, but we also see that 

Russia has not made any attempts to violate our territorial seas. 

We have agreed since 1990 on the Bering Strait maritime boundary 

with Russia, and they are fully complying with that. 

And in addition, I must concur with Admiral Papp’s comments 

by personal observation. I was in Saint Petersburg, Russia 2 weeks 

ago. The Russian’s navy chaired shared the Arctic Region Hydrographic Commission, and this is under the International Hydrographic Organization, which governs all standards and cooperation 

for hydrographic activities and making sea-floor maps. And the 

Russians were very, very open about their intentions in the Arctic. 

And that was exactly what Admiral Papp had said. They intend to 

develop it economically. Their security, their growth, and their 

military is designed primarily for that, to provide the security for 

that economic growth of the northern sea route. And we were quite 

amazed that they would be so forthright and open in sharing hydrographic data with us, encouraging cooperation. They basically 

view the Arctic as the one region the rest of the world might work 

with them on in view of their aggression in Crimea. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And I will reserve the 

final area of questions. I did watch some of your testimony from 

the side room before I had to go into that conference call. 

Mr. Yoho, would you like to move forward? 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I appreciate 

you being here. I am glad it is a bipartisan group that you let the 

Navy sit with you, too. And, you know, when I look at this, I want 

to ask this question, and I want this question directed at us, because it obviously is. But I want to hear from you guys so that 

hopefully people will listen to this in their offices. 

How detrimental has it been for Congress’ failure to complete our 

budget, get away from CRs, on your planning, your procurement, 

and your mission in your—in what you guys do? I mean, how detrimental has that been over the last, say, 5, 10 years? 

This is your chance, Admiral Papp. 

Admiral PAPP. Sir, as a former service chief who had to go 

through sequestration, and all kinds of other activities, it almost 

doubles your workload because you have to plan. You have to take 

your already limited staff and plan for multiple contingencies. You 

know, whether it is a government shutdown, whether it is an inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:31 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\111715\97634 SHIRL
45

ability to award a contract to build a ship, and then going through 

processes to begin an orderly shutdown of the government by 

issuing notices to all of your civilian employees and others, and 

telling your military people that they still have to work, but they 

may not get paid. 

I mean, it is just tremendously frustrating for people, particularly people in uniform that are out there doing their job and they 

understand they have to continue to do their job, and not seeing 

the most simplest aspect of a government approving a budget come 

through in a timely manner so that they can work more effectively 

and keep things going. 

We have had to cancel conferences. We have had Arctic Council 

meetings where we have had to cancel at the last minute because 

we approached 1 October, and the budget hasn’t been passed and, 

you know, things like that. So, I mean, it is almost now contingency planning in everything that you do, because even though you 

know that, okay, they are going to come through with a continuing 

resolution at the last moment, you still got to go through the process of preparing for a shutdown, or canceling conferences, and 

other things. So it is just tremendously inefficient. 

Mr. YOHO. In your opinion, is this one of the things that led 

down to the scale-down of the amount of icebreakers that we have? 

Commandant Michel? 

Admiral MICHEL. I don’t think that was the main issue on the 

icebreakers was sort of from another genesis, but I echo what Admiral Papp said. I mean, the lack of certainty that you have in buying capital assets doesn’t help the process, very detrimental to personnel, and I can tell you, it degrades morale within the organization. 

Mr. YOHO. Absolutely. 

Admiral MICHEL. People don’t feel like they are valued, and they 

are being sent home. We have had reductions in operating hours 

and a whole bunch of other things, sir, that impacts us. The only 

reason I say on the icebreakers is, you know, we have had—the recapitalization challenges are of a much broader nature and they 

deal with sort of the responsibilities within the executive branch on 

recapitalization of the icebreaking fleet. And it is at such kind of 

a nascent stage during these latest cycles of sequestration, and so 

on and so forth, that I don’t think that has been the primary driver 

for why we are where we are with the heavy icebreaking capability. 

Mr. YOHO. All right, I appreciate that. And of course, obviously, 

one of the things that does is that it winds up increasing the costs 

down the road, and you know, we are trying to save money. But 

in the end, the result, you know, we wind up costing us so much 

more money. So I just wanted to hear that because we knew that, 

but I want more people to hear that so that we get our act together 

up here. So I gave you some freedom there. Are you guys at the 

liberty to speak about the posturing of other countries, primarily 

Russia, and/or China, and what we can expect in the future up 

there? I mean, hopefully the goal is to keep it demilitarized, but 

as people get up there, territories and stakes get claimed. What are 

your thoughts on that? We will start with you, Admiral. 

Admiral GALLAUDET. Yeah, thank you, Congressman Yoho. In regards to the posturing of Russia and China, I spoke previously 

46

about Russia in our opinion that their intention is primarily economic development and we feel no threat in the Arctic by the Russians. 

However, in addition, the Chinese and their work in the Arctic 

has been limited to either research with their icebreaker, the Snow 

Dragon, or just recently, you probably know that some of their surface ships conducted an innocent passage in our Arctic waters. 

They announced it well in advance. They followed international 

law, and in fact, it made a very good case for us to point to what 

they are doing in the South China Sea, and show that that was inconsistent and not following the rule of law. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you. 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, we actually have pretty good working relationships with our counterparts in both China and Russia. So for 

example, the Russians were just in New London, Connecticut, our 

Coast Guard Academy, to actually formally sign the agreement for 

their participation in the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, and that is 

going to be an operationally-focused agency that will run exercises 

on topics likes search and rescue, or environmental protection reasons. And we actually have quite a good working relationship, daily 

working relationship with the Russian Border Guard, who is our 

counterpart and we work on fisheries issues and search and rescue, 

and a whole bunch of things. 

As far as China goes, ours has all been cooperative with them as 

well, whether it is the Xue Long, or whether it is the China Coast 

Guard who participates in the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum 

which deals with Bering Sea issues or high-seas drift and enforcement, and a whole range of different issues. 

So from a Coast Guard wheelhouse, our relationships are surprisingly good, and they are beneficial for both countries, and we 

try to work very hard at those, sir. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you. I appreciate your time and my time is up. 

But I appreciate your service. I appreciate what you do. And I hope 

Russia and China and we all work together andkeep it, you know, 

on the table, above the table. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thanks very much. We have about—well, I 

have got 6 minutes left. And let me just note that as we have heard 

through this questioning and your testimony that budget issues, 

more than weather issues, are determining what policies we take 

that will deal with the Arctic. So with that said and with that understanding that the budget challenges that we have, we are borrowing money, talking about China’s role, how about the fact that 

they buy our debt, and that one out of every $5 we spend, is borrowed money? 

So with that said, we need to focus on the economic element of 

the plan. And let me suggest that perhaps whatever cost is needed 

to maximize the benefit, the American people, and the people of the 

world, will have from the Arctic has to be not just a signing of 

checks by the Federal Government and passing them on, but instead, perhaps different ways of approaching a very costly program 

and project, which is utilizing the Arctic for its best uses to benefit 

mankind and benefit the United States. 

Contracting out rather than buying icebreakers, we hear that icebreakers are the ultimate, right now, capital asset that is necVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:31 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_EEET\111715\97634 SHIRL
47

essary to ensure that this—we get the value out of the Arctic. 

There is no reason to have to buy them, is there? I mean, SpaceX, 

I think, has actually, or gone into, how about private sector-public 

sector partnerships? How about allowing buying a cheaper, or buying the same ship in from Finnish shipyards? These are all things 

that could impact on the economic decision as to what we should 

move forward with. 

And I am sure that you agree that these things should be at 

least explored to see how much potential we can get out of contracting out, having somebody else build the ships, perhaps public 

partnerships. And again, which you have demonstrated which is 

music to my ears, which is cooperation, international cooperation 

to make sure that we are—others are picking up a large portion, 

or at least a portion of the cost that will benefit everybody. 

But lastly, how about if there is going to be a harvesting of fish, 

or an extraction of minerals, or oil, and gas, would it be possible 

for us to have a user fee, or a tax on those specifically, that wealth 

coming from there, that because after all, if it is dependent on our 

resources to keep that avenue open, that wouldn’t be necessarily a 

tax. That would be a user fee for those businesses that are involved 

in Arctic enterprise. Is that a possibility? 

Admiral MICHEL. Sir, we have been dealing with user fees in the 

past, and that has always required legislative authority. The Coast 

Guard does not have organic authority to impose user fees, for example, for search and rescue services and things like that, and we 

traditionally don’t do that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Admiral MICHEL. If Congress were to direct it by legislation, then 

I assume that Congress can——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Maybe there could be certain areas that are 

designated as high risk areas that will depend on government assets to achieve an end, and thus, if you are going to be making a 

profit from that area, there is a payment that would be required 

for the government providing that service. Just a thought. 

I have 3 minutes to go and vote. I want to thank all of your for 

your testimony. I will read exactly what you said. I think this has 

been very beneficial to start this discussion. And again, a lot of the 

things that you have been saying has been music to my ears. Good 

luck to you all. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:17p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

50

f


97634n.eps
51

f


97634m.eps
52

Æ


97634d.eps