Implementing U.S. Policy in the Arctic

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation held a hearing to review U.S. policy in the Arctic and how the agencies with the largest presence in the Arctic intend to implement such policy. The Subcommittee heard from the Coast Guard, the Navy, the Department of State, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the State of Alaska. 

Click here for additional background information.

Witnesses:

Panel I

Vice Admiral Peter V. Neffenger, Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard | Written Testimony

Rear Admiral Jonathan White, Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy; Director, Space and Maritime Domain Awareness, U.S. Navy | Written Testimony

Ambassador David Balton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of State | Written Testimony

Panel II

Captain Dave Westerholm, USCG Ret., Director, Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration | Written Testimony

Dr. Kelly Falkner, Division Director, Polar Programs, Geosciences Directorate, National Science Foundation | Written Testimony

Ed Fogels, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska | Written Testimony

Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) made the following opening statement at today's hearing:

The Subcommittee is meeting this morning to review how the agencies that will play the largest roles in the Arctic intend to implement the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, as well as enhance their presence, understanding, and mission effectiveness in the area.

As we all know, the ice caps are shrinking in the Arctic, effectively creating new coastline and navigable waters.  This opening is already providing significant economic opportunities for the energy and maritime transportation sectors.  However, as human presence increases and as other nations continue to make claims in the Arctic, it has also exposed a new set of risks and challenges to our sovereignty and national security.

The National Strategy calls for a strong U.S presence in the Arctic, but the Implementation Plan that accompanies it fails to identify what specific infrastructure or capabilities are required to meet those goals, or how or when they will be funded.  For instance, there is no discussion of requirements for icebreakers, but each of the agencies here today requires one to carry out its missions in the Arctic.

While Russia maintains a fleet of nearly 40 icebreakers, and China, a non-Arctic nation, is building new icebreakers, the U.S. fleet of heavy icebreakers is in a dismal state.  One has been rusting away in Seattle for three years with a busted engine, while the Coast Guard fails to make a decision about its future.  The other is operational thanks to an infusion of $60 million from Congress, but will likely not last longer than another seven years.

The Coast Guard has been working with 10 other federal agencies to develop requirements for a new polar icebreaker, but has yet to identify where in its acquisition budget it will find $1.2 billion to construct it.  I share the concerns raised by Admiral Papp at our budget hearing in March that forcing the Coast Guard to pay for a new icebreaker will significantly delay the acquisition of other new assets the Service critically needs.  And I agree with him that the cost should be shared across all agencies that have requirements for an icebreaker.  I look forward to hearing from our witnesses whether they plan on contributing money, as opposed to just missions, to this whole-of-government effort.

I am also interested in hearing the status of negotiations on the Polar Code.  As vessel traffic increases, the implementation of the Polar Code should go a long way toward ensuring the safety of maritime transportation and protection of the Arctic environment.  Establishing vessel construction and operating standards up front will create a predictable operating environment for industry.

Finally, the United States is set to take the chairmanship of the Arctic Council next year.  I applaud the recent appointment of Admiral Papp as the Nation’s first Special Representative for the Arctic.  I am interested in hearing more about what role Admiral Papp will play in the chairmanship, as well as the agenda the State Department intends to put forward.

We need to be protecting our national interests in the Arctic.  I hope today’s hearing will draw light on how the administration intends to accomplish that.