 Thank you all for understanding. This is a complicated morning, more for Senator Makowski than us. I mean, she was on her way over here and got hit by a metro bus. And we're just really very, she's a real trooper to do something, but then she's from Alaska, you know, you'd have to have a lot of stamina, you know, and I think you've demonstrated it this morning, Senator. We're so grateful that you're here. This is, of course, you are the senator from the High North in America and have done more than anybody to shape America's thinking about this critical region. And of course, that's led you to become an internationalist because that by definition is what we have to do. And we're thinking about this region. So Senator Makowski has been a leader on both Arctic legislation and has been a leader in trying to get law of the sea finally moving. And I think it's it's emblematic someone that's out on the frontier has to also be out on the intellectual frontier. And she has been doing that. And we're so grateful that you're here. We apologize colleagues that we had to do it this way. And but Senator Makowski, why don't you come up and offer your your remarks. Finally, you're here. Thank you for coming. Well, good morning. And you know, today's going to be one of those days where they're going to be a lot of bus jokes. And I was thinking, as you mentioned, that at least I wasn't thrown under the bus or whatever. But I will tell you coming from Alaska in the land of the earthquakes, when when we got hit, I thought, Oh my gosh, there's an earthquake going on. So it tells you that I'm not a city kid yet. You're probably more used to the to the to the bus vehicular interface. But anyway, I I appreciate the opportunity to be back with you. And my apologies for for interruption of the panel. I know that that is intrusive. But I think you you got the the good excuse this morning, it's better than dog eating the homework. I want to thank CSIS and the Norwegian Institute for defense studies for sponsoring the conference that you have before us. You've got a great panel, a great panel of some of the top experts on the Arctic as as speakers and panelists. I really wish that I could could attend so much of what you have in front of you today. I'm going to have to rely on on my staff aren't here for some of that. But I I do think you've put together a great group. It is it is indeed a great opportunity for me to be here to talk about the Arctic and and john has noted my involvement. But it is one of those subject areas when I get talking is a lot of passion for the issue passion for what is happening up north and and for the opportunities that present themselves. There is as you know, a growing public interest in the region is primarily due to the impacts of climate change, the loss of the sea ice, the increased access to natural resources. Of course, the attention on the polar bear is also attracted a great deal of interest there in the high north. But the significance of the region, both from the Arctic and the non Arctic states is clearly gaining in appreciation. I believe that we're at a critical time in the Arctic and many of you have heard me say that there are two paths that we can go on with regards to international relations. One is a path of competition and conflict. The other is one of cooperation and diplomacy. And I think that the the decision on which path we ultimately take is going to require some dynamic leadership. And one of the first areas that we need to demonstrate that leadership is here in the United States and the Senate ratification of the Convention for the Law of the Sea Treaty. I think it's absolutely crucial, absolutely critical that the United States be a party to the treaty and and a player in the process rather than being an outsider hoping just hoping that our interests are not going to be damaged. Accession to the convention would give current and and future administrations both the enhanced credibility and the leverage and calling upon other nations to meet the convention responsibilities and given the support for the treaty by Arctic nations and the drive to develop natural resources, the treaty will also provide the environmental framework to develop these resources while minimizing the environmental impacts. As you know, the United States is is the only Arctic state that is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. The treaty was submitted to the U.S. Senate for approval back in 1994 and we're still waiting. Canada and Denmark joined the treaty in 2003 and 2004 respectively. But until the U.S. exceeds to the treaty, it cannot submit its data regarding the extent of its extended continental shelf to the commission on the limits of the the continental shelf that's established under the treaty. And without a commission recommendation regarding such data, the legal foundation for ECS limits is is much much less certain than if the U.S. were a party to the treaty. So again, I repeat that we must ratify the treaty, but we're really at somewhat of a stalemate right now insofar as as resolving that. The White House is looking to the Senate to lead and the Senate is waiting for a stronger showing of support from the administration. Now in part, the Senate calendar is is somewhat to blame in this. It's anticipated that if the majority leader would move the treaty to the Senate floor, it it's expected that it would consume at least a week of floor time. And as you know within our process, a week on the floor is is is considerable and considering that we've got a little less than 45 legislative days before we depart for the August recess and and really get into to the thick of the political season. It's it's highly uncertain that such time, you know, a full week of time will be carved out unless unless it becomes a a priority for the administration. And given the president's focus of late on advancing the start treaty, I see even less of an opportunity to schedule the Law of the Sea Treaty this year. And again, unfortunately, failure to ratify continues to keep the US at a disadvantage internationally and outside the process without a seat at the table. I wish I could give you more optimistic news from the from the Senate's perspective, but I'm just being pragmatic about what's going on with within the Senate calendar. Now I spoke of these two possible paths forward and I want to expand on that in a minute. Some have described a scenario where the Arctic is undergoing an arms race or a race for resources, but I'm not necessarily convinced that this is the case. I do believe that we've got some posturing going on, especially between Canada and Russia, but not much of that is is translating into action. The Canadian government's taken a number of steps and statements to assert their sovereignty in the region, including the release of a Northern strategy as well as planning of a military base in the Canadian Arctic, plans to build a build a fleet of ice strength and patrol boats renaming the Northwest Passage, the Canadian Northwest Passage. Russia also has evidence, some increasingly assertive behavior in regards to military and economic expansion in the in the Arctic. The Russian Security Council released details of how it will conduct its Arctic policy. The document is entitled The Fundamentals of Russian State Policy in the Arctic up to 2020 and beyond. Now that document touches upon sustainable development and environmental conservation and even emphasizes the need to preserve the Arctic as a zone of peace and cooperation. And while the new strategy does reaffirm the determination of the country to establish a new military unit designed to protect the country's Arctic territory, the policy is clearly much broader than that. Now here in the United States, we, as you know, have issued an updated policy for the Arctic. This was done in January of 2009, the National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic policy. I'm pleased to see that we're making some some good progress. It was a somewhat lengthy transition with the new administration, but the State Department is leading the effort to implement the policy, and various agencies are moving forward with the implementation, which is good. The U.S. Navy has a new roadmap for the Arctic. I've asked them to study the feasibility of a deep water port in the far north. The study will look to assess whether it's in the strategic best interests of the United States, as I believe it is, to build a port and then determine where that port might be located. A deep water port will clearly not only serve our military and our Coast Guard needs, but as we develop our offshore oil and gas reserves and see more shipping, more tourism, more vessel traffic within the Arctic, we recognize that a deep water port could provide valuable support for these activities as well. This study is anticipated to be complete by 2011. In addition to the Navy study, the U.S. Coast Guard has embarked on their own high-latitude study to determine what assets and infrastructure they need to be prepared for an ice-diminished Arctic. This assessment will also be done by 2011. And I think it's well recognized, and I appreciate the focus and the involvement, the commitment from the Coast Guard. We recognize that with increased maritime activity in the Arctic and such an incredible shortage of infrastructure that it really is vital that we determine what the needs are and then actively work to provide resources to protect the Arctic residents as well as the environment. Now, other nations without coast lines in the Arctic are also showing an increasing interest within the region. The Chinese have one icebreaker. They're planning to build more. They've got a very active polar research program. The South Korean shipyards are now leading the world in construction of icebreakers, mostly of finished design and ice-strengthened tankers and freighters. Both countries, along with Italy and the European Union, have applied for observer status at the Arctic Council. The EU, through the European Commission and the European Parliament, is gradually developing an Arctic policy to address EU interests in the region as well. Now, as we are all very keenly aware, well the Arctic is becoming more and more ice-free in the summer months. Arctic ice is not going to completely disappear. And one of the challenges that we will continue to face as a consequence is that we have an aging icebreaker fleet. As you know, the US has one operating heavy icebreaker, the Polar Sea, and we have one light icebreaker research vessel, the Healy. I was able to get an appropriation to refurbish the other heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, last year and fund the US Coast Guard to do a study to determine whether or not we need to rebuild or to replace our polar class vessels. But really, no matter what the results of the study, we must make the commitment and gain the commitment of the administration and within Congress. The commitment that says that icebreakers are a national priority. And I'll continue to do all I can to advocate that position, extraordinarily important. Now, as you may have also observed, in the last few years, the governance of the Arctic has become even more complex. In 2008, the five coastal states bordering the Arctic Ocean, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the US, perceiving growing interest in the region and perhaps somewhat preemptively, issued a declaration that reaffirmed their role as the primary stakeholders of the high north. Reinforced the law of the sea as the law of the land and mechanism for resolving potentially overlapping Arctic Ocean claims. But because they did not include the other permanent participants of the Arctic Council, there were a number of concerns raised. And this issue came up just recently in Quebec on March 29th of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who I must say has been a real champion for the Arctic in this administration. She was up there for a one day Arctic summit. But only the Arctic coastal states were invited and participated. And Secretary Clinton criticized Canada for not inviting all those with legitimate interest in the polar region. Both the indigenous community and the Arctic nations of Sweden, Finland and Iceland had voiced concerns that they had been left out of that particular conference. Now, while conflict in the region may not be imminent, certainly there are competing interests and competing views within the region. And this really leads to some fundamental questions such as who are the major stakeholders on issues of Arctic governance? What are their interests? What are their roles? We recognize or I certainly recognize and I think those of you in the room recognize that there is great opportunity to work collaboratively and cooperatively. The Arctic is one area where the Obama administration can highlight this international cooperation in the implementation of US foreign policy. And this kind of follows the administration's intent to reset relations with Russia. And the Arctic, I think, is a great place to be starting that. There are many examples of this cooperation that we have seen amongst nations. We've got the Canada-US Arctic cooperation agreement on the Northwest Passage. This bilateral agreement allows for practical cooperation regarding matters relating to the Northwest Passage while affirming that the two countries agree to disagree about the status of the passage under applicable international law. But it demonstrates a capacity to collaborate in functional terms without resolving some of the legal differences. Now, I've mentioned the Arctic Council, but there are other effective forums for international dialogue on the Arctic, including the Standing Committee of Arctic Parliamentarians, of which I'm a member. We have the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Barron's Euro Arctic Council, the Northern Forum. We've also got to recognize the valuable contribution that organizations like the Inuit Circumpolar Council have played in representing the indigenous people's interests in the far north. There are many, many agreements that we can cite to between the Arctic states with regards to the fisheries alone. We've got agreements between Norway, Iceland, the Russian Federation in the Barents Sea, the United States and Russia on Pollock stocks in the Bering Sea and the EU and Norway in Svalbard. My former colleague, Senator Ted Stephens and I, we introduced a Senate resolution that became law back in 2008 that calls on the US to enter into international discussions, take necessary steps with other Arctic nations to agree on management of migratory transboundary and straddling fish stocks within the Arctic Ocean. And I'm pleased that the administration has been doing so at every opportunity, including when Secretary Clinton met with foreign ministers of other Arctic coastal nations in Canada last month. And in October of last year, Anchorage played host to the International Arctic Fisheries Symposium, which brought together scientists, fisheries managers, policymakers from around the Arctic region to consider those next steps. And I understand now that Norway is offering to host a follow-up meeting in the near future. But it again is an example of how we promote cooperative scientific research in the changing Arctic ecosystem as a step towards this management of the new fisheries that may occur there. Now, an area of perceived competition is the extended continental shelf claims of the Arctic states. And while there's been a dramatic increase in mapping activity in the Arctic, it's actually, I think, an area where we're seeing a fair amount of agreement. Canada and Greenland have agreed on delimitation of the continental shelf between them, as Norway has with Iceland and Greenland on Jan Mayen Island. The US and Canada have been working the last two summers on extended continental shelf data collection in the Arctic. They're scheduled to work again this summer. The US icebreaker Healy completed the second summer of joint mapping with the Canadian icebreaker, the Louis Saint Laurent. And though each ship has their own equipment in order to accomplish the mission, combining their efforts provides better data, they can cover more area together. We're also seeing Norway and Russia working together to jointly survey the Barents Sea area. And in the latest development of international cooperation, just yesterday, Russia and Norway announced that they have reached agreement on the resolution of their maritime boundary in the Arctic and on the management of fisheries and potential mineral development in the region. The next step is to develop a treaty between the two nations and regulations governing joint development of the resources. I think this agreement is a significant step towards eliminating the most significant boundary dispute among the Arctic states. I know there will be much for the discussion about the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment that recommends the comprehensive multinational Arctic search and rescue instrument amongst the eight Arctic nations. But I'm pleased to report that the US State Department, the Russian Federation, are leading the negotiations with the goal of having an agreement ready to be signed by the Arctic ministers when the Arctic Council convenes in April of next year. And then, of course, the great collaboration and cooperation that took place with the International Polar Year, which lasted from 2007 to 2009, certainly a collaborative multinational effort that was really quite considerable. So really what does the future hold for the Arctic? I believe that the pace of change in the Arctic demands, demands that greater attention be focused on the region. The implications of the dynamic changing Arctic for the residents and the important security, economic, environmental, and political interest depend on it. But again, the question must be asked is whether or not this is going to be an area of multilateral cooperation or whether it will be an area of conflict. But I remain confident, hopeful certainly, that it will be one of cooperation. But it will take robust diplomacy and very likely recognition as Secretary Clinton has reminded us that the interest in the Arctic is not just limited to the five Arctic coastal states or even the eight countries who are the permanent members of the Arctic Council. It'll take a level of cooperation and collaboration to include the non-Arctic states as well. I am pleased that it seems like it's been a long time, ever so, ever so slowly, the United States is waking up to the fact that we are indeed an Arctic nation. And it has taken a lot of work by many of you in this room to have folks at a policy level not only accept indoors but to embrace the fact that we are an Arctic nation. And I'm confident that with the leadership of members of Congress, the administration from the Arctic community at large, we can continue to highlight the strategic importance of the Arctic for this country. With that, again, I thank you for all that you do on this very, very important issue in this incredible part of our globe. Thank you very much.