During first Nome visit, Rep. Begich talks Arctic security, development and subsistence

Ben Townsend
Nick, we are happy you're here. Welcome to Nome.

Nick Begich III
Thanks, it's good to be here, having a great time, and learning a lot about the community while we're here.

Ben Townsend
It's your first time here, right?

Nick Begich III
This is my first time to Nome. We've met with a number of community leaders down in Washington D.C. and at various times when we're in Anchorage or Fairbanks. But you know, there's no replacement to being on the ground. And I like to tell people you can't learn to swim by reading about it in a book, you got to jump in the water. So we spend a lot of time traveling the state. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to come up to Nome, and it's been a great experience today.

Ben Townsend
Bad day to swim. It's a little stormy out there, but there were some people out there surfing for a little bit. Did you see that?

Nick Begich III
I did not see that. Yeah, I missed that. But that's a bold move. It's got to be a little chilly out there.

Ben Townsend
What did you see today? I understand you came in this morning. You're flying out tonight, so walk me through your itinerary.

Nick Begich III
So we started off with a tour of the port, and then a deeper dive with the mayor and other stakeholders, port director, on what the long term plan is for the port. Obviously, this is something that the congressional delegation for a long time has been working on, making sure that we have the funding for the port here in Nome. And making sure that we have the funding for the full vision of the port, right? Because I know there's been a lot of discussion around various iterations of what that port may ultimately become, but we have a clear vision, and in fact, when I go back to D.C. this week, we'll be hopefully moving the WRDA [Waterways Resource Development Act] bill out of the House on suspension, and in that there's authorization funds for the Port of Nome, so that remains a priority.

It was a good opportunity for us to talk with with the stakeholders attached to that port, and then from there we went over and and met with some folks over at Head Start, and we were checking out the accommodations for the kids, and then after that went over and met with leadership at Kawerak and talked about some of the issues that were important to them, top of mind for them. Housing being one of many that we talked about.

Transitioning from Kawerak, we went over and met with some small businesses today while we were in town, and we talked mining while we were in town. Can't visit Nome without talking mining.

Just a number of really good meetings. We met with Norton Sound [Health Corporation] over at the hospital, toured the hospital, and talked about the ways in which Norton Sound supports not just the community of Nome but the entire region, and and then wrapped up over there, taking a look at some of the new facilities, the expanded facilities for long term care for folks in this region. Really a comprehensive day here in Nome, and plenty of assignments to take back to Washington from the folks that we met with today.

Ben Townsend
I want to come back to the port real quick. There's a lot of local speculation as to who is this port really for? Is it for the benefit of the community or is it for the benefit of the military? What's the answer?

Nick Begich III
Yes. The answer is yes. The port, I think long-term vision is to serve both sets of stakeholders when it comes to to the port facilities, and in order to justify the level of investment necessary for the port, of course, there has to be a national security nexus.

We obviously see China and Russia collaborating more and more in the Arctic. Their frequency off our coastline is increasing significantly, and there's a recognition that we need to have forward operating capacity in Alaska.

When we're making these large icebreaker investments that are being made, more than 25 billion dollars went into the Coast Guard here with the budget reconciliation bill last year, a lot of that is icebreaker money. Well, you got to have facilities for those icebreakers. Those icebreakers need to be home ported where the ice is, and historically they have not been, which is a strange thought. But the icebreakers historically have been homeported down in Washington State, and we need to bring those assets up into the Arctic, and in order to do that effectively, we need ports like Nome to be available.

We also need to be able to respond more quickly. We saw with the tragedy of the two people who passed away here just a few days ago, and the miracle, quite frankly, of the young man who survived, we need to be able to respond more quickly. And part of being able to respond quickly is having the infrastructure and that capability in the higher north latitudes.

Ben Townsend
The election of President Trump in 2024 and inauguration in 2025, I guess, was a pretty pivotal moment for a lot of projects in the region. Ambler Road is one that comes to mind. While it's not necessarily in my backyard here, resource development is something that has been a beneficiary of Trump's election, certainly you've participated in a lot of those discussions. Graphite One is another example of a project here.

But with a lot of that movement, there's been some concerns about subsistence protections, conservation. So how do you view how Congress should balance economic development, resource development, with protecting subsistence resources that communities out here depend on.

Nick Begich III
It's a great question. We had an opportunity to meet with Bering Straits [Native Corporation] today, and this was a topic that came up. The conversation really revolved around making sure that the operators for these resource development opportunities are working in concert with local communities. These things can't be done in a vacuum, you've got to have local input. You've got to have local support wherever possible, and it takes time to build that support.

The support building process requires education. It requires iterative conversations, and it requires understanding what the local community values and needs. And in this case, in rural Alaska, that's subsistence protections. And so, I think Graphite One has done a good job engaging with the community, from what I've heard from folks, and I think other resource developers could probably learn some lessons from the way in which Graphite One has worked with these communities. As I've said for a long time, you can't trade temporary resources for a permanent one. It's important that these things be balanced, and I think that that comes with local engagement.

Ben Townsend
Energy costs are going to remain high across rural parts of Alaska for literally the next year. We get one or two fuel deliveries a year due to our sea ice. These elevated costs are a consequence of the war with Iran and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A War Powers Resolution was introduced earlier this year. You voted against that, to pull the U.S. military out of hostilities with Iran. Why?

Nick Begich III
Well, I think when you look at Iran, it's been a festering problem for the United States for nearly 50 years. And you go back, and we may not have recognized that that there was this level of hostility, but when you've got a nation that chants ‘death to America’ on a regular basis in their official government bodies, there's a problem there, and they have supported terrorism throughout not just their region but even the world, and that's an issue that needs to be addressed. And it's been sitting there for a long time.

There is going to be some short term challenges as we deal with Iran, but I think that largely we've seen their capabilities dramatically reduced, and once an initiative like that begins, we need to see it all the way through. And so that's why I voted the way that I voted.

I think long term, the best thing that we can do is become less dependent on that region and make sure the world is less dependent on that region. We've had a lot of conversations with folks in East Asia, and East Asia tends to be the location in the world where a lot of those energy flows end up. They're talking to us about pivoting away from the Middle East and moving those energy purchases to Alaska, and so I have literally had conversations with the ambassador from Japan to the United States about that very topic.

I recently was in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea and met with the president of South Korea, met with the president of Taiwan, met with senior people in Japan, and in every conversation that I had with them, they were talking about the Alaska gas line. They brought it up before even I could bring it up, and so I think that there's a growing recognition that there's a risk premium applied to energy worldwide when it comes from regions that are inherently unstable or have historically been unstable. I think long term, by introducing additional stability there, we will lower the price of energy and provide some incentive in the short and medium term for people to pivot away from those regions and start to purchase their energy from us.

Ben Townsend
The Department of Homeland Security has received huge amounts of money in the last year and a half, in large part going to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. You might be thinking, why am I asking about this? But a lot of native corporations in the state perform contracts with ICE, including Bering Straits Native Corporation here, also Akima, which is a subsidiary of NANA Regional Corporation. What's your perspective on the work that ICE has been doing for the last year and a half? It raises, with people I've talked to, an ethical question about who truly belongs in this country.

Nick Begich III
Look, it is a question, and there are a lot of ethics wrapped around this question. But to fully answer the question, you have to go back to the time that the border was open and porous. Is it ethical for us to take on all this cost and all this extra service burden from what turns out to have been, and we can argue about the number, but potentially 10s of millions of people coming in to the nation that end up utilizing services like Medicaid or certain housing services. And even if they're not utilizing government services, they are putting pressure on low-end housing stock.

And then you see in these regions of the country where rents are skyrocketing and other fundamental cost of living inputs are going up, and a big part of that increase in the cost of living that we've seen in the last few years can be attributable to the increased pressure that comes with 10s of millions of people coming into the country that that haven't been vetted, in many cases aren't paying taxes, but are net consumers of government services.

That's sort of the front end of the ethical question. Then the back end of the ethical question is now what do we do with these folks now that they're here? I think it's important for us to prioritize Americans and the American taxpayer, and for folks that have not been vetted and folks that are here illegally, I believe they need to be sent home.

Now, there's a way in which you do that, and I think that's where some of the conversation has gone in the national discussion about making sure you're doing that in the appropriate way, and I think folks certainly have a point with respect to how we go about doing that. But I think it needs to be done.

Ben Townsend
Native corporations are benefiting from these contracts in some ways because of their status as Native corporations, they're eligible for 8(a) contracts, sole source contracts, no compete contracts, which applies to ICE contracts, but also Department of Army contracts. Bering Straits Native Corporation has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military contracts.

The 8(a) program, though, was under threat earlier this year. Secretary Pete Hegseth had some concerns about the program and the way that it was preferring certain organizations. What's your perspective on the 8A program? Do you support protecting it?

Nick Begich III
I do, and I've been fighting to keep it in place and in DC. I think the 8(a) program provides a level of expertise and flexibility to purchasing agents throughout the government, but I do think it's important for us to make sure that we have operators that are operating cleanly and in good faith. And in some instances, and this is predominantly outside of Alaska, non-Alaskan operators, there have been examples where people have been abusing the system, or in some cases, rare cases, defrauding government.

I think it's a permanent responsibility of government to make sure they're rooting out fraud. And as anyone who pays taxes should want that function to be happening, that action to be ongoing, to make sure that we're looking for opportunities to eliminate fraud and put money where it's supposed to go.

So I think there were some concerns in D.C. around certain individual cases, and then a question arose saying, ‘Well, how pervasive is fraud and abuse in this program?’ And so I think that's where some of the concerns were originating, but Alaska and Alaskan operators have very clean, very good records, and have been responsible operators.

My advice to folks when that initial review was occurring was, ‘Hey, cooperate, be a part of the solution, open your books, show them how well you've been doing,’ and how strong your diligence has been, and how you've been following the process. That's what Alaskan 8(a) operators did, and I think that's why you're seeing those programs unlock a greater understanding of what 8(a) was originally intended to do in Washington.

Ben Townsend
I know I’ve got to get you out the door, so I have two more questions. Healthcare providers in rural Alaska face high operating costs. Here in Nome I can certainly verify there’s chronic workforce shortages. You're a member of the Rural Health Caucus, what specific federal action do you believe would have the greatest impact on access to healthcare in rural Alaska?

Nick Begich III
I think the Rural Health Transformation [Program] funding is a good place to start. It's certainly not the only place to start because it's constrained in certain ways, but the funding is intended to identify ways for us to deliver care that's either more effective or more efficient, right?

Certainly when you're dealing with the question of rural healthcare costs, effectiveness and efficiency are very important outcomes. And so we're looking for those innovative opportunities that we can invest in to make care more accessible for people and also more effective for the people that that care is trying to reach.

In addition to that, though, because the rural health transformation funding cannot be utilized for new infrastructure investment, I do think that there needs to be a look throughout Alaska at the rural health care infrastructure needs that we have. Here in Nome, we have a relatively new facility, and there's been some new investments that have been made in addition to that at Norton Sound. But that's not true everywhere throughout Alaska, and I think we need to go through systemically and look at what we'll call the infrastructure cycle plan, meaning okay, if something was built 40 or 50 years ago, it really needs to be refreshed.

We need to be planning for that longer term. And even while the facilities here in Nome are relatively new, there will come a time when they will need to be refreshed. And so I think thinking more long term about how we ensure that our infrastructure remains relevant and safe is an important part of that process.

Ben Townsend
You mentioned you went to Norton Sound today, that's a tribal hospital. You spent time at Kawerak, that's a tribal nonprofit. You spent time with a good number of Alaska Native leaders here in Nome. What were some of the issues that they brought up, and just to put a bow on everything here, what information are you taking back from those conversations?

Nick Begich III
There was conversation around making sure that if there's any amendments to the MMPA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, that it's done in concert with the Alaska Native community. Certainly, that would be my number one priority is making sure that any changes we would ever make to that legislation would be something that would be supported broadly within the Alaska Native community.

We talked a lot about issues like seabed mining, and making sure that if that were ever to go forward, that it's done in a very careful manner. I think there's a lot we don't understand about you know what they call nodule mining or black smoker mining, which is a lot different from what we do here in Nome. This is generally far away from the shore, but we want to make sure that anything that happens out there in our oceans is not going to be deleterious to our fishing populations, it's not going to hurt the ecosystem upon which those marine environments rely. And so we talked about that as well.

We talked about the importance of unlocking housing, and we talked about workforce development and making sure – you touched on this a moment ago when we were talking about hospitals and healthcare – we need to make sure that we've got a workforce, ideally that's homegrown, that's prepared to handle the the demands that we can foresee. We know throughout Alaska, this isn't true in every part of Alaska, but throughout Alaska we have aging populations, and that's going to increase the burden on our healthcare system over time. We need to make sure that our workforce is prepared to handle that.

That's one way that we can help to address the long term cost, but it also creates good paying jobs and opportunities for people in the places that they grew up in, and I think that's really an important ongoing theme for Alaska is making sure that that the young people who grow up in our communities, if they want to stay in these communities, have the confidence to stay. And that confidence is based on the fact that there are opportunities for them to build a career and have a family where they live.

Ben Townsend
That was Nick Begich III, Congressman for Alaska. Thanks so much for coming.

Nick Begich III
Thanks for having me.