May 23, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 87 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S3079-S3081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE ARCTIC

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have asked for a few moments on the 
floor today to speak about an issue I care about deeply. It is a part 
of the globe, a part of the world that, in my view, is truly evolving 
and is as dynamic an area as anyplace on planet Earth. This is the 
Arctic.
  The Arctic is growing in prominence around the globe. Countries like 
China, India, and Germany have taken a keen interest in what happens in 
the far north.
  I have had many colleagues ask me: Why should a Senator from, say, 
the State of Indiana care about the Arctic?
  I guess my rhetorical answer would be this: Well, why should China 
care about the Arctic? Why should Japan, Germany, and India care about 
the Arctic? If they are paying attention to it, shouldn't we, as an 
Arctic nation that actually has territory in the Arctic, be interested 
and focused on this as well?
  To be fair, we have made some good progress this year. I appreciate 
the administration working with us. I appreciate my colleagues here in 
the Congress who worked with us to ensure that we were able to advance 
appropriations for the first polar security cutter. This is significant 
news for the American Arctic. People have heard me say that we have 
about 1\1/2\ icebreakers in the United States right now. We have the 
Polar Star, which breaks ice down in Antarctica, meeting our 
obligations there. We have the Polar Sea, which is tied up in 
Washington State and will probably never see service again. We have a 
medium-strength icebreaker, the Healey, which does a fair amount of 
research work. But for us, as an Arctic nation, it is important to have 
a fleet of icebreakers.
  That is what we, as an Arctic nation, must be working toward, so a 
contract for the design and construction of the first polar-class 
icebreaker to be built in the United States in the past 40 years was 
awarded just last month. As a nation, we haven't seen work on an 
icebreaker in four decades now.
  A total of $20 million is also being provided for long lead time 
materials for a second polar security cutter. Hopefully, we will be 
talking about more than just one polar security cutter and we will one 
day have what this country, as an Arctic nation, should have, and that 
is a fleet.
  But the Arctic is about more than just icebreakers. It is about the 
people who live there. It is about the environment. It is about its 
location on the globe. The Arctic is a living and breathing place. I 
think some people, in their mind's eye, view the Arctic as a frozen 
wasteland, or perhaps it is a snow globe that just kind of sits up on a 
shelf and you don't touch it. But it is not. It is home to some 4 
million people in the Arctic region. It is not highly populated, but 
there are people living, working, raising their families, subsisting, 
and engaging in commerce. It is an important place.
  It is a good thing when officials at the highest levels get together 
to discuss the issues within the Arctic. That

[[Page S3080]]

is what happened earlier this month--actually May 6 and 7--at the 
Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland. The Foreign 
Ministers for each of the eight Arctic nations were in attendance. The 
significance of that is noteworthy. It was only the second time in the 
council's 30-plus-year history that all of the eight Ministers were 
gathered together. I was pleased to be a part of the U.S. delegation 
that was led by our Secretary of State, Secretary Pompeo.
  This was actually the fifth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting that I 
have attended going back to 2011, when the ministerial was held in 
Nuuk, Greenland. At that point in time, it was then-Secretary of State 
Clinton. That marked the first time the U.S. Secretary of State 
attended such a meeting. So 2011--it wasn't too many years ago that the 
United States had a Secretary of State attend.
  The Arctic Council includes the eight Arctic nations. The eight 
Arctic nations are Canada, United States, Russia, Finland, Sweden, 
Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. It also includes six permanent 
participant groups within the Arctic Council that represent the 
indigenous populations within the region. Four of those partially 
reside in Alaska, and those are the Aleut International Association, 
the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the Gwich'in Council International, and 
the Inuit Circumpolar Council. While only the Arctic nations have 
voting rights, the permanent participants have a seat at the table, and 
they provide valuable input into the council's discussions and 
deliberations. I think we really saw the impact of the permanent 
participants at this most recent ministerial.
  The council also has 38 observers, including 13 non-Arctic nations--
this goes back to China, as I mentioned earlier--13 intergovernmental 
and interparliamentary groups, and 12 nongovernmental entities. The 
number of observers and the number of pending applications to be 
observers has grown considerably in the past several years. Again, it 
just goes to demonstrate the rest of the world's interest in the 
Arctic.
  Much of what we have seen reported after the ministerial that was 
held in Rovaniemi focused not on what happened but on what didn't 
happen at the ministerial, which was that, for the first time, there 
was not a signed ministerial declaration.
  I was not part of any of the Minister-level discussions that went on 
either prior to their convening in Rovaniemi or directly prior to the 
day of the ministerial itself, but the crux of the impasse there was 
language regarding climate change and how much of the declaration would 
actually reference it.
  This has all been reported very widely in the media, but what has not 
been reported nearly as broadly are the areas of agreement that were 
highlighted at the ministerial. All eight nations signed a joint 
ministerial statement--not a declaration but a statement--which 
reaffirmed their commitment to maintain peace, stability, and 
cooperation in the Arctic. That is kind of a given. That is what we 
want to work for with each ministerial. But the joint statement 
recognized the diversity of the inhabitants of the region and the 
rights of the Arctic indigenous people. It also reaffirmed the 
commitment to sustainable development and the protection of the Arctic 
environment.
  In addition to that very short statement, there was a statement by 
the chair of the ministerial meeting--the Foreign Minister of Finland--
that encompassed what would have been in a declaration had one been 
signed and noted many of the areas of agreement amongst all the Arctic 
nations. These were items such as the importance of the role of 
scientific research, along with traditional and local knowledge, the 
significance of the Arctic Environment Ministers' Meeting, the Arctic 
Climate Change Update 2019 report, the outcomes from the Arctic 
Resilience Forum, the convening of the Second Arctic Science 
Ministerial. It encourages further work in adapting to climate change 
impacts, such as permafrost thaw, and responding to weather extremes, 
including the increased risk of wildfires.
  Looking at the Foreign Minister's statement, it was clear that there 
were many areas and many provisions on which there was cooperation and 
agreement within the Arctic Council and many areas of agreement on 
environmental issues as well.
  Another topic reported in the news was comments by Secretary Pompeo 
the day before the ministerial that were pretty direct. They were 
pretty directed and were directed to Russian and Chinese activity in 
the Arctic. The Secretary's remarks pointed to a reality, plain and 
simple. They pointed to a growing reality that today's Arctic is not 
the Arctic we have known in generations past.
  We all still want--I certainly want, as one who works hard on Arctic 
issues every day--we want those buzz words that are synonymous with the 
region to continue to apply today and well into the future, words like 
``cooperation,'' ``collaboration,'' and calling the Arctic the ``zone 
of peace.''
  Greater accessibility to the region and its resources, as we are 
seeing the ice that is receding from the shore--with greater 
opportunities for commercial transit, you have greater accessibility--
is also bringing increased international awareness. You have seen not 
only a level of interest, but you have seen a level of investment 
activity and clearly competing interests that are presenting.
  Some of this is great news. Fiber optic cable and satellite coverage 
are bringing a level of connectivity to small, remote, and isolated 
communities, which is something the communities embrace. With these 
advancements, we see impacts on the culture and on the values of the 
indigenous populations.
  We are seeing opportunities for tourism. Cruise ships with thousands 
of passengers are pulling into small coastal communities, which 
certainly boost their economy, but think about the impact when you have 
1,000 people who may want to disembark into a community that doesn't 
have the infrastructure. It dwarfs the local population and impacts the 
existing infrastructure there.
  Then, of course, whether we like it or not, national security 
interests are now at the forefront of many of the discussions about the 
High North. Secretary Pompeo--again, his words were pretty direct. He 
said:

       The region has become an arena for power and for 
     competition. And the eight Arctic States must adapt to this 
     new future.

  He also said that the Arctic Council no longer has the luxury to 
focus exclusively on scientific collaboration, cultural matters, and 
environmental research. He suggests that there is a new age of 
strategic engagement in the Arctic.
  I don't disagree with the Secretary that military and national 
security issues are much, much, much more prevalent now than they were 
only 10 years ago, and it kind of begs the question as to whether the 
Arctic Council should expand its portfolio and take on these issues. 
That was the discussion I participated in later that day in Helsinki at 
the Munich Security Conference that was focused on Arctic security.
  When the Arctic Council was established in 1996, military and 
national security interests were specifically excluded from Council 
activities. They chose to focus on economic development and resilience, 
the environment, research, the cultures, and left off of the mission 
requirements, if you will, the issues of national security and military 
interest. I think that is probably why we have been able to see such 
cooperation and collaboration coming out of the Arctic Council for 
these many years.
  Yet, as was mentioned by the Foreign Minister from Finland in a 
follow-on discussion about the ministerial, it is not as if we can just 
place a ``Do Not Disturb'' sign on the Arctic--we as Arctic nations. It 
has changed. It is changing. Investment is happening. The activity is 
already occurring. So whether we are ready for it, whether we want it, 
whether we want to put out that ``Do Not Disturb'' sign or not, it is 
happening.
  Russia is modernizing, and they are expanding their security posture 
in the region. Some say it is in a provocative manner; we can argue 
about that. But it is certainly a manner that suggests that they 
recognize the value of the region to their national interests, as well 
as the growing non-Arctic nation attention and access to the region.
  China is also quite interested. During the same week as the Arctic 
Council

[[Page S3081]]

Ministerial, the Arctic Circle Assembly held a forum in Shanghai. So 
think about it. We were having an Arctic Circle Assembly in Shanghai. 
Think about how far Shanghai is from the Arctic. It highlighted China's 
interest and their investment in the Arctic. So, again, the geography 
can say that this is not an Arctic nation, not even a near-Arctic 
nation, but from scientific research to economic interest in the 
Arctic's natural resources, China has made it very clear that it has no 
intention of reducing its interests in a Polar Silk Road.
  What Secretary Pompeo made very clear is, look, if there is going to 
be investment in the region, we all need to be operating by the same 
rules, and the rules require transparency--transparency when it comes 
to investment in the region, regardless of who is making it. I would 
add to that notion that those who live in the region should benefit 
from any investment in the Arctic, as they are the ones who bear the 
greatest risk in any economic activity, whether it is on the shore or 
in the waters.
  We recognize there are plenty of opportunities in the Arctic, as we 
are seeing the impacts of climate change and what that means to an area 
that is becoming more exposed, but with those opportunities come very 
real challenges, and we have to address those as well. That includes 
environmental effects that come with climate change as we see a reduced 
sea ice cover and the need to develop rules of the road to provide 
transparency for the growing amount of investment in the Far North by 
both Arctic and non-Arctic actors alike.
  One of the underreported events of the Rovaniemi Ministerial was the 
signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Arctic Council and 
the Arctic Economic Council. This new agreement will provide a 
framework to enhance responsible economic development and build 
partnerships for issues of common interest and capacity building of 
Arctic inhabitants. Perhaps this is the first step in developing a 
framework for transparent Arctic investment and a new age of strategic 
engagement in the Arctic.
  I was very honored to attend both the Arctic Council Ministerial in 
Finland, as well as the Arctic Circle Assembly in Shanghai. I continue 
to believe it is critical for us--for those in the administration, for 
us here in Congress--to actively engage in the Arctic. We have a lot at 
stake here. The region has a lot at stake, and we need to establish 
sound policy that will take advantage of all of our opportunities and 
address our challenges while ensuring that we are working to the 
benefit of the local residents.
  I think it is so important to reinforce that we cannot assume that if 
we are not stepping it up in the Arctic, that means nobody else is. 
That is absolutely and positively not the case. There is a level of 
engagement and there is a level of interest that is global. We are one 
of the eight Arctic nations. We have a place; we have a people in the 
Arctic. We have an obligation, as an Arctic nation, to behave as one.
  Alaskans are more than happy to lead whenever and wherever possible, 
but this is not an Alaska-specific issue. This is not just Alaska. This 
is all of us as a country. We also need that recognition at the Federal 
level.
  I encourage Members of this Chamber to recognize the importance of 
the Arctic, to pay greater attention to what is happening there, to 
make the region a priority in our policymaking efforts, and to help 
ensure that America, which is an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska--
that we, as an Arctic nation, catch up to all of the others that are 
looking with great interest, whether making investments or truly making 
an impression on the Arctic.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

                          ____________________