    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             AMPLIFYING THE ARCTIC:
                        STRENGTHENING SCIENCE TO RESPOND
                          TO A RAPIDLY CHANGING ARCTIC

    =======================================================================
                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-68

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    48-528 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
    AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
    DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             JAY OBERNOLTE, California
    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         PETER MEIJER, Michigan
    GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
    DAN KILDEE, Michigan                 MIKE CAREY, OHIO
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                               September 20, 2022

                                                                       Page

    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     9
        Written Statement............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    10
        Written Statement............................................    11

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Larry Hinzman, Assistant Director of Polar Sciences, Office
      of Science and Technology Policy and Executive Director,
      Interagency Arctic Research and Policy Committee
        Oral Statement...............................................    13
        Written Statement............................................    16

    Dr. Mike Sfraga, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission
        Oral Statement...............................................    24
        Written Statement............................................    26

    Ms. Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf, Executive Director, Eskimo Walrus
      Commission
        Oral Statement...............................................    36
        Written Statement............................................    38

    Dr. Susan Natali, Arctic Program Director, Woodwell Climate
      Research Center
        Oral Statement...............................................    47
        Written Statement............................................    49

    Discussion.......................................................    61

                  Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Larry Hinzman, Assistant Director of Polar Sciences, Office
      of Science and Technology Policy and Executive Director,
      Interagency Arctic Research and Policy Committee...............    88

    Dr. Mike Sfraga, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission..........    90

    Ms. Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf, Executive Director, Eskimo Walrus
      Commission.....................................................    91

                             AMPLIFYING THE ARCTIC:
                        STRENGTHENING SCIENCE TO RESPOND
                          TO A RAPIDLY CHANGING ARCTIC

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

                              House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
    room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie
    Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. This hearing will come to order. And
    without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
    any time.
        Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that,
    today, the Committee is meeting both in person and virtually. I
    want to announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the
    conduct of this hearing. First, Members and staff are--
    attending in person may choose to be masked, but it is not a
    requirement. However, any individuals with symptoms, a positive
    test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask
    while present.
        Members who are attending virtually should keep their video
    feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are
    responsible for their own microphones, so please keep your
    microphones muted until you are speaking.
        Finally, if Members have documents they wish to submit for
    the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose
    email address was circulated prior to the meeting.
        Good morning, and welcome to our witnesses. The Arctic,
    sometimes referred to as the land of the midnight sun or the
    top of the world, evokes images of the Northern Lights, the
    running of the iconic Iditarod dogsled race, and of course
    polar bears. We don't imagine increasing toxic algae blooms on
    Alaska's seafloor or increasing burn areas of boreal forest
    fires, nor do we picture the sinking homes and impassable roads
    caused by thawing of the once-frozen ground they built upon.
    But these are the realities faced by the 4 million people
    living in the Arctic. These realities became even more dire
    over the weekend as western Alaska faced the strongest
    September storm seen in 70 years. The storm caused a record
    storm surge of nearly 9 feet in some areas, flooding, and
    buildings to be swept off of their foundation. Environmental
    changes have had many social, cultural, and economic impacts,
    including on the food security of many local communities.
        The Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the
    globe. Some changes are seen in a matter of years, not decades.
    Now more than ever it is becoming clearer that what happens in
    the Arctic has both local and global impacts. People in my home
    State of Texas experienced a historic winter storm in February
    of 2021 that left many without running water, power, or heat
    for days. Researchers have linked this storm to Western
    wildfires and other extreme weather events in the lower 48
    States to warming of the Arctic.
        Support of robust, coordinated Arctic research and science
    is critical. I applaud the interagency effort and work of
    experts to develop the 2022 to 2026 Arctic Research Plan. I
    look forward to hearing how the plan will lay the foundation
    for our priorities for the next 5 years. The changes in the
    Arctic are happening today, and we must be agile and strategic
    in our response. This starts with working meaningfully with
    local and indigenous communities of Alaska and the Arctic who
    know their needs the most.
        Efforts have been made to bridge Indigenous Knowledge (IK)
    and Western science, but more needs to be done to elevate co-
    production of knowledge in the research enterprise. Research
    opportunities such as field research and expedition are a
    highlight for many scientists who study the Arctic.
    Unfortunately, the feeling is not always mutual among local
    communities. We must find ways to build better relationships if
    the research is to be as productive as possible.
        In addition to expanding participation in Arctic research,
    we must also strengthen and increase our Arctic science
    capabilities, including research vessels, infrastructure, and
    facilities, which are constrained. If we are to continue our
    leadership in Arctic science, what additional capabilities are
    necessary? Likewise, what are our plans to support more robust
    monitoring, observing, modeling, and prediction that will help
    us better understand changes in the Arctic?
        Well, we have a lot to address at this morning's hearing,
    and I again want to thank our witnesses for being here.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good morning and welcome to our witnesses.
        The Arctic, sometimes referred to as the Land of the
    Midnight Sun or the Top of the World, evokes images of the
    northern lights, the running of the iconic Iditarod dog sled
    race, and of course, polar bears. We don't imagine the
    increasing toxic algal blooms on Alaska's sea floor or
    increasing burn areas of boreal forest fires. Nor do we picture
    the sinking homes and impassable roads caused by thawing of the
    once frozen ground they are built upon. But these are the
    realities faced by the 4 million people living in the Arctic.
    These realities became even more dire over the weekend as
    western Alaska faced the strongest September storm seen in 70
    years. The storm caused record storm surge of nearly 9 feet in
    some areas, flooding, and buildings to be swept off their
    foundations. Environmental changes have many social, cultural,
    and economic impacts, including on the food security of many
    local communities.
        The Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the
    globe. Some changes are seen in a matter of years, not decades.
    Now, more than ever it is becoming clearer that what happens in
    the Arctic has both local and global impacts. People in my home
    state of Texas experienced a historic winter storm in February
    of 2021 that left many without running water, power, or heat
    for days. Researchers have linked this storm, western
    wildfires, and other extreme weather events in the lower 48
    states to warming in the Arctic.
        Support of robust, coordinated Arctic research and science
    is critical. I applaud the interagency effort and work of
    experts to develop the 2022-2026 Arctic research plan. I look
    forward to hearing how the plan will lay the foundation for our
    priorities for the next five years. The changes in the Arctic
    are happening today and we must be agile and strategic in our
    response. This starts with working meaningfully with local and
    Indigenous communities of Alaska and the Arctic who know their
    needs the most.
        Efforts have been made to bridge Indigenous knowledge and
    western science, but more needs to be done to elevate co-
    production of knowledge in the research enterprise. Research
    opportunities such as field research and expeditions are a
    highlight for many scientists who study the Arctic.
    Unfortunately, the feeling is not always mutual amongst local
    communities. We must find ways to build better relationships if
    the research is to be as productive as possible.
        In addition to expanding participation in Arctic research,
    we must also strengthen and increase our Arctic science
    capabilities, including research vessels, infrastructure, and
    facilities, which are constrained. If we are to continue our
    leadership in Arctic science, what additional capabilities are
    necessary? Likewise, what are our plans to support more robust
    monitoring, observing, modeling, and prediction that will help
    us better understand changes in the Arctic?
        Well, we have a lot to address at this morning's hearing,
    and I again want to thank our witnesses for their testimony.

        Chairwoman Johnson. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lucas for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Lucas. Good morning, Chairwoman Johnson, and thank you
    for holding today's hearing to examine our national R&D
    (research and development) efforts in the Arctic.
        The Arctic presents us with a variety of scientific and
    technical challenges and opportunities because of its unique
    environmental, geopolitical, and resource structure. We're
    currently experiencing a period of unprecedented changes in all
    these areas, and our investments in fundamental Arctic-related
    research will be critical to understand and adapting to these
    changes.
        In 2017, I had the opportunity to visit the Arctic and
    witnessed firsthand the research being conducted there,
    including the Barrow Arctic Research Center. One of the
    highlights of this trip was being outfitted in cold weather
    gear and touring Summit Station, a critical research facility
    at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet. This trip to the
    Arctic demonstrated to me the sensitivity that the
    environment--to things like changing carbon dioxide levels.
        The scientific data that is being collected at our Arctic
    research centers and fuel stations are key to understanding the
    factors affecting the Arctic's regional, atmosphere, ocean, and
    sea ice over. And when we understand these changes, we can make
    informed decisions related to the region, the continent, U.S.,
    and the entire globe. So I appreciate the great work being done
    by many of our agencies to further this understanding.
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    is conducting extensive data-gathering and research activities
    through multiple programs, informing decisions support for
    unique Arctic hazards such as river ice breakup, fires, coastal
    flooding. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
    is gathering critical remote-sensing observations from
    aircrafts and satellites to inform Earth system science and
    Arctic research modeling.
        The National Science Foundation (NSF) is supporting
    innovation, convergent research through ``Navigating the New
    Arctic Program.''
        The U.S. is only one of eight Arctic nations, and, as such,
    it has a critical role to play in the future of the region.
    This is essentially true--especially true, I should say, as we
    look at the economic and geopolitical consequences of the rapid
    changes occurring in the Arctic. Territorial disputes in this
    region are taking on greater importance as resource-rich land
    and new shipping routes are revealed. There are significant
    economic implications from the energy rights, mineral deposits,
    and tourism opportunities being uncovered.
        I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the impact of
    the--Russia's invasion of the Ukraine on international
    cooperation in the Arctic. Russia's unprovoked invasion of the
    Ukraine violated the core principles of sovereignty, and I
    stand with the decision to suspend engagement in the Arctic
    Council. As a result, the U.S. must leverage and expand our
    research partnerships with our Arctic and non-Arctic allies to
    ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in the region.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
    how the research conducted in the Arctic plays a central role
    in understanding and addressing the key consequences of change
    in the region and how the U.S. can play a leading role in the
    new Arctic. Thank you for being here today, and I yield back
    the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

        Good morning Chairwoman Johnson and thank you for holding
    today's hearing to examine our national R&D efforts in the
    Arctic.
        The Arctic presents us with a variety of scientific and
    technical challenges and opportunities because of its unique
    environmental, geopolitical, and resource structure.
        We're currently experiencing a period of unprecedented
    changes in all these areas, and our investments in foundational
    Arctic-related research will be critical to understanding and
    adapting to these changes.
        In 2017, I had the opportunity to visit the Arctic and
    witness, first-hand, the research being conducted there,
    including at the Barrow Arctic Research Center.
        One of the highlights of this trip was being outfitted in
    cold weather gear and touring Summit Station, a critical
    research facility at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
    This trip to the Arctic demonstrated to me the sensitivity of
    that environment to things like changing carbon dioxide levels.
        The scientific data that is being collected at our Arctic
    research centers and field stations are key to understanding
    the factors affecting the Arctic region's atmosphere, ocean,
    and sea ice over. And when we understand these changes, we can
    make informed decisions related to the region, the continental
    U.S., and the entire globe.
        So I appreciate the great work being done by many of our
    agencies to further this understanding.
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    is conducting extensive data gathering and research activities
    through multiple programs, informing decision support for
    unique arctic hazards such as river ice breakup, fires, and
    coastal flooding.
        NASA is gathering critical remote sensing observations with
    aircrafts and satellites to inform Earth system science and
    Arctic research modeling. The National Science Foundation (NSF)
    is supporting innovative, convergent research through its
    ``Navigating the New Arctic Program.''
        The United States is only one of eight Arctic nations, and
    as such, it has a critical role to play in the future of the
    region. This is especially true as we look at the economic, and
    geopolitical consequences from the rapid changes occurring in
    the Arctic.
        Territorial disputes in this region are taking on greater
    importance as resource-rich land and new shipping routes are
    revealed. There are significant economic implications from the
    energy rights, mineral deposits, and tourism opportunities
    being uncovered.
        I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the impact of
    Russia's invasion of Ukraine on international cooperation in
    the Arctic. Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine violated
    the core principles of sovereignty and I stand with the
    decision to suspend engagement in the Arctic Council.
        As a result, the U.S. must leverage and expand our research
    partnerships with our Arctic and non-Arctic allies to ensure
    the U.S. remains a leader in the region.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
    how the research conducted in the Arctic plays a central role
    in understanding and addressing the key consequences of change
    in the region and how the U.S. can play a leading role in the
    new Arctic. Thank you for being here today, and I yield back
    the balance of my time.

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
        If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
        At this time, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our
    first witness is Dr. Larry Hinzman, who serves in the White
    House Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, as the
    Assistant Director for Polar Sciences. He is also the Executive
    Director of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee
    (IARPC) and is leading the effort to implement the 2022 to 2026
    Federal Arctic Research Plan. He recently served as the
    President of the International Arctic Science Committee, and as
    the Vice Chancellor for Research, and Professor of Civil and
    Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska in
    Fairbanks.
        Our next witness is Dr. Mike Sfraga, who is the Chairman of
    the United States Arctic Research Commission and the founding
    Director of the Polar Institute at Woodrow Wilson International
    Center for Scholars. A geographer by training, his work focuses
    on the changing geography of the Arctic and Antarctic
    landscapes, Arctic policy, and the implications of a changing
    climate on political, science, social, and economic,
    environmental, and security regimes in the Arctic. He
    previously served as a distinguished co-lead scholar for the
    U.S. Department of State Inaugural Fulbright Arctic Initiative
    from 2015 to 2017, a complementary program to the U.S.
    Chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
        Our third witness, Dr. Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf, since 2002,
    she has served as the Director of the Eskimo Walrus Commission
    (EWC) at Kawerak. The Commission represents 19 coastal Alaska
    Native communities to promote community involvement and
    research, document Indigenous Knowledge, and co-manage the
    Pacific walrus population. She also is a Bering Strait
    Commissioner for the U.S. Department of State, facilitating
    travel between the indigenous people and Chukotka, Russia, and
    the Strait region in Alaska.
        Our final witness, Dr. Susan Natali, she is the Arctic
    Program Director and a Senior Scientist at Woodwell Climate
    Research Center. She is also a renowned Arctic Ecologist, whose
    research focus is on permafrost. She is currently leading a
    project called Permafrost Pathways, which is designed to
    amplify efforts to collect the best data on Arctic carbon
    emissions, contextualize this information within a global
    budget, and transform the science into actionable policy.
        As our witnesses should know, you each will have 5 minutes
    to use for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
    be included in the record for the hearing. When all of you have
    completed your spoken testimony, you will begin with questions.
    Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel. We will
    start out with Dr. Hinzman.

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. LARRY HINZMAN,

                 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF POLAR SCIENCES,

                OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

                        AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

            INTERAGENCY ARCTIC RESEARCH AND POLICY COMMITTEE

        Dr. Hinzman. Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Representative
    Member--Ranking Member Lucas, and distinguished Members of the
    Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing. I am
    Dr. Larry Hinzman. I am honored to appear before you today. I
    serve as the Executive Director of the Interagency Arctic
    Research and Policy Committee, and as the Assistant Director
    for Polar Sciences at the White House Office of Science and
    Technology Policy. I live in Fairbanks, Alaska, and have been
    engaged in Arctic research for almost 40 years.
        I'd like to take just a brief moment to first acknowledge
    the suffering and loss occurring in both Alaska and Puerto
    Rico. The Alaskan typhoon was a huge storm, and there has been
    terrible damage that was spread over 1,000 miles of Alaska
    coastline. I have worked in several of these Alaska communities
    and worry about their recovery from the devastation before
    winter sets in.
        I will start by commending this Committee for your
    visionary leadership in shaping Arctic policy both in current
    times and in recent decades. Today, I will testify about the
    necessity of Arctic research and the work of IARPC, and I also
    will remark upon the importance of research infrastructure
    required for Arctic research, international collaboration, and
    respectful engagement with indigenous peoples as key facets of
    Arctic research.
        The United States is an Arctic nation. The ongoing
    environmental and climate changes in the Arctic have impacts
    across the American economy and society. Environmental changes
    in the Arctic reverberate through the globe, affecting
    coastlines, weather, and availability of resources in more
    temperate regions. It is in the U.S. national interest to
    understand Arctic processes and their impacts on the global
    system. The Arctic territory is remote and data sparse, and
    thus, understanding Arctic change requires significant effort,
    expertise, and commitment to sustaining and recapitalizing
    critical research infrastructure.
        The Arctic is ongoing rapid change in ecological and
    socioeconomic responses to climate and other drivers. Climate
    effects are causing direct and indirect impacts on the region's
    physical, chemical, and biological environments. Social,
    cultural, and environmental changes alter the fabric of
    indigenous and other communities and may inhibit the
    preservation of Alaska Native cultures and Indigenous
    Knowledge. Economic change can bring opportunities but also
    dislocation as local residents are trained to work in fields
    that may not exist or persist in their home regions.
        This region is geographically vast, sparsely populated, and
    characterized by strong connections among its indigenous
    peoples, and the land and the sea. Adaptation to climate change
    intersects with other environmental issues and needed policies
    confronting Arctic residents, including those concerning food
    security, human health and welfare, environmental security, and
    quality of life, and the resilience of ecosystems.
        IARPC facilitates partnerships and collaborations that
    improve our understanding of the rapidly changing Arctic system
    and its impact on the Earth system through critical advances in
    cryosphere, atmosphere, ocean, and ecosystem science, advanced
    modeling projections of environmental dynamics, and future
    climate conditions, improved understanding of current and
    future Arctic change, and advanced human-centered research
    critical to the Alaskan community health, infrastructure, and
    environmental safety.
        This plan builds on the Administration's priorities for
    racial equity and tribal engagement. This plan includes
    participatory research and indigenous leadership in research as
    a foundational activity to support true engagement and
    community participation and co-production of knowledge.
        The Arctic scientific community is very strong and
    collaborative. The Federal agencies leading Arctic research are
    making important contributions to help the people of the United
    States and the world prepare for an uncertain future but one
    that is certainly different from today. Our Nation must
    continue to invest in Arctic research, as the Arctic is
    demonstrating an outsized effect on the global climate system.
    The benefits are clearly far greater than the cost. We must
    place greater emphasis upon convergent science that draws
    together relevant disciplines, scientific engineering, and
    social changes to resolve more complex or sophisticated
    challenges to our communities.
        So I'll say again, it is in the U.S. national interest to
    understand Arctic processes and their impacts to the global
    system. I thank you again for convening this important hearing
    and allowing me the opportunity to testify, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Hinzman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Sfraga.

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. MIKE SFRAGA,

                 CHAIR, U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION

        Dr. Sfraga. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for convening
    this hearing today on Arctic research. I'm Dr. Mike Sfraga, and
    I'm honored to appear before you today. Like Dr. Hinzman, I too
    am a resident of Fairbanks, Alaska, and I also serve as the
    presidentially appointed Chair of the United States Arctic
    Research Commission.
        The knowledge and understanding we gain from Arctic
    research inform our Nation's Arctic policies and actions on
    climate change, infrastructure development, energy security,
    economic development, as well as community, homeland, and
    national security. The United States Arctic Research Commission
    is an independent Federal agency established by the Arctic
    Research Policy Act that plays a central role in advancing
    these issues. Sound research informs sound policy development
    and implementation.
        The Commission publishes a biennial report to the White
    House and Congress on Arctic research goals and objectives.
    This report guides the development of our Nation's Arctic
    Research Plan that is produced by IARPC, as described by Dr.
    Hinzman. In my written testimony, I've included a full
    description of the Commission, our current members, and our
    duties assigned by law.
        Here's a preview of the five overarching Arctic research
    goals that will be included in the Commission's next report.
    The first is environmental risk and hazard. The superstorm that
    just inundated and devastated so many communities along the
    Bering Strait region of my home State of Alaska is a sad, yet
    poignant reminder of the vulnerability of our Arctic
    communities. Our report will recommend research to improve
    coastal community resilience planning, enhance Arctic observing
    and monitoring efforts, and encourage seafloor depth mapping to
    improve marine commerce. According to our colleagues at NOAA,
    only 4.1 percent of the United States maritime Arctic has been
    mapped to modern standards.
        Two, community health and well-being: The investment of
    more than $11 billion into Alaska Native communities through
    the Infrastructure Act will help communities adapt to a warming
    climate. They'll build water and sanitation infrastructure and
    expand access to broadband. Remaining challenges, however,
    include the enduring presence of health disparities in many
    parts of Alaska. Food, energy, water insecurity, housing, and
    indoor air quality deficiencies, and work force development
    insufficiencies are still present.
        Our third area will be infrastructure. The Commission
    recommends research to improve access to reasonably priced
    broadband networks, telehealth, in-home running water, and
    affordable heat and fuel, all of which must be operable and
    scalable in Arctic conditions. Infrastructure that is practical
    and functional at the community level is critical, and human
    infrastructure, people to teach, create, operate, and maintain
    technology is also essential, yet over--yet often
    underappreciated and overlooked.
        Our fourth area will be economic research, new for the
    Commission. While economic research is vital to inform Arctic-
    relevant policies and decisionmaking, few economists focus on
    the region. Economic research can help achieve regional
    sustainable development and provide a greater understanding of
    market and non-market forces.
        Our fifth area will be research cooperation. As many Arctic
    issues are circumpolar in nature and inherently transnational,
    they are best addressed by domestic and international research
    cooperation, which brings me to an opportunity in interagency
    cooperation. That opportunity is to equip for scientific
    research purposes the commercially available polar icebreaker
    that the Coast Guard intends to purchase with funds in its
    Fiscal Year 2023 budget request to Congress. The Commission
    recommends that if this icebreaker is procured and is refit to
    meet the Coast Guard's requirements, that the refit includes
    scientific research infrastructure to meet science mission
    requirements.
        Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Lucas, it is impossible
    to discuss Arctic research without acknowledging that Russia's
    invasion of Ukraine has halted cooperation with Russia on
    international Arctic research activities. There have been many
    programs impacted by this lack of cooperation. Nevertheless,
    Arctic research will continue because it must. Changes in the
    Arctic will not wait for geopolitical challenges to be settled.
    The challenges can be met by doubling down on our Arctic
    research efforts and by working with many of our partners in
    and outside of the region.
        Finally, I would like to express the Commission's support
    for proposed updates to the Arctic Research Policy Act
    contained in legislation introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski
    of Alaska in S. 4736, the Arctic Commitment Act. In particular,
    I'd like to call attention to the need and value of an Arctic
    research budget crosscut of the relevant Federal agencies. We
    do not have an accurate account of what our Nation spends on
    Arctic research, nor the funding trends over time. To improve
    accountability and to help achieve our Nation's objectives in
    the Arctic, we encourage the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) to conduct an annual budget crosscut, as it does for
    other research initiatives such as nanotechnology and global
    change.
        Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Lucas and Members of
    the Committee, thank you again for this opportunity to testify
    today and provide the U.S. Arctic Research Commission's views
    and priorities on Arctic research. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Sfraga follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Metcalf.

                TESTIMONY OF MS. VERA KINGEEKUK METCALF,

              EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ESKIMO WALRUS COMMISSION

        Ms. Metcalf. [Speaking Native language.] Good morning,
    Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of this
    Committee. I am truly honored to be part of this hearing and to
    present to you today.
        Before beginning, I must say that it is my intention to--
    that my words are proper and responsible to my ancestors, my
    family, and my community, and to [speaking Native language],
    which is our way of life and cultural values on St. Lawrence
    Island, Alaska. My name is Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf, born and
    raised on St. Lawrence Island, which lies in the Bering Strait
    between Alaska and Russia's Chukotka Peninsula. I have been the
    Executive Director of the Eskimo Walrus Commission in Nome,
    Alaska, since 2002. The EWC was formed in 1978, with membership
    from 19 Alaska Native communities on the Bering Chukchi and
    Beaufort Seas, and works to be necessary and valuable partners
    in Pacific waters, conservation management through actively
    participating in research, striving for indigenous food
    security, and contributing our Indigenous Knowledge.
        It is important for me to state up front that Alaska Native
    people cannot be separated from our environment and natural
    resources. We are and always have been absolutely dependent on
    this intimate relationship way with our environment and its
    gifts. If they are healthy, so are we.
        So what is Indigenous Knowledge? In my language, it is
    [speaking Native language], which simply translated is our
    knowledge, what we know. But it implies so much more that's not
    so easy to explain and includes the understanding that we can
    only know so much. It adds a bit of humility to how much we
    think we know because, as my IK experts remind us sometimes,
    [speaking Native language], there is always more to know.
        IK is an ongoing synthesis of new information and
    observations gathered firsthand and from others where--which
    are considered by IK experts who together apply their cultural
    understanding and IK to guide future plans and decisionmaking.
    It is an active social process based in cultural protocols and
    grounded in a way of knowing.
        I have offered examples in my written testimony of how
    Alaskan Native communities have contributed their IKs to co-
    management and examples of co-production of knowledge projects
    that I anxiously hope that are helpful to this Committee.
        I have characterized the old school way science and
    government has conducted research in the Arctic in the past as
    one-sided and very extractive. And I have described the
    mismatch of the science-research-government-industry with
    Indigenous Knowledge community. I suggested it might be helpful
    to recognize the difference between knowledge systems and how
    that affects co-production research. It is very important to
    realize that Indigenous Knowledge isn't any one person's
    intellectual property, and no one person is the holder of a
    community's Indigenous Knowledge. And that is not something
    simply to be documented as data to be used by others for their
    purposes. Instead, its true value is found when it is supplied
    by our experts and knowledge bearers to questions about the
    health and conditions of their world, the land, the water, air,
    and all who inhabit it.
        Engaging IK for co-production projects needs to involve the
    larger community and should provide opportunities for multiple
    IK experts to discover all the nuance and the wisdom of what
    they jointly share. Their contribution together will be much
    more powerful.
        So I'll end with this thought. The Arctic is our home,
    eternal and sacred. We will continue to adapt as we need to
    live properly in it. Perhaps collaborating on co-production
    knowledge research is simply another way that we are adapting.
    We will share our Indigenous Knowledge to advance research.
    While it is beyond translation, this profoundest IK, a way of
    knowing my language is [speaking Native language]. It
    encompasses and connects all things. This is what we will
    continue to rely on, and we will have greater confidence
    knowing it is included in future scientific study and in new
    governance in the Arctic.
        [Speaking Native language.] Thank you for this opportunity
    again.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Metcalf follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Susan Natali.

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. SUSAN NATALI,

                        ARCTIC PROGRAM DIRECTOR,

                    WOODWELL CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTER

        Dr. Natali. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
    me to testify at today's hearing. My name is Dr. Susan Natali,
    and I'm the Arctic Program Director and a Senior Scientist at
    Woodwell Climate Research Center. Woodwell is a nonprofit
    organization made up of research scientists and policy experts
    dedicated to advancing climate policy solutions. My work
    focuses on the local to global effects of permafrost thaw in
    Arctic and boreal regions.
        Next slide, please.
        [Slide.]
        Permafrost is ground that has been frozen for at least 2
    consecutive years and often for hundreds to thousands of years.
    It underlies about 15 percent of the Northern Hemisphere land
    and 38 percent of Alaska's lands. Permafrost has exceptional
    significance for global climate because it holds a massive
    amount of ancient frozen carbon. There's an estimated 1.4
    trillion tons of carbon in the permafrost region, which is
    roughly twice as much carbon as is currently contained in the
    Earth's atmosphere. This carbon has accumulated for millennia
    from dead plants and animals, which cold and frozen conditions
    have prevented from fully decomposing.
        But rapid warming across the northern region, which is now
    occurring three to four times faster than the global average,
    is causing permafrost to thaw. An estimated 7 percent of near-
    surface permafrost has already been lost across the Arctic, and
    about 25 to 70 percent of permafrost is expected to thaw over
    the next century. Once thawed, the accumulated carbon in the
    soil can be decomposed and released into the atmosphere as
    greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, and methane.
        Next slide, please.
        [Slide.]
        Over the coming decades, the amount of carbon released from
    thawing permafrost could be equivalent to continued emissions
    from major greenhouse gas emitting nations, perhaps even as
    large as or larger than the United States at our current
    emission rate. Greenhouse gas emissions from thawing permafrost
    could use up 25 to 40 percent of our remaining carbon budget to
    stay below 2 degrees Celsius warming, yet these emissions are
    generally under-accounted in part due to major gaps in Arctic
    carbon monitoring and modeling.
        The failure to accurately account for permafrost emissions
    undermines the integrity and efficacy of global mitigation
    policy. By not accounting for permafrost emissions, we're
    essentially aiming for the wrong climate target, making it that
    much harder to mitigate climate warming.
        Next slide, please.
        [Slide.]
        Improving understanding of permafrost thaw is also critical
    for informing climate adaptation policies. When permafrost
    thaws, it can induce ground collapse, which is impacting homes
    and infrastructure, Arctic lands, water, wildlife subsistence,
    resources, and indigenous ways of living. Further, the
    interacting hazards of permafrost thaw, erosion, and flooding
    are being exacerbated by more severe storm impacts, as was
    witnessed in Alaska this past week.
        More than 70--next slide, please.
        [Slide.]
        More than 70 villages across Alaska faced significant
    threats from erosion, flooding, or permafrost thaw. For over a
    decade, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) has warned
    that impacted communities need Federal Government support to
    adapt to climate change. And in the most severe cases, this may
    include relocation. Yet there still is no national relocation
    governance framework or dedicated and coordinated funding
    mechanism to facilitate planned relocation, which will become a
    critical need not only in Alaska, but across the Nation.
        Next slide.
        [Slide.]
        Arctic residents and scientists have been observing
    permafrost thaw for decades, but we cannot fully address this
    problem without amplified research and policy support from
    Congress. I highlight five areas that I feel should be
    prioritized for increased research support. First, strategic
    funding opportunities for permafrost as a larger scope and
    long-term research priority.
        Second, focused investment to reduce uncertainty in climate
    monitoring and modeling.
        Third, improved interagency coordination on Arctic research
    planning and funding.
        Fourth, recognition that permafrost thaw, like climate
    change, is an international issue that warrants international
    solutions, including pathways for data exchange, grant funding,
    and equipment-sharing.
        And fifth, direct support to Alaska Native tribes to co-
    produce knowledge and to lead climate change research.
        Today's hearing demonstrates the Committee's dedication to
    confronting the climate crisis through a participatory and
    transparent process. I look forward to seeing Members of this
    Committee lead that effort, and I offer my continued support.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Natali follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Stevens [presiding]. Great. At this point, we'll begin
    our first round of questions, and the Chair will recognize
    herself for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Hinzman, the Arctic Research and Policy Act was enacted
    40 years ago, and Congress last amended it in 1990. Four
    decades of changes in the Arctic have had social, cultural,
    environmental, and economic impacts. How has research planning
    evolved to address today's challenges? And what steps did the
    IARPC take to balance fundamental research priorities and
    research to address local research needs? And what are the most
    important research questions that we need to address the most
    significant unknowns?
        Dr. Hinzman. Well, thank you Representative----
        Ms. Stevens. Known and unknowns, yes, thank you.
        Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Stevens. That's a
    very large question. So the the Arctic Research and Policy Act
    was established in 1984 and was initiated to facilitate
    coordination, collaboration among Federal agencies and their
    investment in Arctic research to ensure that we had minimal
    duplication, to ensure that we could facilitate the
    partnerships and collaboration needed. And I think that that
    has been very successful over the last 40 years. I am very
    pleased to see the coordination that we have today amongst the
    partnerships and the collaborations among the agencies.
        So IARPC does exist to facilitate that partnership. IARPC
    hosts a platform we call IARPC collaborations, which exists to
    enable the collaborations among Federal researchers, the
    researcher scientists in the agencies with the non-Federal
    researchers from universities, foundations, and international
    researchers. And it has been very successful in identifying the
    priorities that are of most urgent need to the United States,
    to their--to our Federal agencies and focus this large
    partnership of researchers on those issues. And so there's been
    remarkable work done, and I think there is a need to up--as Dr.
    Sfraga said, there is a need to update that policy, but I am
    pleased with where we are today.
        Ms. Stevens. Well, all hail research collaboratives like
    IARPC, and thank you to the dedicated researchers who are part
    of it.
        And, Dr. Sfraga, the witnesses today have described rapid
    changes in the Arctic, critical partnership and research needs,
    limited research vessels, and sinking research infrastructure.
    The Arctic Research and Policy Act directs OSTP to review
    agency budget requests related to the Arctic and directs OMB to
    consider all agency requests as one integrated multiagency
    request and review it prior to submission of the budget for
    adherence to the 5-year research plan. How would you
    characterize the degree to which this has been carried out over
    the years? And what should it look like moving forward to
    ensure Congress can carry out sufficient oversight of the
    Arctic research budget?
        Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative Stevens. Well, I can
    say that, although Dr. Hinzman has provided us a very good,
    practical, and informative narrative regarding the work that
    has been done by IARPC and by the Arctic Research Commission
    and the research community, I can say that definitively. What I
    cannot say is that we have a very good handle on the amount of
    investment our Nation makes in Arctic research. As you noted,
    ARPA has been in place for 4 decades. We have not had a
    comprehensive budget crosscut for our Federal research, Arctic
    research done anytime that I can remember. And by that I mean
    we simply don't know in aggregate what we're spending on Arctic
    research in the United States. We simply don't know that we
    have the resources available to us to implement, to fund, the
    IARPC plan, as outlined by Dr. Hinzman.
        And so what my recommendation and our Commission's
    recommendation is that we have a budget crosscut done each year
    by the Office of Management and Budget to secure good data on
    what each Federal agency is spending on Arctic research so we
    have a baseline and we can see our trending and funding over
    time. That demand for Arctic research will only continue, which
    means the request for resources from Congress will only
    continue, but I think we need a solid baseline of what it is we
    spend right at the moment on Arctic research. Then, I can
    answer the second part, I think, of your question,
    Representative Stevens, which is how can we take the IARPC
    plan, which has spent--which they have spent so much time
    building for our Nation in a rapid time of change? How do we
    know and how can we secure the resources to implement that
    plan? So, A, we need a good idea of our baseline over time,
    what we have provided for Arctic research, and that should be
    done every year. And two, we should take the plan that Dr.
    Hinzman and his colleagues have put together and we should
    crosswalk that with available funding to actually understand
    whether or not we can implement, whether we can afford, whether
    we can enable the research plan that his--he and his colleagues
    have put together.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes. Well, thank you for that. And, you know,
    we understand that IARPC is comprised of 17 Federal agencies,
    departments, and offices, again, a great example of a whole-of-
    government approach. NSF and NOAA alone budget about $230
    million annually toward Arctic-related work as part of IARPC.
    And so we will get a question for the record to Dr. Hinzman as
    we move to the next witness--or, excuse me, the next Member for
    questioning. And I believe that's Mr. Lucas here----
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you.
        Ms. Stevens [continuing]. For 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Dr. Hinzman and Dr. Sfraga, data collected in
    2019 by a fleet of sail drone unmanned surface vehicles in the
    Arctic was found by NASA and NOAA to have a remarkably strong
    correlation to the measurements taken by satellite. Time and
    time again, commercial data has proven accurate and beneficial
    to Federal agencies at a cost-effective price. What role do you
    see the private sector and commercial data playing in the
    future of Arctic research? And along with that, should the
    Administration better utilize commercial data buys and
    partnerships?
        Dr. Hinzman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Lucas,
    excellent question and really profound insight in that the
    commercial capabilities have advanced remarkably in the past
    few decades, and they have opened up our capabilities
    tremendously, not just through sail drones but through sub-
    ocean technology and through radio communications, through
    telemetry that we can impart in the field, through data
    loggers. It's been a remarkable accomplishment. And without the
    contributions, without the engagement of the commercial
    industry, we would never be where we are today. We are so
    fortunate to have as good partners, that they have stepped up
    to provide this technology to us. So I wholeheartedly endorse
    that.
        Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Doctor?
        Dr. Sfraga. Ranking Member Lucas, thank you for the
    comment. I agree with my colleague Dr. Hinzman. Public-private
    partnerships have worked well in many parts of our society.
    Arctic research should not stand alone as something where we
    don't encourage the public-private partnerships going forward.
    Industry is innovative. They move faster than government can
    move. Sometimes they're more innovative. Seated with Federal
    research funds, we see that our Nation's industry can lead in
    so many different sectors. I think it's probably part of our
    DNA, and it should be going forward. When you have a top-down
    nation that can dictate what happens within its nation, it's
    very hard--it's very easy to put resources in particular
    places.
        Our country is built differently. Our country is built to
    be inclusive. Our country is built to be innovative. And we
    should take advantage of private industry and, as Dr. Hinzman
    noted, in so many different sectors, including satellite and
    fiber communications and telecommunications, in drones and
    marine assets. We should bring the whole team to the game
    because the Arctic is changing so fast. We have to bring the
    whole team to game. And if we can bring industry to the table,
    we can show them and provide an opportunity for them to make a
    profit in the north while serving the north, I think that would
    be a very good thing.
        Mr. Lucas. Dr. Hinzman, as I mentioned in my statement, I
    had an opportunity to visit Summit Station back in 2017, and it
    was clear then that the facilities were inadequate for the
    world-class science being conducted there. Dr. Hinzman, both
    you and Dr. Sfraga stated in your testimony the importance of
    this facility and the need to recapitalize its outdated
    infrastructure. I know NOAA just upgraded the Barrow
    Atmospheric Baseline Observatory. Can you speak to any plans
    that are currently in motion to upgrade Summit Station?
        Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Ranking Member Lucas. That is--I am
    so pleased that you were able to visit Summit Station, and I'm
    so pleased that you bring that to the attention of this
    Committee. So that station is in dire need of maintenance and
    upgrades at this point. It is--the surface melt has extended
    all the way to the summit, so that station is--over the past
    few years is sinking into the ice, and it does need a serious
    upgrade. It does need serious investments to enable it to
    continue these--the important measurements that have been taken
    over the last 40 years, 50 years since that's been in
    operation.
        The role of Greenland in influencing our global climate
    dynamics just cannot be overstated. It is so important. It
    affects the atmospheric circulation. It affects the oceanic
    properties. It affects ocean circulations. We have to continue
    those observations. Thank you.
        Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Dr. Sfraga, can you--could you
    please provide--because part of my responsibility as a Member
    of Congress is explain to the folks back home why we make these
    investments. Could you provide one or two examples of how basic
    research funded by the Federal Government science agencies sees
    like NSF, NOAA, and NASA play a role in national security
    decisionmaking in support of the Arctic? And along with that,
    what role does the U.S. Arctic Research Commission play in
    connecting defense and non-defense communities? I'm looking for
    a town meeting answer here.
        Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Member Lucas. I can say that--well,
    first of all, Greenland is emblematic of the new north. It--so
    many of the issues at play right now in the new north, whether
    it's social, political, economic, environmental. If you live in
    Norfolk, Virginia, or Nome, Alaska, you will feel the impacts
    of what happens in Greenland with melting ice cap.
        But I can tell you that if you're interested in a national
    security component of research, here's where we're at. The
    United States needs to have a better idea of our domain. Why?
    Our Arctic domain is changing drastically. And if you are a
    resident citizen of our country, you need to know that Arctic
    research is a part of our national security, so securing money
    and resources for research secures our national security. If
    you're interested in homeland security, understand full well
    that we have a great power competition underway in several
    different forms, Russia, China, even North Korea and other
    countries. The Arctic now is a globalized Arctic. It is not a
    place on a map far removed. It is now a part of geopolitics,
    which increases our dependence on so many different things like
    the ripple effect of global energy, global wheat supply and
    demand, global commodities, shipping costs. If you're shopping
    each day, you're being impacted by global commodities. So
    energy, resources, shipping, I can continue on and on. All
    facets of the economy now are woven into the Arctic, whether we
    see that or not. It's really apparent to so many that that is
    the case.
        Mr. Lucas. I agree, Doctor, and yield back the balance of
    what time I do not have, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Stevens. All in good faith. And with that, we will hear
    from 5 minutes of questions from the distinguished Science
    Committee Member Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. This is such an important
    hearing, and I'm grateful to each of our witnesses for their
    important testimony.
        Pivoting to Mr. Lucas's question and the town hall meeting,
    it's worth noting that we have had some studies, one, Lawrence
    Livermore National Lab did a study in 2017, and just this year,
    the Pacific Northwest National Lab both linked wildfires in
    California to Arctic melting. The dry, hot conditions in
    California are directly linked. And so since we've learned
    these connections in our understanding, I guess the question
    is, what do we do? Can this information assist us as we prepare
    in the western continental United States for wildfires, and
    could it be an early warning to help us better cope with that
    phenomena that we are seeing in Washington, Oregon, California,
    New Mexico, and the like? Yes, Doctor.
        Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Lofgren. That's a
    very important issue and one that I think our government is
    trying very hard to address.
        So there are several advances going on. And I'll--first,
    I'll take the broader picture with respect to the role of the
    Arctic in these increasing numbers of extreme events. There's--
    you are absolutely correct. There are more severe--there's a
    greater frequency of extreme events and a greater severity of
    these extreme events, and that includes wildfire. And there is
    a role of the Arctic in influencing these global climate
    dynamics that are increasing these disastrous wildfires.
        So what are we doing about that? So there is now a new
    interagency, ICAMS, Advanced--Interagency Council on Advanced
    Meteorological Services, excuse me, and one of the primary
    focuses of that is on addressing wildfire behavior, predicting,
    projecting where the wildfires will occur so we can be prepared
    for them, and then being able to better predict the wildfire
    behavior. And IARPC is participating in that group to try and
    understand--to contribute what the Arctic's role is in that
    effort, but it is--I agree with you. That's a very important
    issue.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much. Dr. Natali, as your
    statement described the latest sixth assessment report for the
    first time included the permafrost carbon in the Earth systems
    models that informed the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change) report. And we've made it clear much more is
    needed. How would--how will this research impact to allow for a
    more accurate picture as we nationally determine contributions
    in carbon budgets around the world. What--how do you see that
    proceeding? You need to turn your mic on. Thanks.
        Dr. Natali. Thank you, Representative Lofgren. Yes, so this
    is--yes, thank you for this question. So first, I just want to
    talk briefly about these models, Earth system models. Earth
    system models explain, you know, the--how the climate is going
    to work, and it incorporates biogeochemistry, so carbon
    cycling, and it puts like human actions into that.
        Earth system models were not developed with the Arctic in
    mind, so things like permafrost and things--the connection
    between the Arctic climate and the rest of the planet is not
    built into these models, and it's not trivial to build them
    into the models. And so this is one of the reasons why we are--
    have surprises like wildfires in the West that--currently, in
    order to be able to respond to these and be prepared for these,
    we need to improve these models. And that's a really
    challenging thing. It requires support from the top down for,
    you know, U.S. climate-based models to advance these.
        One of the key issues is the incorporation of permafrost
    carbon. Yes, in this last IPCC report, two of the models did
    incorporate permafrost carbon, certainly not fully, not in the
    way that we understand that permafrost thaws. And what this
    means is when we're thinking about how much carbon do we have
    available for humanity to stay below 2 degrees Celsius, or 1.5
    degrees Celsius, we're not hitting the mark. So even if all of
    the nations, you know, put together a budget, and we say, yes,
    we're going to keep to that, we're not--we're aiming for the
    wrong target right now. And so the very least that we need to
    do to start out with is to do our bookkeeping correctly, right?
    We're not doing that bookkeeping correctly because the science
    isn't up to pace with the needs.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, I think that's very important. And as we
    look at the unfolding disaster around the world, it really does
    lead to how are we going to turn a corner on this if we don't
    accommodate in our models the carbon from the permafrost. And I
    would add the link to the wildfires. I mean, you know, the
    forests burn. Well, if they're no longer capturing carbon,
    they're emitting carbon throughout the West, and unless we
    adjust our models to accommodate for that, and it's not
    obviously just here, it's around the world, we're not only
    going to miss the mark because of inaction, we're going to miss
    the mark because we haven't adequately set the mark.
        So my time is up, and I yield back. And I thank these
    witnesses for their tremendous testimony.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we will hear from
    Mr. Posey for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens.
        Dr. Hinzman, the National Science Foundation recently
    announced it was relying on Starlink satellite internet to
    support McMurdo Station in Antarctica. That's a mouthful. Can
    you highlight how high-speed, low-latency satellite broadband
    systems like Starlink can enhance scientific efforts and
    connect research projects in the remote Arctic?
        Dr. Hinzman. Absolutely. And I have been fortunate to be
    able to utilize that system in the past. And it is a remarkable
    boon to science in that it does provide access in very remote
    locations, provides quick, reliable access that can be used to
    collect data from stations that are not manned and that are
    left for long periods of time. It's an incredible asset that we
    are very fortunate to have.
        I am--I understand that it's working very, very well in the
    Antarctic, and I--we do utilize it at several remote stations
    in the Arctic. And I think that it's--such capability will
    enable our science to do more activities that we've never been
    able to achieve in the past where we've had to have people in
    the process in the field to do that work. So thank you.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you. Dr. Sfraga and Dr. Hinzman both on
    this one, we're trying to increase their scientific missions to
    the Arctic, which we know are frequently dual use. What is the
    United States doing to counter their influence in the region
    and within international bodies such as the Arctic Council?
        Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative. Indeed, China has--
    China is playing the game Go around the world, the classic
    board game Go. The Arctic is a part of that game for them. They
    simply want to influence the political landscape and, you know,
    exert their will around the globe. We see that in a lot of
    their hard and soft power investments. Certainly, research is
    one of them. They now have the ability to indigenously build
    their own icebreakers. They have a relationship with the
    Russian Federation that allows them domain awareness in the
    Arctic. We see their expeditions in the Arctic navigating the
    Arctic Ocean in a way that is research-based but could be dual
    use and multiuse as well.
        The best counter to that, obviously, we can get into the
    national security side of this. I guess the best possible
    counter to that is to ensure that the United States, that the
    United States leads in Arctic research as well. That means that
    we have the icebreaking capacity, the research capacity in the
    north. And we have something that China and Russia frankly do
    not have, and that is a set of partners and allies that are in
    the Arctic and outside of the Arctic that have an incredible
    amount of expertise in Arctic research.
        And this--if there ever was a time to double down to invest
    more in Arctic research, more in our presence in the Arctic,
    more of our research capacity in the Arctic, and better
    leveraging and integration with our partners around the north,
    I think now is the time because of what you just mentioned,
    Representative, and that is that both Russia and China do see
    the Arctic as an opportunity for a number of things, including
    more presence and influence in the north, along with, of
    course, basic research that can be used for other goals and
    motives that they might have.
        Mr. Posey. Yes, that was great. Dr. Hinzman, you want to
    add to that?
        Dr. Hinzman. I think Dr. Sfraga was very eloquent in his
    assessment. I do share our concerns that have been expressed
    with respect to the Chinese advancements into the Arctic. They
    are developing stations in collaborations with the Russians.
    They are incredibly investing into Arctic research, and just as
    they're doing in many other other parts of the globe. So their
    long-term motives and their short-term actions are of great
    concern to our government. And I appreciate the caution and the
    concern that our government has put forth with respect to these
    actions. Thank you, Representative Posey.
        Mr. Posey. Yes, same two--question the same two witnesses.
    With Russia currently chairing the Arctic Council, has this
    hampered the ability for international cooperation like, you
    know, what efforts has Russia made to cooperate with China
    concerning research?
        Dr. Hinzman. So I'll take the first crack really quickly,
    Dr. Sfraga. So yes, that has had a serious impact on
    collaborative research. The U.S. Government has ceased Federal
    collaborations in Arctic science. I am disappointed to see this
    impact of science, but I fully support this action of the U.S.
    Government. So Dr. Sfraga?
        Dr. Sfraga. I agree with Dr. Hinzman, fully support the
    actions that the United States and our other six partners in
    the Arctic Council have taken. It has hindered research in the
    Arctic. If you're trying to put together a puzzle and you only
    have half the pieces, you really don't have a great shot at
    completing a good picture of the puzzle. And you've just taken
    out Russia, which is 50 percent of the Arctic. So many of the
    issues we've just talked about, whether it's fire, permafrost
    thaw, ocean acidification, all of the issues facing all of the
    Arctic, which means the globe, we've just parked 50 percent of
    the Arctic to the side.
        Having said that, I am in full agreement with the actions
    that the United States and other nations have taken. It has
    hindered our ability to have solid international cooperation.
    The Arctic has prided itself, for good reason, for being a zone
    of peace and cooperation, even through the cold war. However,
    the invasion of Ukraine is beyond the pale. And so what best to
    do now? What best to do now is to work with our allies and
    partners and double down in our investments right now so that
    we can leverage the expertise of our allies in a way that we
    can continue the research that needs to be done at a time of
    dramatic change. But make no mistake, it really will hinder our
    research and our understanding of the north more fully, but we
    can't be held hostage to what has happened. We have to move
    forward. And we're lucky enough to have allies and partners to
    move forward with.
        Mr. Posey. I thank the witnesses. And I thank you, Madam
    Chair, for letting him finish answering that question. And I
    yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. Absolutely. And with that we were going to
    hear from one of Oregon's finest, Congresswoman Bonamici, for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you to the Chair and Ranking Member and
    to our witnesses.
        Experts predict that by the end of the century, hundreds of
    towns, cities, and villages across the United States and around
    the world will be all or partially underwater. I'm grateful
    we're having this hearing today to amplify the role of the
    Arctic and, as it says, strengthening science to respond to a
    rapidly changing Arctic. And I hope that what we're hearing
    today, the solutions that we find in this Committee and in this
    Congress meet the moment with the gravity of what we're hearing
    today.
        Dr. Hinzman, you talked about the infrastructure needs for
    Arctic researchers and adaptations along shorelines or they're
    typically in, you know, gray solutions like concrete or green
    solutions such as absorbing floodwaters in urban areas. So will
    you please elaborate on how priorities are set regarding
    adaptation that's needed for the infrastructure to support
    researchers? And I know Ranking Member Lucas asked about
    research facilities, but if you could also mention the
    challenges of travel now and how that has changed in light of
    the thawing permafrost.
        Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. Again,
    excellent questions. And so the way the priorities are set, we
    exist--IARPC collaborations, IARPC exists to facilitate the
    collaborations, the partnerships with the Federal agencies and
    with non-Federal partners. And so we've gone to great efforts
    to solicit input from the Federal agencies what the urgent
    research needs are but also from the Arctic communities, from
    the individuals, from indigenous organizations, and from the
    State of Alaska. So we've identified those urgent priorities
    that must be identified and then worked with the Federal
    agencies, the indigenous communities to try and understand the
    best approach to address these urgent priorities.
        As far as, you know, what the urgent needs are and the the
    priority approaches to address the rising climate--or, I'm
    sorry, the rising sea levels, that is a huge challenge, which
    requires again, as Dr. Sfraga was talking, about huge
    international collaborations in partnership to address the--
    we're seeing remarkable degradation of glaciers around the
    world, which in the past several decades, it's been primarily
    the glaciers that have contributed to the sea level rise, and
    now we're facing the incredible degradation of Greenland and
    the losses from the Antarctic. It is a tremendous problem. What
    we're trying to do now is just trying to characterize--best
    understand what that sea level rise is going to be over what
    time so that we can help our communities adapt. And I'll stop
    there. Thank you.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Hinzman. I'm want to ask Ms.
    Metcalf. Welcome. You discussed the importance of better
    connection between Indigenous Knowledge and what you refer to
    as the science-research-government-industry. One issue
    mentioned is a mismatch or disconnect. That's harmful algal
    blooms, or HABs, which with warming temperatures are creating a
    new threat to the Arctic. This is an issue that I've worked on
    on a bipartisan basis, particularly with Representative Posey
    over the years. In fact, we just recently received a GAO report
    about the interagency NOAA-EPA (Environmental Protection
    Agency) workgroup confirming that we need to do more.
        So, Ms. Metcalf, what are your suggestions for addressing
    that disconnect so that you can access the reliable testing you
    need for the water and for the food you eat that comes from the
    ocean?
        Ms. Metcalf. Well, thank you for that question.
    Congresswoman. One of the issues that we constantly deal with
    is that our communities are well-adapted to providing
    biological samples to science who can do the assessment of if
    it's safe to eat some of our food resources. The problem is
    that sometimes it's very, very difficult to get results back in
    a timely manner to our--back to our communities who harvest,
    you know, bowhead whales and Pacific walrus and ice seals and
    birds. You know, is it safe to eat these resources when we
    don't get any results back in a timely manner? Although our
    communities have been providing samples for many, many years,
    that's the issue that we have. How can we incorporate
    Indigenous Knowledge, local input in adapting or mitigating
    coastal erosion, for example, that was mentioned, or changes
    along our coastline? How can we incorporate our knowledge into
    these issues that we've been saying----
        Ms. Bonamici. Ms. Metcalf, I don't mean to cut you off, but
    I want to get one more question in. My time's running out.
        Ms. Metcalf. No problem.
        Ms. Bonamici. Quickly, Dr. Natali, you testified in Foreign
    Affairs--the Foreign Affairs Committee you mentioned last year.
    And then in your testimony today, you said less than 1 year
    later, we discovered that the negative consequences of inaction
    are much higher than we previously understood. What happened in
    the last year?
        Dr. Natali. I think each year and each day and each week
    that goes by the scientific community [inaudible] continuously.
        Ms. Stevens. Could you please turn----
        Dr. Natali. Sorry about that--continuously surprised by the
    rapidity of the changes and the interactions that are
    happening. And I'd say this storm that happened in Alaska,
    I'm--is not--maybe is not a surprise, but it was a surprise,
    and it's something that I think we need to be continuously
    prepared for. And I think what's happening now is that I think
    the climate is actually changing faster than the science can
    happen. And so what that means is that we're seeing extreme
    events both in the Arctic and also in lower latitudes as a
    result of the rapid Arctic changes that are happening. And
    these extreme events are impacting Arctic residents and also
    the rest of the planet.
        Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. I see my time has expired.
    Thank you to the witnesses for your excellent answers. I yield
    back.
        Ms. Stevens. OK, and with that, we will move to Mrs. Bice
    for 5 minutes of questioning from the great State of Oklahoma.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I want to say
    thank you to the witnesses for joining us for this discussion
    today.
        Dr. Natali, in your bio, you mentioned that you had
    testified to the Foreign Affairs Committee about some of the
    challenges with the changes with the Arctic and particularly
    Greenland ice shelf. Do you want to maybe expand a little bit?
    As someone who sits on the Armed Services Committee, certainly,
    national security is something that I, you know, take very
    seriously. Can you talk a little bit--since some of the other
    witnesses have broached the topic, what are your perspectives
    on these changes and how it impacts our national security?
        Dr. Natali. Yes, thank you for that question. So there's
    very direct impacts when you think about the changes that are
    happening on the ground, and so I focus a lot on permafrost
    thaw, but permafrost thaw does not happen independent from the
    rest of the system. So these changes that are happening on
    lands in the Arctic are impacting communities that live in the
    Arctic, but also military facilities and in other
    infrastructure, gas and oil pipelines. And so I'm talking about
    ground collapsing when the ice and the permafrost melts and the
    ground starts to collapse. That in turn then causes flooding
    and increases coastal erosion and makes infrastructure more
    vulnerable to storm damage. And so this is a very direct
    impact.
        And I guess I would say another priority that needs to be a
    focus when we're thinking about, I guess, security, I guess I
    would also really want to highlight security of human systems
    and food security and food sovereignty because this is also
    being impacted not only by permafrost thaw, but by the number
    of other changes that are happening across the Arctic. And I
    think others on this panel can speak more directly to that from
    their personal and professional experiences, but the impact of
    the climate changes on both the human communities, the
    infrastructure, the economic impacts that is happening are far
    and wide-reaching beyond the Arctic.
        Mrs. Bice. And to follow up on that, and this is actually
    for Ms. Metcalf, or Dr. Hinzman. Aside from the release of
    carbon and methane emissions, are there any other threats from
    thawing permafrost that could potentially pose a threat to
    local or global community's health, and can you gauge the
    seriousness of those?
        Ms. Metcalf. Thank you for that question. Yes, sinkholes
    are something new that is happening in our region. We see that
    because moose hunter--moose hunting just ended, but hunters are
    reporting large sinkholes along the roads that are affecting
    our ability to harvest these resources that are very important
    to us.
        Dr. Hinzman. If I may add, thank you for that question,
    Representative Bice. If I may add, it is a very important issue
    for national security in that all of our--in the Arctic, all of
    our military facilities are built upon permafrost, which is
    also degrading, so the infrastructure is at risk. And we need
    to develop better techniques to improve our design criteria and
    our construction techniques so that the facilities that are
    built are functional throughout their projected lifespan, so we
    have to come up with better building techniques and we have to
    come up with better design criteria.
        Mrs. Bice. That's a great, I think, perspective there. This
    is to all of the witnesses. Given the harsh environment in the
    Arctic, can you talk about the need to invest in Arctic
    technology that is developed to maintain and to remain
    operational and sustainable under these extreme circumstances?
    We've talked a little bit and I know that we're putting
    together sort of this holistic view, but what are some of the
    technologies you think are really maybe crucial currently?
        Dr. Hinzman. May I?
        Mrs. Bice. Please.
        Dr. Hinzman. So thank you again for that question. So I
    think what we need to do--the mistakes we've made in the past
    is that when we were building--we were building facilities,
    pipelines, roads, we built upon the historic weather data. We
    didn't look forward. We weren't using climate projections to
    understand how the--how this environment was going to change,
    and to build the--our facilities to design our infrastructure
    to last for that design criteria. So what we need to do, we
    need to come up--we need to use climate models to integrate
    with our building techniques, with the engineering designs so
    that these facilities are appropriate for the environmental
    conditions they are going to see throughout their lifespan. And
    that's something we--we're not doing now but we really need to.
        Ms. Metcalf. May I add quick?
        Mrs. Bice. Yes, Ms. Metcalf.
        Ms. Metcalf. Yes, Indigenous Knowledge and local
    perspectives need to be included in these plans, so that's very
    important to consider. So thank you.
        Mrs. Bice. Thank you. And that concludes my time. Madam
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we will hear from
    Congressman McNerney for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairwoman. You didn't say
    anything about California, so I'll live with that.
        Ms. Stevens. From the wonderful State of California, the
    jovial State of California.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, I thank the witnesses. Dr.
    Hinzman, the Arctic Observing Network is a system of
    atmospheric, land, and ocean-based environmental monitoring
    capabilities. Data is received from ocean buoys, satellites,
    and other sources. How would you characterize the current state
    of Arctic monitoring, observing, and modeling in the prediction
    efforts?
        Dr. Hinzman. Our observing system in the Arctic is very,
    very sparse at this point. And so it--as far as the role that
    it plays in observing, predicting, it's tenuous at best in that
    our models are developed--they--our models require validation,
    verification, and it is very difficult with the extent of the
    observations that we have now to really rigorously validate
    those models. And so it does hurt our ability for even short-
    term predictions with respect to weather predictions, which has
    a big impact on the more temperate regions but also with
    respect to the long-term projections of future climates.
        Mr. McNerney. Is there an opportunity to fill in those
    gaps?
        Dr. Hinzman. I certainly hope so. We are trying to enhance
    and improve the observing network in collaborations with many
    of our international colleagues, and with other institutions,
    other governments. We are trying to build a reliable, robust
    Arctic Observing Network.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Now, Dr. Natali, a top priority of
    the Permafrost Pathways is to fill in the gaps again and
    monitoring greenhouse gas emissions across the Arctic. What are
    your recommendations of a Carbon Flux Monitoring Network?
        Dr. Natali. Thank you for this question. So as part of the
    Permafrost Pathways Project, we're trying to fill in gaps in
    carbon cycling on land from the Arctic so that we can know now
    is the Arctic a carbon source or a sink as it has been? So is
    it continuing to take up carbon as it has been for thousands of
    years? And what will this look like into the future?
        One of the challenges we've recognized are these major
    gaps. And so we're taking a--I'd say a top-down approach,
    saying if you want to know the carbon budget of the Arctic,
    where would you strategically put these monitoring sites? And I
    feel like in terms of Arctic carbon cycling, that hasn't
    happened in the past. Sites generally get established somewhat
    opportunistically by grants, and so I think that kind of more
    coordinated effort. There is a challenge right now because we
    cannot be working on the ground in Russia.
        I think another major need here in order to help us to fill
    this gap is this satellite data. So right now, high-resolution
    satellite data is critical for seeing places in the Arctic that
    we can't access on the ground. Some of the commercial data
    right now is only accessible if you're an NSF- or a NASA-funded
    scientists--accessible, I would say like for free. So making
    these data widely available and beyond the funding cycles would
    greatly advance the scientific community's ability to continue
    monitoring these sites, even in places and to get the ground
    truth data, even from the--from satellites in order to verify
    these models.
        And I'd say the last thing we need is really dedicated
    commitment toward improving these models. There are a number of
    U.S.-based Earth system models that could use that support.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, has there been any research on how
    solar radiation management, for example, by injecting sunlight
    reflecting particles into the stratosphere, would slow the
    permafrost thawing?
        Dr. Natali. I think there are a lot of challenges with this
    and solar radiation management I think--I'm not opposed to
    exploring all options, but I would strongly, strongly suggest
    that that conversation is--that indigenous Arctic residents are
    brought into the room and others as part of that.
        Mr. McNerney. Anyone else on the panel want to take that?
    Dr. Hinzman?
        Dr. Hinzman. Yes. Thank you for that questions. So there
    has been extensive discussion within the Arctic research
    community, within the whole scientific community as far as
    geoengineering, and they're--at present, the United States does
    not support research into geoengineering as far as any of those
    activities. We're not really--we're more concerned about the
    possible consequences. But there are right now active
    investigations going on into potential modeling studies to try
    and understand that, if that occurred, what the consequences
    would be.
        Mr. McNerney. That was my question. Thank you.
        Well, major changes in the Arctic can be seen within a
    single generation. Now we're seeing that happen. And I don't
    have time to ask anyone specifically, but I'll throw the
    question out there before I retire. How many--how will the
    biennial implementation approach for the Arctic Research Plan
    impact research effectiveness?
        And with that, I'll yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you. And as I had passed the 5
    minutes of questioning over to my colleague who has served this
    Committee very admirably, I did so with a lot of admiration.
    And, you know, the remaining weeks that we have of this months
    that we have of this term, it's just been such an honor to
    serve with my friend and colleague, Jerry.
        And with that, we're going to pass it over to Mr. Feenstra
    of Iowa for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you,
    Ranking Member Lucas. And thank you all to our witnesses for
    your testimony and sharing your extensive experience and
    knowledge on this subject.
        There's been a lot of research on the Arctic, and that--and
    could--can be very important, but we should build off what
    we've already done. For example, the DOE's (Department of
    Energy's) Biological and Environmental Research Program used
    drones to conduct high-resolution monitoring for changes in the
    Arctic vegetation. There was also collaboration between the DOE
    and the NSF to study microbes in Arctic soil that can absorb
    carbon dioxide, as well as adapted to take advantage of a
    thawing of permafrost.
        So my question is this, Dr. Sfraga. Can you tell us more
    about incorporating these terrestrial research investments with
    the Arctic? And are there studies and data produced by
    agricultural--agriculture and life sciences research like Iowa
    State University that can also be used in the new Arctic
    research?
        Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative Feenstra. Yes, the
    answer is yes. I think where your comments and your questions
    are coming from is, is there a better way to integrate and
    leverage what we already have invested as a country, not just
    in financial resources, but in our intellectual capacities and
    capabilities as a way to feed that into the more broader Arctic
    research indefinitely? And the answer is yes because the
    systems are connected. This is a globalized Arctic now.
        So if we're doing research in Iowa on the hydro cycle, if
    we're doing research on vegetation, water cycles, we're looking
    at pestilence, migrations, all of those issues, since the
    global patterns have changed, we can see the benefit of
    understanding what the impacts are across our country and
    indeed, across the world. So if there are assets like drones
    being used, if there's research, as you have noted, on
    microbial research endeavors, then I think there is a way and
    there are ways to leverage those areas of expertise and show
    the interconnectedness, the cause and effect, the impacts of
    what's happening in the Arctic to places around the world,
    including crop yields.
        Mr. Feenstra. Can I further ask that question of--so I'm an
    academic myself. How do we get more involvement in the academic
    world in this arena? Dr. Sfraga?
        Dr. Sfraga. Yes. Thank you. Thank you again for that. I
    think there's an understanding. You know, as fellow scholars
    [inaudible], and we're seeing more and more institutions,
    whether they be in Iowa or in Florida or in California, have
    increased capacity and interest in the Arctic. And that is
    where one academic may--one scholar may have had a particular
    focus in their area and that might have been a region outside
    of the Arctic, and now we're seeing the transfer of their
    intellectual capacities and their research to the Arctic and
    even in the Antarctic as well. So we're--we see a lot of this
    referencing and transition of their work [inaudible] with
    scholarship. It comes with publications, it comes with
    conferences, but it also comes with the understanding
    [inaudible] throughout the Arctic community and throughout the
    academic community that these global systems are indeed tied.
    And we're seeing the----
        Mr. Feenstra. Absolutely.
        Mr. Sfraga [continuing]. Cause and effect of it.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for that. So
    Iowa State also recently received an award from NSF for the
    project entitled ``Collaborative Research Toward Resilient
    Water Infrastructure in Alaska Native Communities Through
    Knowledge and Co-Production.'' One of the major research
    objectives for this grant will be to outreach efforts aimed at
    training community members in the use of water supply and leak
    detection sensing equipment. Ms. Metcalf, from your
    perspective, how receptive are Alaskan indigenous communities
    to implementing Federal research ideas like this? So it's
    coming out of the academic world, so how do we apply it and how
    do we implement it based on the community members that are out
    there?
        Ms. Metcalf. Yes, thank you for that comment and question.
    We have a similar project here that we are doing called SEARCH
    that is funded by NSF and it utilizes our 12 IK experts in that
    project that is looking at health policy and knowledge systems
    within the Arctic to conduct that project. So I think I keep
    emphasizing Indigenous Knowledge, the use of and incorporating
    that in any kind of project is important, so thank you. I hope
    I answered the question.
        Mr. Feenstra. Absolutely. Thank you so much for your
    comments. I'm very grateful for each one of your testimonies.
    And I yield back.
        Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentleman yields back, The
    gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman
    from North Carolina. Representative Ross, you're recognized for
    5 minutes, please.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the
    Ranking Member. And thank you so much to all of the witnesses
    for your testimony.
        I recently returned from a climate and energy meeting with
    several Members of Congress. It was bipartisan in Iceland. And
    we looked at geothermal energy, we looked at carbon capture,
    and we talked to a wide variety of people in Iceland, working
    in both climate and energy. One of the biggest takeaways that
    we took from that trip was how there were many, many women
    involved in energy and climate. And for some of the largest
    companies dealing with these issues, 50 percent of the board of
    directors. And of course, we have a female Prime Minister of
    Iceland, who's in D.C. this week.
        And so one of the focuses of this Committee has been
    increasing the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics) pipeline so that we can have many different
    perspectives and talents addressing the most difficult problems
    that we have. And so I wanted to know what the STEM education
    and work force needs are in the Arctic, including supporting
    the continuity of Indigenous Knowledge, and what are the
    challenges?
        Dr. Hinzman. Are you--can you--who would you direct that
    question to?
        Ms. Ross. Anyone. You can start, sir.
        Dr. Hinzman. Well, thank you. Thank you for that question.
    So I will--I'll certainly jump in and then perhaps pass to my
    colleagues. So IARPC, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy
    Committee, has recently released the Arctic Research Plan. A
    component of that plan, one of the foundational activities of
    that plan is, of course, STEM education. That is very important
    to us. So we are--and another component of it is--actually is
    indigenous engagement, and--I'm sorry, participatory research
    and indigenous leadership in research. And part of that is we
    want to utilize the co-production of knowledge. We want to gain
    from the expertise and the culture that exists, but we also
    want to improve the capacity of the--in the community so that
    they can address the issues and take these challenges on
    themselves. And STEM education is a critical part of that. And
    so we've been directed by the agencies to address that to the
    best of our abilities, and we are definitely trying to respond.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Ross. And, Ms. Metcalf, I would love to hear from you.
        Ms. Metcalf. Yes. Thank you for that question. I am a big
    proponent of co-production of knowledge. I would suggest
    including Indigenous Knowledge or local communities from the
    beginning of any project development. I think we are--always
    have been part of the solution, so it's very important to note
    that. Thank you.
        Ms. Ross. Does anyone else have anything to add before I
    ask my next question?
        OK. My next question, right before we went to Iceland,
    President Biden announced that he's interested in creating a
    position of Ambassador to the Arctic. And I know that we--we've
    talked a lot about the international challenges in the Arctic.
    I'd like any reaction that any of the panelists have to that
    and how you see dealing with climate and science as a role for
    whoever that Ambassador might be. And why don't we start with
    Dr. Hinzman and then anybody else who wants to chime in?
        Dr. Hinzman. So the United States is one of the very few
    Arctic nations that does not have an Arctic Ambassador, so we
    are very pleased to learn of this new announcement. And I think
    that there are some wonderful people who can really play a
    great role for us and facilitating these engagements we need
    with our other Arctic nations partners. And so this is a great
    step forward, particularly at this time when we've ceased the
    active engagement of the Arctic Council, so this is a critical
    role at this time. And I'll pass the floor from that. Thank
    you.
        Dr. Sfraga. Representative Ross, I would just--please.
        Dr. Natali. OK. I guess I'll just quickly add I think from
    a science perspective, the climate and the changes that are
    happening don't see national boundaries, and so I think this is
    really a critical point in helping us to advance the science
    across the Arctic outside of the United States as well.
        Ms. Ross. Great. Dr. Sfraga?
        Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative Ross, I, too, think
    that it's a pretty good idea for the United States to create
    this Ambassador position. I see the role as someone who can
    project and reflect United States policy across the board to
    international partners, especially at this time, as Dr. Natali
    just noted, someone who can communicate in aggregate all of the
    U.S. policies, can communicate where we stand on many issues
    across the board, one office, one individual with support that
    can do that for all of the--our interests in the north would be
    not only something good for the United States but I think our
    allies and partners, too, are awaiting someone like this as
    well.
        Ms. Ross. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Kansas. Representative LaTurner,
    you're recognized for 5 minutes, please.
        Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to
    all of our conferees.
        Dr. Hinzman, how are the goals for the current Arctic
    Research Plan--how do the goals for the current Arctic Research
    Plan improve on previous iterations of the plan? And are you
    concerned that overly broad priority areas will make
    substantive change difficult?
        Dr. Hinzman. So that's an excellent question. This plan is
    very different from previous plans. And I think it's taken a
    new approach because this is where we are with respect to the
    science. Previous plans were really focused upon understanding
    the disciplinary sciences, looking at sea ice processes or
    permafrost dynamics or ecosystem evolution. At this point, what
    we're trying to do is we're trying to take on the more complex,
    the more sophisticated societal-level questions of health and
    community resilience and economies, livelihoods, risk
    management, hazard mitigation. Those are areas where we need to
    draw together the many disciplines of science, the many, many
    components of science, but also engineering and economics and
    the other policy issues so that we can address these higher-
    level questions, these more sophisticated questions that can't
    be taken on from a more basic disciplinary perspective.
        Mr. LaTurner. Can you talk about the economic change that
    occurs in Arctic communities and how that influences your goal
    setting for the IARPC?
        Dr. Hinzman. Yes, unfortunately, Arctic communities have
    very limited economic opportunities, and so what we're trying
    to do is we're trying to understand how we can--what the
    research components--what research can add to understanding
    sustainable livelihoods, what--how we can help understand--help
    communities understand what their resources are, how they can
    utilize them to best move forward to maintain a thriving
    community into the future. And so we're really looking at the
    economies of the resources but also the human resources, the
    capital and the capabilities and the culture that they have,
    how we can pull all this information together to make
    sustainable, thriving communities.
        Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. Dr. Sfraga, how could
    collaboration be improved between U.S. Arctic Research
    Commission and other government agencies to promote research in
    Arctic communities?
        Dr. Sfraga. Thank you for the question, Representative. We
    do that a great deal now. There's a lot of communication
    between the Arctic Research Commission, our Commissioners.
    They're representative of--five of the seven Commissioners are
    Alaskans. They each have different seats on the Commission. So
    there's a lot of integration and a lot of communication between
    the Commission and communities throughout the State of Alaska.
    So that's one.
        Two is that we spend our days communicating to--throughout
    the State of Alaska with the government, with indigenous
    groups, with State Commissioners, but also with our Federal
    partners as well. Most of the work of the Commission is not
    creating a 2-year goals report. Most of the work of the
    Commission is exactly what you know, Representative, which is
    communicating to communities and having communities communicate
    to the Commissioners to inform our work, and then work with our
    Federal partners as well, as well as our international
    partners.
        Mr. LaTurner. I appreciate that. I want to stick with you.
    And this is really important. How does the United States use
    research and development programs as soft diplomacy tools to
    build relationships with our allies?
        Dr. Sfraga. Yes, that's a wonderful question. I would say
    that--let me give you--I'll give you one example. You know,
    research has always been a part of the U.S. soft diplomacy,
    always, and it's a bedrock of what we do. If you look at the
    Arctic and you think about it in arcs, just in these arcs to
    and from the Arctic, there's an arc of, I would say,
    commonality and an arc of cooperation in the North American
    Arctic. That's Alaska, the United States, Canada, Greenland.
        And by looking at that tranche of North American Arctic,
    you can see many research projects that span the Arctic with
    likeminded nations that already have working relationships in
    research from Greenland, as noted, to our bilateral
    relationship with Canada and Alaska through the United States.
    So by reinforcing those areas, that's reinforcing a rules-based
    order. It's reinforcing a transatlantic alliance and the
    transatlantic partnerships, as you'd think about this arc of
    commonality that goes into the Nordics and into Europe. So
    these are the ties that bind us. Research is a bedrock of that
    partnership and those ties that bind us.
        Mr. LaTurner. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
    answers.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Ms. Stevens [presiding]. Thank you. And with that, we are
    going to hear from Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you to Madam Chair. So, Chair
    Johnson and Chair Stevens, and Ranking Member Lucas, thank you
    for hosting us today. And to the witnesses, thank you for being
    here to provide great insight.
        The consequences of a rapidly changing Arctic landscape
    have the potential to impact billions of people worldwide.
    Alaskan residents and countless indigenous communities,
    however, are already on the frontlines of the most observable
    impacts of climate change such as thawing permafrost. As global
    temperatures continue to rise, millions of lives and critical
    civilian and military infrastructure in the Arctic are urgently
    at risk.
        So, Dr. Natali, we know that when permafrost thaws,
    enormous quantities of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and
    methane are released into the atmosphere, not to mention the
    ancient bacteria and viruses that could trigger another global
    pandemic. How are increasingly frequent extreme weather events
    speeding up permafrost thaw? And what are the immediate and
    long-term consequences of abrupt thaw events?
        Dr. Natali. Thank you for your question, Representative
    Tonko. So abrupt climate events like heat waves, like these
    massive storms that we're seeing, can trigger rapid permafrost
    thaw, the sinkholes that Ms. Metcalf had mentioned. And when
    these rapid events happen, so when the--when the ground thaws,
    it can happen very gradually where you have heat being
    transformed, but you can also have these rapid events
    happening, particularly in areas where you have a lot of ice in
    the ground. Once those happen, then you have more ground
    exposed, so it can happen faster and faster and faster. So
    rapid events that trigger it then cause this exponential
    increase in the rate of permafrost thaw.
        Once that happens, it's essentially irreversible, at least
    on a human-relevant timeframe. It's taken a long time for the
    carbon, thousands of years in many cases for the carbon to get
    into the ground. When you have this massive erosion, even if we
    cool our climate, you're not going to get the shorelines back
    that have eroded. And so these triggering events can--even
    though they're happening perhaps on a--you know, on a smaller
    spatial scale, can have outsized impacts, both on global
    climate and on the ground for people who are living on
    permafrost and the infrastructure that's on permafrost.
        Mr. Tonko. So that being said, how does this impact on
    accurate pictures for nationally determining contributions and
    carbon budgets?
        Dr. Natali. Yes, so that's the challenge because right now,
    permafrost is rarely included in global climate models and
    rarely incorporated into these budgets for how much carbon is
    remaining to stay below 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius. These abrupt
    events are absolutely not included at all. They're quite
    complex to put into a model. We can make estimates of it, and I
    strongly suggest that, using the best information that you have
    at hand. There are a number of models, and my group is one of
    them, working on advancing the models to incorporate these
    abrupt events. But when we're thinking about analyzing and
    responding to risk, I think we need to really seriously
    consider these upper extremes that we're being pushed to that
    we perhaps haven't been able to consider in kind of the
    traditional models that we've been running.
        Mr. Tonko. And can you elaborate on your approach to
    collaborative research with Alaska Native tribes?
        Dr. Natali. Yes. So as part of a new project that I'm
    leading called Permafrost Pathways, we'll be working with 10
    tribes in Alaska who are making really difficult decisions
    about climate change adaptation as a result of permafrost thaw,
    flooding, and erosion. And so my approach for going into this
    really is to let the tribes lead the research that's needed. So
    what I do when I'm there is based on what their needs are. And
    so yes, my specialty may be in permafrost science, but if the
    needs come out that, you know, there's--the ground is sinking
    and this is then impacting water quality, then I try to make
    this happen.
        And, as Ms. Metcalf mentioned, there's been a real
    challenge for the tribes getting information back to them, so
    any information that is collected, it belongs to the tribe,
    it's driven by the tribe, and it's for their information in
    terms of helping them making decisions for moving forward.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And my time is just about up, but
    I'll ask that all of our witnesses consider any recommendations
    that you could share with us as a Committee for making Federal
    funding more accessible for Arctic research, and perhaps
    provide that to us in writing since I have just seconds
    remaining.
        OK. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you to our very dedicated
    Committee Member, Mr. Tonko, for those 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        And with that, we're going to turn it over to Ms. Kim for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you very much. I want to thank our witnesses
    for appearing before us today and answering our questions and,
    you know, discussing this very important topic.
        I know you just talked about--Dr. Natali, about the
    permafrost emissions and all that so--but I--for my better
    understanding, I want to continue on that line of questioning.
    In your testimony, you call for increasing data coverage in
    space and time and better connecting the measuring and modeling
    communities to reduce uncertainty in climate monitoring and
    modeling. So in recent years, we have seen the innovative
    carbon and methane emission detection technologies come forward
    in the oil and gas sector. So can you talk more about the
    Woodwell Climate Research Center, how it is leveraging new and
    emerging technologies like these to improve permafrost
    emissions tracking, as well as those barriers to deploying
    those technologies?
        Dr. Natali. Yes, thank you, Representative Kim, for your
    question. One of the challenges of working in the Arctic is
    that it's dark and it's cloudy, and this makes it a real
    challenge for using some types of satellites to detect changes
    that are happening on land. The other issue with using
    satellite data, say, for detecting greenhouse gas emissions
    from thawing permafrost is that they're currently tuned to
    detect peaks, very, very high spikes that, say, that may be
    coming out of gas and oil industry, less so tuned for this
    very, very large area where emissions from a very--you know,
    one area itself may be relatively low, but it's this sort of
    cumulative effect over this large area.
        And so that's one of the real big challenges and barriers,
    say, for using remote technology for detecting what's happening
    on the ground, which is why we are working to set up on-the-
    ground monitoring. And then we use satellite data to, what we
    say, upscale that information. And then we are also working to
    link that information into process models to make sure that the
    monitoring information--monitoring and modeling are
    communicating with each other because that currently,
    surprisingly, is not the case. The scientific communities tend
    to kind of get separated when when we're working by discipline
    and also just by methodology. And so this is key for us. It's
    a--called a data model simulation and it's a process that's
    used by the weather forecasting community. It's made our
    weather forecasts much better. And so we're working on a new
    data model assimilation framework for carbon cycling for the
    Arctic.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you so much. I'd like to ask the next
    question to all three doctors, Hinzman, Sfraga, and Dr. Natali.
    In your testimonies, you also emphasized the need for
    international research and scientific collaboration in the
    Arctic. And you also share concerns regarding the barriers to
    future science collaboration and explicit restrictions on data
    sharing and financing of foreign investigators, right? So in
    your opinion, how can we best navigate those transnational
    collaboration on scientific and advancement in the Arctic amid
    the ongoing geopolitical tensions, as well as future conflicts
    that may arise? And how do we balance protecting our U.S.
    national security and our allies and promoting scientific
    collaboration with adversaries like Russia?
        Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Kim. That's, again,
    an excellent question. So I would like to go back to what Dr.
    Sfraga said earlier, sorry if I steal your thunder, Mike. But
    the collaborative research that we've had with our
    international partners has been just a cornerstone of our
    international relationships of our partnerships. And so the--
    even now, we anticipate, we expect, we hope that this conflict
    in Ukraine will end. And following that, that the scientific
    collaborations will, again, open the door for better scientific
    relationships, and hopefully better policy relationships among
    our nations.
        At the same time, we do--we must protect our intellectual
    properties, we must protect our capabilities, but we can also
    benefit by sharing our expertise and sharing our understanding.
    And so hopefully, these partnerships, these collaborations can
    open that door for that better policy relationship.
        Ms. Kim. Would you like to chime in?
        Dr. Natali. Data sharing is--I have to say, has been a
    problem for a long time now. As a U.S.-funded scientist, all of
    my data are publicly shared. That's required from the Arctic
    funding agency. It's very challenging to get data from other
    nations and I would say particularly Russia, and this has been
    for a while now. So the solution to that, I don't know what the
    solution to that is. You know, as a scientist, I work one-on-
    one with other scientists, and we collaborate and we share
    data. At some point, it would be great to see a top-down effort
    to encourage data sharing, to encourage--you know, bringing
    equipment in and out across nations is also another challenge.
    So just really recognizing sort of that these boundaries are
    creating a barrier for scientists trying to work across the
    Arctic and to come up with a pan-Arctic answer to some of these
    issues.
        Ms. Kim. Do we have time to listen from--Dr. Sfraga, would
    you like to chime in?
        Dr. Sfraga. Oh, thank you very much. I'll make this--
    hopefully make this brief. Again, encouraging the international
    cooperation with allies and partners, as I noted before, but we
    should not underestimate the power that--and expertise that
    other countries bring to the table, countries that believe in a
    rules-based order like Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom.
    The EU has a Horizons Europe Program with a significant
    investment being made in Arctic research.
        In aggregate, when you look at all of that together with
    the United States in a leadership role here, you can leverage
    the expertise and focus the Arctic research that needs to get
    done not just for a nation-state, but also for the entire
    Arctic region by encouraging that, by the United States
    communicating its interest in continued leadership, but also
    these international cooperations and partnerships. I think that
    would be responded to well, but also with U.S. leadership,
    areas in which we believe to be important, I know many other
    nations do as well, and encouraging these international
    partnerships going forward would be helpful.
        I would also note that the United States is a part of the
    International Science Cooperation Agreement signed through the
    Arctic Council. That will--that has been helpful, but it has
    not solved the problem of at least data and assets crossing
    borders, as Dr. Natali has noted, but it is helpful to know
    that there is an agreement in place. It will not help us with
    the information in and out of Russia at the moment, but the
    international community continues to try to think pan-Arctic.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we're going to hear
    from Dr. Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Ms. Chair.
        Ms. Metcalf, I have some questions related to sort of
    demographic trends and particularly in Inuit areas. Are the
    Inuit areas, for example, facing the same sort of--in Russia
    facing the same sort of demographic collapse that the rest of
    Russia is facing? Or is it--is there a fairly uniform situation
    around the Arctic? And how are they--these demographic trends
    likely to be impacted by climate change? And what's the sort of
    range of opinion on how to support the population under
    different climate scenarios going forward? Has there been, you
    know, some scenario planning done for what the future will look
    like, depending on how well we deal with this?
        Ms. Metcalf. Well, I hope so. Thank you for that question.
    Well, the Arctic Council has stated that the Arctic should be a
    conflict-free zone, so that's what we hope would be emphasized.
    The Inuit Circumpolar Council, which is a permanent participant
    to the Arctic Council, recognizes that and really emphasize
    that the Arctic is supposed to be a conflict-free zone. We do
    have people across the waters that are our family and friends
    and neighbors, and they are living in Russia's Chukotka
    Peninsula. We maintain that relationship, despite the
    differences or despite the politics. We hope that research
    continues to be conducted because this--we share the same
    resources that they do. Marine mammals have no boundaries, but
    we have a very straight region that separates us, so I hope
    this is a good answer for you. Thank you.
        Mr. Foster. Yes, and, Dr. Natali, you mentioned relocation
    as--you know, what sort of scenario planning has been done for
    relocation if, you know, we have 5 or 50 feet of sea level
    rise? What does that do? Has that been looked at in any detail
    about how this is going to play out?
        Dr. Natali. I think on the Federal level, there perhaps
    might be others here who may want to comment on this. But my
    understanding of this is that there's limited Federal
    governance framework for addressing relocation and other
    adaptation needs related to climate change in the Arctic or
    anywhere else in this country, so I think this is something
    that is a very high priority. This would involve teams of
    Arctic residents, of scientists, decisionmakers, engineers, and
    policymakers because, right now, in addition to the really
    difficult environmental challenges that are happening, there
    are major, major policy barriers to communities who are having
    to make these decisions about how to protect themselves from
    the changes that are happening right now.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. Dr. Hinzman, are there----
        Dr. Hinzman. Yes, thank you. Thank you for that question,
    Representative Foster. Community relocation is very important
    in Alaska right now. There are--the GAO did a report on the
    number of communities threatened. I believe it was 23
    communities are actively being threatened right now by coastal
    erosion or riverine erosion. Many of those communities are
    actively considering relocation or actively making plans, and
    so they're--they are working with several of our Federal
    agencies. The Corps of Engineers is playing a very important
    role, the Denali Commission, Housing and Urban Development.
    It's--there is a very--a formal and coordinated process that is
    going forward to help these communities consider relocation,
    but it is--as Dr. Natali said, it does begin with the
    community. The community must come together to decide if that
    is in their best interest, if that is what they want to do, and
    then to determine the locations that would be suitable for it.
        And it is, as Dr. Natali did, I agree 100 percent. It is
    such a complicated issue, involving biological sciences,
    economics, social science, engineering, and so it's a very
    difficult process. But we are fortunate right now that many
    of--the bipartisan Infrastructure Act is helpful. There are
    resources available. And I do believe also that the IRA
    (Inflation Reduction Act) will also be beneficial in this
    regard. Thank you.
        Mr. Foster. Now, one of the areas where we have, I guess,
    sort of diverged from Russia is that they're continuing to work
    and develop and produce nuclear icebreakers, which are, of
    course, much more--they're actually one of the technologies
    that are--where nuclear reactors are really valuable. And
    then--is that something that we suffer from a lot by not having
    that capability in research?
        Dr. Hinzman. So Russia has many nuclear icebreakers, and
    they are currently planning on building more. And actually, as
    Dr. Sfraga mentioned earlier, China has two icebreakers, and
    they're considering--they're trying to develop a third nuclear
    icebreaker. Nuclear icebreakers do have incredibly more power.
    The United States research community has partnered with Russian
    icebreakers in the past to do some midwinter research into the
    deep ice. And so it does limit our capabilities. There are, of
    course, many other considerations besides the value of the
    research or the access, and so, you know, that's a more complex
    question than than I'm capable of answering.
        Mr. Foster. All right, thank you. My time is up, and I'll
    yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. All right, we're going to turn to Mr. Beyer
    for 5 minutes of questioning from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. And thank you
    for this incredibly important discussion and hearing.
        Dr. Natali, you make the really powerful case about the
    dangers of the permafrost melting, you know, that it has four
    times the amount of carbon that humans have released since the
    Industrial Revolution, twice as much carbon as is in the
    Earth's atmosphere right now. And there were--you had a number
    of recommendations. The first was about lengthening the grant
    periods from a 3-year cycle to much longer. But overall, almost
    all the recommendations were about greater investment in the
    science, climate monitoring, research planning, data exchange,
    grant funding. Is anything we can actually do, not just study,
    but do to slow or stop the permafrost thaw right now?
        Dr. Natali. Thank you, Representative Beyer. So a really
    great question. I mean, the No. 1 priority I guess I would say
    is to--you know, we've taken great steps in the United States
    for reducing and planning to reduce our fossil fuel emissions,
    but I think the main message is that that needs to be greatly
    ramped up if we actually want to keep global climate below 2
    degrees or 1.5 degrees Celsius. I think we also need to
    recognize that we've already committed to a lot of changes in
    the Arctic, and so the emphasis on understanding the science, I
    think, is really critical in order for planning and for risk
    assessment and for understanding both what's happening now but
    what's happening in a year and in 10 years and 50 years and 100
    years.
        So I think--yes, I mean, I think the Arctic is a challenge
    because really, it's a global problem. Greenhouse gas emissions
    from thawing permafrost impact everywhere else on the planet,
    but at the same time, protection of forests, keeping carbon in
    agricultural soils, reducing fossil fuel emissions, all of
    these things will impact permafrost. And, you know, permafrost,
    can refreeze. There are some changes that are happening that
    are irreversible. The carbon that's coming--or irreversible on
    a human timeframe, these abrupt events that are happening. But
    we're not at a point where we can't decide the future. We can
    certainly reduce the amount of permafrost that will thaw by
    sort of greatly increasing our ambition for mitigation.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Hinzman, you wrote that we have had no choice but to
    forego the regular collegial communication that enriched our
    understanding of our science since the thawing of the cold war
    because of the war in Ukraine. Dr. Sfraga had made the same
    comment, I think Dr. Natali the same. You know, we're still
    working with Russia on the International Space Station. We know
    how horrific and upsetting the war in Ukraine is, but we also
    know that the melting of the permafrost could change not just
    tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives but
    billions of lives on Earth. Is there no case to be made that
    this should be the one area where we continue to work with
    Russia?
        Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, sir. I--that is such a difficult
    question, and there is no good answer in that the threats to
    democracy and the suffering in Europe are, you know, almost,
    you know, terrible and compare--and so in comparison, you know,
    the setback to the sciences is hard to place it on the same
    scale.
        I do understand what you're saying as far as looking at the
    long-term threats to humanity with respect to the changing
    climate, and so that--I guess I don't believe that we can
    forsake our approach with respect to ceasing these
    collaborations with Russia to stop this terrible conflict. I
    think that's critically important. At the same time, I think we
    can work with our researchers, with our collaborators,
    researchers to--and with all nations to try and stop this
    continued emissions of carbon and the effect on the climate
    change and the effect that it does have on permafrost. I don't
    believe that the partnerships with Russia on permafrost are
    going to change the climate in the--over the next year or
    whatever it takes to end this war. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Beyer. Yes, yes, thank you. The tradeoff there, too, is
    not working with Russia on permafrost, is that going to be the
    lever that somehow ends this war? But thank you very much. And
    with 8 seconds left, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. All in good faith. With that, we're going to
    hear from Mr. Casten of Illinois for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to our speakers.
    The challenge with being late in the session is I got to try to
    say something novel that hasn't been said before.
        I also had the good fortune to travel with Congresswoman
    Ross to Iceland recently, and we met, among others, with former
    President Grimsson, who's now the Chairman of the Arctic Circle
    organization, and fascinating conversations, a lot of it well
    beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee. But a lot of our
    conversation with him was around the fact that as these sea
    lanes have opened up--his words, not mine--he said Russia has
    basically been acting like a toll collector in areas that are
    well beyond their international waters, but they've been
    allowed to block some of those areas and limit access to those
    areas.
        And I guess my first question for you, Dr. Hinzman, is have
    you seen that, and has Russian access to these melting waters
    or limitations on access in any way interfered with our ability
    to do research in the region?
        Dr. Hinzman. So we have seen tremendous increase over the
    last--you know, over the last decade, we've seen tremendous
    increase of Russian traffic through the Bering Strait. The
    current conflict has certainly affected the Arctic research,
    you know, particularly the collaborations that we have with the
    Russians, and Russia does occupy 50 percent of the Arctic. They
    have, you know--most of it--or a large part of the land area,
    at least 50 percent of land area, more than half the
    population, probably more than 50 percent of the minerals. And
    so it does have a big impact.
        The important collaborations that have ceased are the the
    major Arctic rivers, the biggest rivers that flow into the
    Arctic Ocean are coming from Russia. We no longer have access
    to that data. They also have important measurements on the
    carbon emissions, as Dr. Natali mentioned. We don't have access
    to that data. There are other issues, too, as far as we have--
    in the past, we have partnered on polar bear distributions, on
    walrus populations, on migratory waterfowl. And so there are so
    many important things that have ceased, important research
    activities that have ceased. But again, I believe at this time
    that is the appropriate course of action.
        Mr. Casten. OK. And you've touched on this before, but from
    a scientific funding perspective, one of his other observations
    was that the United States and our allies have strategic
    superiority in the air, strategic superiority underneath the
    ice cap but increasingly, because of our lack of icebreakers,
    don't control the surface as much as we used to. There's a
    military angle to that that's outside of this jurisdiction. But
    can you give a little bit of color on to what the scientific
    community is doing to expand our access to icebreakers? Should
    we? Where are we limited? And what would you like to see our
    Committee do to try to make sure--and I hate to frame it in a
    militaristic sense, but there is that link to it. So your
    comments, thoughts, requests?
        Dr. Hinzman. Yes, thank you, Representative Casten. So I
    cannot address the military aspects, but I can address what the
    IARPC, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, and
    our Arctic research community is doing to help address the
    scientific needs of our military. So you--we did talk about the
    infrastructure needs before and how we're--we are trying to
    develop more stable infrastructure, trying to develop a better
    understanding of the sea properties, the ocean properties, the
    ocean circulation, the weather forecasting. All of those
    characteristics, all those scientific needs do affect our
    military readiness and our domain awareness for our military.
    And so the research that we're doing does benefit our national
    security.
        Mr. Casten. Dr. Sfraga, with the time left, anything that
    you'd like to add on either of those questions?
        Dr. Sfraga. Yes. Thank you, Representative Casten. I would
    say that, back to my original testimony, which is if the Coast
    Guard does purchase a commercially available icebreaker and
    it's retrofitted, that we ensure that the scientific--the needs
    of our scientific and research community is placed on that
    research--on that vessel so that we can take advantage of that
    research platform. And that should go for any research--any
    icebreaker that the United States builds. Right now, we're
    lined up to hopefully have six new polar security cutters built
    over the next several years, maybe a decade. And the scientific
    community, in my opinion, their needs should be incorporated
    into those designs, along with other research vessels that the
    Nation should build. That's on the research side.
        Obviously, presence is influence, and so there's two parts
    to your conversation with President Grimsson. One is the
    research capacity of the United States. Here, we can partner
    with other countries that do have far more icebreaking capacity
    and research vessel capacity than we do. We have good relations
    with these countries. We should continue to do that. And two is
    on the security side, which is again, presence is influence in
    the north, whether that's with our U.S. Navy or with our United
    States Coast Guard.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you all, and I yield back.
        Ms. Stevens. OK. So before we bring this hearing to a
    close, I want to thank and recognize our witnesses for
    testifying before our Committee today. We want to sincerely
    thank all of those dedicated to the pursuit of scientific
    research in the face of enormous challenges. I came into this
    hearing thinking ice, ice, ice, ice, ice. You know, I read a
    lot of articles about a world without ice, and now I'm leaving
    thinking permafrost, permafrost, permafrost. So thank you, Dr.
    Natali, and--for your contributions today. And thank you all
    for leaving this Committee with a program of thought on how we
    can go forward for our Arctic. And particularly as those who
    authorize on behalf of this Nation, a budget, a design, and a
    scope of work for the future of this Nation.
        And as a reminder to everyone watching at home that, yes,
    the United States is an Arctic nation. And to have, you know,
    this great representation here today of witnesses so connected
    to the beautiful State of Alaska and what contributions that
    that State makes to our Nation is certainly quite
    determinative. And we have just witnessed a, you know,
    representation change in Alaska with the passing of Mr. Young
    and now the arrival of Ms. Mary Peltola, so, you know,
    certainly encourage you to reach out to her today as well.
        But know that our Committee as a whole stands committed to
    what we discussed today. And thanks, you and your teams, by the
    way, and certainly, Ms. Metcalf, for everything you represent.
    We can't be doing this without our friends in the tribes and
    who are connected to some of the incredible origin stories of
    this Nation and how we do address what is changing in the
    Arctic going forward without all of you. And thank you, too, to
    Dr. Natali for your contributions on that front as well.
        So the record is going to remain open for 2 weeks for
    additional statements from Members or additional questions.
    Some already made recognition that they were going to be
    submitting questions for the record, and so they may submit
    those for the 2-week period.
        And at this point, the witnesses will be excused, and the
    hearing will now be adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Dr. Larry Hinzman
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Mike Sfraga
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Ms. Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]