[Senate Hearing 118-296]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-296
BUDGETING FOR THE STORM:
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE COSTS TO
NATIONAL SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 15, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-713 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RON WYDEN, Oregon MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
TIM KAINE, Virginia MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico RICK SCOTT, Florida
ALEX PADILLA, California MIKE LEE, Utah
Dan Dudis, Majority Staff Director
Kolan Davis, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Mallory B. Nersesian, Chief Clerk
Alexander C. Scioscia, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2024
OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman............................. 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 34
Senator Charles E. Grassley...................................... 3
Prepared Statement........................................... 36
STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Senator Tim Kaine................................................ 19
Senator Ron Johnson.............................................. 21
Senator Chris Van Hollen......................................... 23
Senator Mike Braun............................................... 25
Senator Mark Warner.............................................. 27
Senator Alex Padilla............................................. 28
Senator Ben Ray Lujan............................................ 30
WITNESSES
Hon. Dennis V. McGinn, VADM USN Ret., Former Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment, and
Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare
Requirements and Programs...................................... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 39
Ms. Erin Sikorsky, Director, The Center for Climate and Security,
and The International Military Council on Climate and Security. 9
Prepared Statement........................................... 43
Addendum..................................................... 46
Mr. Rick Dwyer, Executive Director, Hampton Roads Military and
Federal Facilities Alliance.................................... 11
Prepared Statement........................................... 86
Hon. Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., RDML USN Ret., Former Oceanographer of
the Navy, and Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
and Atmosphere................................................. 13
Prepared Statement........................................... 97
Ms. Mackenzie Eaglen, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute...................................................... 15
Prepared Statement........................................... 102
APPENDIX
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
Hon. Gallaudet............................................... 112
Statements submitted for the Record by Chairman Sheldon
Whitehouse..................................................... 118
BUDGETING FOR THE STORM:
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE COSTS TO.
NATIONAL SECURITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2024
Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:01
a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon
Whitehouse, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Whitehouse, Warner, Kaine, Van Hollen,
Lujan, Padilla, Grassley, Johnson, Braun, and R. Scott.
Also present: Democratic staff: Dan Dudis, Majority Staff
Director; Ethan Rosenkranz, Senior Budget Analyst for National
Defense.
Republican staff: Chris Conlin, Deputy Staff Director;
Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Erich Hartman, Director of
Budget Policy and Review; Jordan Pakula, Professional Staff
Member; Ryan Flynn, Budget Analyst.
Witnesses:
The Honorable Dennis V. McGinn, VADM USN Ret., Former
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and
Environment, and Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
Warfare Requirements and Programs
The Honorable Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., RDML USN Ret., Former
Oceanographer of the Navy, and Former Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
Ms. Erin Sikorsky, Director, The Center for Climate and
Security, and The International Military Council on Climate and
Security
Mr. Rick Dwyer, Executive Director, Hampton Roads Military
and Federal Facilities Alliance
Ms. Mackenzie Eaglen, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WHITEHOUSE \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prepared statement of Chairman Whitehouse appears in the
appendix on page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Whitehouse. This hearing of the Budget Committee
will come to order, and I thank our witnesses for being here.
One of whom will be introduced by Senator Kaine, who is here to
welcome someone to speak about an important issue in his state
of Virginia.
As we examine the looming economic and budgetary dangers of
climate change today, we will learn about the strain it's
placing on our defense operations and our national security.
Climate change is a well-known catalyst of conflict and also
threatens our military's infrastructure and operational
readiness and all of that comes at significant costs.
According to a recent Bloomberg analysis, ``rising tides
and powerful storms turbo charged by climate change are poised
to hobble federal facilities worth at least $387 billion in
coming decades, disrupting everything from veterans' medical
care to military operations and space exploration.'' The vast
majority of these costs are related directly to military
infrastructure. For over a decade the Government Accountability
Office has identified climate change as a high-risk area for
the Department of Defense and has highlighted billions of
dollars in annual damage to our military installations.
For instance, in a congressional hearing this month, the
Air Force testified that rebuilding U.S. facilities in Guam
damaged by Typhoon Mawar will cost $10 billion alone. That's
twice what the Department of Defense spent rebuilding Tyndall
and Offutt Air Force Bases in Florida and Nebraska, both also
devastated by climate change related weather events. Around the
world, nearly half of America's military installations are
facing threats from rising sea levels and increased flooding
with serious damage becoming increasingly frequent.
Naval Station Norfolk, the world's largest naval base, is
particularly vulnerable. In Hamptons Roads persistent flooding,
even on bright, sunny days, disrupts operations and requires
extensive and costly adaptation efforts. A former base
commander estimated that Norfolk's useful life as a naval base
could end in as little as 20 years, and he said that in 2015,
so do the math.
In Rhode Island, our Air National Guard 143rd Airlift Wing
operates out of a high-risk coastal flood area, threatening its
ability to deploy to protect life, property, and safety. Much
of the neighboring Electric Boat submarine manufacturing
facility, producing Columbia class submarines, the Pentagon's
top acquisition priority, also sits in the high-risk coastal
flood area, vulnerable to storm surge and extreme weather.
Across Narragansett Bay, the United States Naval War
College and Naval Station Newport, share causeways, which I've
seen cut off by increasingly heavy rainstorms, New England's
climate telltale.
In short, repairing, rebuilding, and maintaining our
defense infrastructure, the foundation of our national
security, is becoming ever more costly in a world shaped by
climate upheaval. Climate change is a source of geopolitical
tensions; hence, its acknowledgment as a catalyst of conflict.
Around the world, climate change is destabilizing entire
regions, stoking conflicts over increasingly scarce resources,
driving impoverishment and migration, and creating new tensions
in geopolitical sensitive areas.
In the Arctic, melting ice is opened new sea routes,
creating new security threats from Russia and China that
require increased U.S. military and Coast Guard presence. Far
away in low-lying Bangladesh, sea level rise and extreme
weather could cause mass migration, perhaps 13 million people
toward and into India.
On the other end of India, in Kasmir, tensions between a
nuclear armed India and a nuclear armed Pakistan will worsen as
Himalayan glaciers disappear and disputes intensify over water
resources and border management. It is widely accepted that
climate-driven drought contributed to the ongoing conflict in
Syria, fueling regional political instability. In Guatemala,
Honduras, and El Salvador disrupted agriculture and worsened
food and water insecurity has brought climate destabilization
to our own borders.
In the coming decades, climate change could drive climate
migration of up to 200 million people worldwide, all making the
world more dangerous. In that more dangerous world, military
operations will be made more difficult and dangerous, as
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have to work in
unprecedented conditions, often testing the limits of human
physical endurance.
Already air operations are affected by midday surface heat
on airbase runways. As many national security experts have
recognized, climate change is causing environmental damage that
affects global stability, our national safety, and our long-
term fiscal health. And all that comes home to roost in
America's budget. If you don't believe me, just read the
Pentagon's and Intelligence Community's own reports.
And on the subject of believing reports, let me close by
asking unanimous consent that certain reports be put into the
record that confirm concerns that have been raised here in the
Budget Committee in earlier hearings with regard to insurance
cost, inflation, and contagion of the insurance crisis beyond
Florida, a May 14, 2024, New York Times article with respect to
coastal flooding risks, an April 29, 2024 Washington Post
article, with respect to the dangers to agriculture, a March
27, 2024 New York Times article, and with respect to the
dangers we have repeatedly raised of systemic economic shocks
to the American economy and even to the global economy, the
Economist article of April 11, 2024, and the National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER) working paper of May 2024, Macro
Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Global Versus Local
Temperature, which says that a 1 degree centigrade increase in
global temperature will lead to a 12 percent decline in world
Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and suggests that the harm from
carbon emissions amounts to over a $1,000 of harm per emitted
ton.
Without objection, those will be admitted to the record.
And I turn now to my distinguished Ranking Member, Senator
Grassley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the appendix
on page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is our
Committee's 17th hearing on climate change this Congress with
the first with the national security angle and everybody knows
that national security is a number one responsibility of the
federal government under our Constitution, so it's appropriate
that we consider national security.
I agree that climate change presents some national security
related challenges and the Chairman laid out a long list of
those. However, those challenges pale in comparison to the
national security risk associated with our ballooning national
debt. As Admiral Michael Mullin, then Chairman of the Joints
Chiefs of Staff, said in 2010, ``The most significant threat to
our national security is our debt.'' And that when public debt
was nine trillion dollars compared to today's 27 trillion, so
it's three times bigger at this point.
Our unsustainable national debt threatens our status as an
economic superpower, and in turn, our ability to respond to
national threats. We're already set to see interest payments on
the national debt surpass defense outlays this year. That's the
kind of result you get when spending follows a modern monetary
theory approach to spending and government borrowing.
Throughout history, fiscal recklessness and economic
mismanagement have led to decline of great powers. Left
unchecked, excessive red ink will sap away our military
superiority and our capacity for global leadership. This would
be a tragedy, not only for Americans, but for the entire world
from the standpoint of a lot of our friends relying upon us for
leadership and for our possible enemies not seeing us as the
threat that we hope they would to avoid any conflagration.
We've seen from the disastrous results of the Obama
Administration's lead from behind strategy that America's
weakness only invites global instability. That doesn't mean
that I'm willing to give the Defense Department a blank check,
far from it. If anybody's followed my history in the United
States Senate and oversight of wasteful spending in the
Pentagon, they would recognize the $450 hammers and the $10,000
toilet seats. And for years, I pushed Department of Defense
(DOD) to make progress on getting a clean audit, just like
every other federal department and to this very day the DOD is
the only department that has never had a certified audit.
Every dollar squandered by the Pentagon is a dollar that's
not going towards keeping the country safe. That's something we
can't afford at a time of rising threats. Providing for the
common defense is one of the federal government's top
constitutional responsibilities, so I say that a second time to
remind people what we should be doing here in this Congress as
our highest priority.
As I've said in previous hearings, climate change is a
serious issue. And as I referenced earlier, it has some
implications for national security in the Pentagon budget. For
example, melting sea ice means new shipping lanes and
accessible resources in the Arctic. China and Russia are
already aggressively staking out their claims in that area.
This is a legitimate challenge, and the congressional
committees of jurisdiction are giving it due attention.
But let's be clear-eyed about our priorities. Climate
change is hardly one of the most important challenges that the
Defense Department ought to focus its attention on. The Biden
Administration's obsession with reducing the Military's carbon
footprint actually distracts from the Armed Forces' real
mission of deterring and defeating our enemies.
The Administration's rush to transition to an electric
vehicle fleet appears to be driven more by political postering
rather than military strategy. So, you've got to think good
luck finding a charging station in the middle of some foreign
battlefield. Similarly, far-left climate policy jeopardizes our
economy, and our energy security while undermining our national
security.
Many European countries learned this lesson the hard way
after Russia invaded Ukraine February '22, two years ago, and
those European countries are reversing course on some of these
climate change issues. Now, Europe is working overtime to
increase their capacity to import more liquefied natural gas
from the United States since they don't get it from Russia
anymore.
This may be the Committee's only hearing on the defense
budget this Congress, so I hope we can take off the climate
change blinders and discuss some other national security
issues. Climate change didn't cause a rising and aggressive
China, it didn't convince Putin to invade Ukraine, and it
didn't instigate Hamas's brutal terrorist attack on the Israeli
people.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses where they
think climate change ranks against some other more pressing
national security challenges. I welcome all of today's
witnesses and I especially want to thank Admiral McGinn and
Admiral Gallaudet, and Mr. Dwyer, for your services to our
country. Thank you.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much. I was actually
glad that you mentioned Mike Mullin's statement because it was
one I often referred to as we were working on the Affordable
Care Act because the next step is healthcare costs was what was
driving the debt and deficit that he was worried about and we
were trying to tangle with that, so I appreciate very much the
good conversations we've had about working together on the
healthcare expense problems that are driving our deficit.
I think climate economic shock and revenue reduction,
particularly from the corporate sector, which used to do more
than 20 percent of national revenues is now down to 6 percent
and less is also an important part of the equation. And with
any luck, we can pull a full equation together to solve the
problem that you've identified.
Now, to our witnesses, Admiral Dennis McGinn is a strategic
leadership advisor focused on the intersection of energy,
environment, and national security. He served as Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Energy Installations and Environment
from September 2013 until January 2017, leading the
transformation of naval installations toward greater mission
resiliency.
Admiral McGinn was active duty in the United States Navy
for 35 years as a naval aviator, test pilot, and national
security strategist. He led the development of future Navy
capabilities as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare
Requirements and commanded the United States Third Fleet in the
Pacific.
He presently serves as a Trustee for Rocky Mountain
Institute (RMI), as a director of Willdan Group, and served as
a director for the Electric Power Research Institute for more
than six years.
Erin Sikorsky directs the Center for Climate and Security,
a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute of the Council on
Strategic Risks. Ms. Sikorsky also serves on the Secretary of
the Interior's Advisory Council for Climate Adaptation Science
as a consultant for the Defense Science Board, and as an
adjunct professor at George Mason University. She previously
led climate and environment analysis across the U.S.
Intelligence Community from her position on the National
Intelligence Council, where she was the founding chair of the
Climate Security Advisory Council, a congressionally mandated
group designed to facilitate coordination between the
Intelligence Community and U.S. Government scientific agencies.
Rick Dwyer is next, and we will trade up for introductions
to have him introduced by his home state senator, Senator
Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, and to my
colleagues and those attending, it is a pleasure to have Rick
Dwyer here today. He's the Executive Director of the Hampton
Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance (HRMFFA). That's
such a mouthful that we just shorten it and call it HRMFFA,
which is one of my favorite acronyms, HRMFFA.
HRMFFA is a unique public/private partnership dedicated to
supporting the many military and federal facilities in the
Hampton Roads region of southeastern Virginia. This is our
second largest metropolitan area in Virginia, after the D.C./
Metro Area.
The Alliance is governed by a board of directors that is
comprised of 16 public sector directors and 14 private sector
directors. And just to give you an idea of the span that HRMFFA
reaches, representatives are from the cities of Chesapeake,
Franklin, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth,
Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, and the counties of
Gloucester, Iowa, James City, Southampton, Surrey, and York.
Before joining the Alliance in 2016, Rick served over 20
years on active duty as an Air Force civil engineer officer. He
commanded three civil engineer squadrons deployed multiple
times to Afghanistan and Southwest Asia. And I've had the
pleasure of working with the Alliance since I came to the
Senate, and with Rick directly for many years where we worked
together to support the Hampton Roads area across many policy
areas, including the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),
support for shipyards, national labs, military families, and
mental health of service members.
Rick took over as the Executive Director of HRMFFA from
Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, who many of you know, and those
were big shoes to fill, but Rick has done a really good job in
this very important, but very complicated region in dealing
with a variety of national security challenges, including the
one that we'll discuss today. Thank you.
Chairman Whitehouse. HRMFFA, Mr. Dwyer. Okay.
Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet is the CEO of Ocean STL
Consulting where he's a strategic advisor for a variety of
startups, nonprofits, and research institutions. We previously
worked together when Admiral Gallaudet served as the Acting and
Deputy Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the Acting Undersecretary and
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.
Before NOAA, the Admiral served for 32 years in the U.S.
Navy, retiring as the Oceanographer of the Navy and Director of
the Navy's Taskforce on Climate Change.
Mackenzie Eaglen is a Senior Fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute where she works on defense strategy,
defense budgets, and military readiness. Ms. Eaglen is also one
of the 12-member U.S. Army War College Board of Visitors and
serves on the U.S. Army Science Board. In 2023, she became a
member of the Commission on the Future of the Navy established
by Congress to study the strategy budget and policies
concerning the future strength of the U.S. Navy fleet.
Before joining American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Ms.
Eaglen worked on defense issues in the House of
Representatives, in the U.S. Senate, and at the Pentagon in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and on the Joint Staff.
With that, let me turn the hearing over to Admiral McGinn,
and each of you has five minutes to make an opening statement.
Your full testimony will be made a part of the record of this
hearing. Admiral McGinn, to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS V. McGINN, VADM USN RET.,
FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR ENERGY,
INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT, AND FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR WARFARE REQUIREMENTS AND PROGRAMS \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Prepared statement of Hon. McGinn appears in the appendix on
page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable McGinn. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse and
Ranking Member Grassley, members of the Committee for the
opportunity to testify today on the critical impact of climate
change on our national security.
My views are based on more than 35 years of active-duty
service in the United States Navy. As former Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and
Environment, and as a business executive in the private sector
focusing on the security challenges of climate change related
to our energy portfolio, economy, and our environment.
To begin, I can strongly state that climate change is a
significant and growing national security budget challenge.
Business as usual is not a viable or attractive option. It is
in our immediate and long-term interest to prioritize and
allocate sufficient resources to adequately address both
mitigation and adaptation.
Hearkening back to my days as a fighter pilot, we used the
term ``a bogey rich environment,'' when you're surrounded by
threats and clearly the United States is in a bogey rich
environment. No matter which way we turn it seems--Senator
Grassley pointed out many of those--there seems to be another
challenge. But we need to continue to address all of those
bogies in an appropriate way. And I think that the focus of
today's discussion on climate change is very, very appropriate
and clearly has tremendous implications for our large and
growing national debt as well if it's left unchecked.
Immediate attention to those climate threats and other
global challenges goes beyond traditional national security
priorities; however, it must be aligned and integrated with
them. China's posture in Asia and around the world, for
example, is informed by growing environmental degradation,
water scarcity, and food insecurity. Chinese leadership has set
priorities and made economic choices to invest in renewable
energy and electric vehicles because they see the direction the
world is going and the opportunity it presents.
Similarly, Russia's posture, especially in the Arctic is
inextricably linked to the receding ice and increased access to
resources in that region. The Russians see both opportunity and
threats across their vast northern frontier. In the past,
Congress has explicitly acknowledged the security impacts of
climate change as a direct threat to U.S. national security.
The pragmatic, bipartisan approach Congress has taken needs to
be broadened to include the significant economic and budgetary
implications that climate change brings.
For example, the growing benefits of the bipartisan
infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act will not
only help to meet the climate challenge, but will also create
significant economic, health, and security opportunities.
In the Department of Defense, there's been a serious
recognition, as pointed out by the Chairman, of the threat.
Recognition that climate change will continue to drive
instability around the world, recognition that the opening
Arctic will create new dimensions in great power competition,
recognition that extreme weather events will create readiness
challenges, humanitarian crises, and stressful conditions in
which our military will have to operate.
Climate change is different, however, from traditional
military threats. It isn't defined by a specific enemy,
timeline, or geographical area. However, the adverse effects of
climate change, including typhoons, flooding, wildfires,
drought, disease, crop failure, and migration of large
populations, including here in our own hemisphere, create more
frequent, intense, and widespread natural and humanitarian
disasters.
These events magnify existing geopolitical tensions in
critical regions, overwhelming fragile political, economic, and
social structures causing them, in many cases, to fail.
The Center on Naval Analyses (CNA) Military Advisory Board
17 years ago in 2007 reported national security and the threat
of climate change served as a threat multiplier in critical
regions of national interests around the world.
Ten years ago this month the same Military Advisory Board
updated report National Security and the Accelerating Risks of
Climate Change defined it as a ``catalyst for instability and
conflict.'' The objective analysis and cumulative military
wisdom evident in these reports clearly warn about more
frequent and demanding missions for our men and women in
uniform, both here at home and abroad. The clear message:
climate readiness is mission readiness.
In summary, the military has understood for many years the
threats to operational missions and installation infrastructure
that climate change poses. Consequently, the Department of
Defense has significantly elevated its program priority and
started to increase the resources allocated to meet this
challenge. In order to fully ensure that our essential national
security capabilities continue to be strong and resilient in
the face of the climate challenges ahead, DOD needs your
continuing focus on this growing threat and unwavering
budgetary support.
Working together we can create a better future in which
American national security is stronger, more sustainable, and
in which we can turn climate challenges into actual
opportunity. Thank you, Senators, and I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you, Admiral. Now, to you,
Director Sikorsky.
STATEMENT OF ERIN SIKORSKY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CLIMATE AND
SECURITY, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL MILITARY COUNCIL ON CLIMATE
AND SECURITY, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC FUTURES GROUP,
U.S. NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL, MEMBER OF MUNICH SECURITY
CONFERENCE FOOD SECURITY TASKFORCE \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Prepared statement of Ms. Sikorsky appears in the appendix on
page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Sikorsky. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley,
and distinguished members of the Committee, thanks for the
opportunity to testify before you today. As a Wisconsin native,
Senator Johnson, it's nice to see you in this room as well.
My remarks are informed by my position as the Director of
Center for Climate and Security, but also the many years that I
served as a senior analyst in the U.S. Intelligence Community,
including on the U.S. National Intelligence Council. I'm going
to talk about both the direct and indirect security risks posed
by climate change.
As climate-driven hazards grow more frequent and intense,
we're seeing militaries regularly on the frontlines of
response. In the past 22 months, the Center for Climate and
Security's Military Response to Climate Hazards Tracker, or
MiRCH, not quite as good of an acronym, has identified nearly
300 deployments by militaries in 74 countries to fight fires,
rescue citizens from floods, deliver water, or participate in
other hazard-related activities.
Here in the U.S., troops have deployed 70 times since June
2022. And of course, the U.S. military has also responded
globally during that time period, supporting response efforts
in Pakistan, the Philippines, Libya, and Canada. This demand is
almost certain to grow as temperatures rise. Climate risks
also, though, impact U.S. competitors and adversaries'
security.
Open source analysis of 34 Russian airfields in the Arctic
found evidence of damage likely due to permafrost thaw at 27 of
them, including some facilities that were beyond repair.
Turning east, a paper I wrote on China's own climate security
vulnerabilities identified that country's coastal shipyards and
artificial islands as increasingly vulnerable to sea level rise
and extreme precipitation.
Moving onto indirect risks, as an Intelligence Officer, I
spent years analyzing threats of terrorism and insurgency in
the Middle East and Africa. And while I was doing that, I
regularly saw climate-related hazards such as drought, extreme
precipitation, and heatwaves contribute to food and water
insecurity.
I watched such dynamics strain governments and provide
terrorists and insurgent groups opportunities to gain a
foothold among vulnerable populations and countries of key
national security concern for the United States. Climate-driven
food and water insecurity also contribute to irregular
migration. Take Central America, which was a region identified
as a key area of concern by the U.S. Intelligence Community in
the National Intelligence Estimate mentioned by Senator
Whitehouse earlier.
Research shows that drier than normal periods in the region
are associated with increased emigration to the U.S. Climate
models, of course, project that Central America is a global
hotspot for future decreases in precipitation or more drought,
due to climate change.
The good news is, and I think relevant for the Budget
Committee, is this is a problem the U.S. can get ahead of by
investing in upstream adaptation and resilience programs aimed
at addressing food insecurity and climate hazards. In Honduras,
for example, people who received United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) agricultural investments in
recent years reported an intention to migrate that was 78
percent lower than the country overall.
I'd like to end by turning again to the Indo Pacific where
the U.S.'s global network of allies and partners is one of its
primary comparative advantages in competition with China. More
and more, the number one issue facing many of those partners is
climate change. In 2022, the defense minister from Fiji said,
``in our blue Pacific continent machine guns, fighter jets,
grey ships, and green battalions are not our primary security
concern. The single greatest threat to our very existence is
climate change.''
And similarly, there's a survey in 2024 of Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Member nations about their
greatest challenges in the region. The threat of climate change
outranked the threat for military tensions by more than 10
points. Given these dynamics, competing with China in investing
in climate resilience for U.S. allies and partners are not
contradictory goals, right? It's not one or the other. In fact,
they're complementary.
Retired Admiral Sam Locklear and I wrote an Op-ed last year
that noted helping allies and partners manage climate risks not
only shows them that the U.S. is attentive to their needs, it
can also build their resilience so they're available when the
U.S. needs them. It's a win/win. We pointed to Papua, New
Guinea as one example, a target of intense Chinese attention in
recent years. Papua New Guinea faces high risks of climate-
driven sea level rise, strengthened typhoons and a lack of
fresh water.
In June 2023, the U.S. signed a new security pact with the
country, getting access to develop and operate out of Papua New
Guinea (PNG) bases. But to sustain this presence, the U.S. is
going to need reliable energy sources, clean, fresh water, and
economically vibrant, healthy local population. For this
reason, investments in climate resilience and adaptation in
such a country are investments in U.S. national security and
need to be prioritized.
In closing, for many years now Congress has shown
bipartisan leadership toward addressing the security risks of
climate change I've discussed today, as Admiral McGinn noted.
As climate hazards intensify in the coming decades, continued
congressional leadership will be critical to ensure the U.S.
makes the investments needed to manage the security risks of a
warming world. Thank you.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much, and thank you for
mentioning Admiral Locklear, who's been a very helpful voice on
this. The Ranking Member referenced Admiral Mullin. I think
it's not for nothing that it's admirals who are particularly
focused on all of this because Navy bases are a particular
risk, which brings us to Mr. Dwyer. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DWYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HAMPTON ROADS
MILITARY AND FEDERAL FACILITIES ALLIANCE \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Prepared statement of Mr. Dwyer appears in the appendix on page
91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dwyer. Thank you, sir. And thank you, Senator Kaine,
for that introduction and explaining our HRMFFA acronym to
everybody else here. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member
Grassley, and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the impacts of climate change on
our national security from a defense community perspective.
Our organization represents the 16 local governments and
our private sector partners in southeastern Virginia. This is
an extremely important issue that our region has been tackling
for many years. It will take a continued close partnership
between federal partners and state and local entities to ensure
the impacts of climate change are effectively mitigated to
avoid harming national security.
Hampton Roads is home to the largest concentration of
military installations and personnel in the country. Our region
has been an integral part of the military since the birth of
our nation and the strategic value of Hampton Roads was
recognized even before our independence. Norfolk Naval Shipyard
is the largest and oldest of the four Navy-owned shipyards and
was established in 1767 by the British.
Naval Station Norfolk is the largest Navy base in the world
and home port to our East Coast-based aircraft carriers. The
area boast significant air power with the Navy's east coast
master jet base at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceania and Joint
Base Langley-Eustis, which is home to over 40 percent of the
Air Force's F-22s and Air Combat Command. Fort Eustis is home
to the Army's Navy, from which units recently deployed to build
the floating pier off the coast of Gaza. And Joint
Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story is the East Coast
hub of the Navy SEALs.
There are more Coast Guard personnel stationed in our
region than anywhere else in the country. We also host the
largest concentration of private sector naval ship repair
capability, as well as the only builder of aircraft carriers
and one of only two builders of submarines. Needless to say,
supporting the military is part of who we are as a region.
Hampton Roads sits at the confluence of the Chesapeake Bay,
James, and York Rivers, which makes it susceptible to rising
sea levels. We have seen impacts from climate change for a
number of years now. For example, workers at the Norfolk Naval
Shipyard sometimes must be sent home early due to potential
roadway flooding on and off the installation, which has a very
tangible impact on timeliness and cost of ship repairs.
Normal access to parts of some bases can also be cut off
from heavy rain flooding and storm surge events. These issues
have spurred us to work with our military partners to make our
region and installations more resilient. The first Office of
Local Defense Community Cooperation Joint Land Use in the
country focused solely on sea level rise and persistent
flooding happened between Langley Air Force Base and the City
of Hampton in 2018.
Two additional studies with the Navy and Virginia Beach and
Norfolk and then Chesapeake and Portsmouth followed soon
thereafter. These projects and issues identified during the
collaborative efforts provide roadmaps for our installations
and communities to work together to make both entities more
resilient.
However, the challenges of climate change are not limited
to the Hampton Roads area. The FY '18 NDAA required DOD to
provide a list of installations that were impacted by climate
change. Of the 79 priority installations examined, over two-
thirds were impacted by climate-related events. And when other
threats are included, there is no single military installation
in the country that is immune from the impacts of climate
change or natural disasters.
The rising awareness of climate change impacts on military
bases has led to the development of authorities and resources
to mitigate these issues, such as the Defense Community
Infrastructure Program, the Energy Resilience and Conservation
Investment Program, and the Installation Resilience Program.
These tools will help leverage existing military construction
and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funds to address
resiliency on military installations. However, the key to
success of these programs is continuous cooperation between
local stakeholders and the military.
Fixes to a base alone won't solve the problem. Given 70 to
80 percent of our military members live in the surrounding
community, it doesn't do much good to make an installation
resilient if personnel can't get there to perform the mission.
We applaud that Congress understands this dynamic and has
enabled a number of authorities that encourage this type of
partnership, but the resources provided to these programs are
simply not enough to keep up with the demand and impact of
climate change on military installations.
There are also policy challenges to overcome. One noted
example is that the Army Corps of Engineers is not allowed to
include federal properties when conducting civil works funded
coastal resiliency studies. This problem became evident when
the Corps' 2019 study of Norfolk did not include the world's
largest Navy base, leaving a vital national security asset
unprotected. Obtaining a cost share from one other federal
agency is hard enough, but imagine trying to coordinate funding
from seven different federal agencies for a pending coastal
study on the peninsula of Hampton Roads.
We greatly appreciate the Senate addressing this issue in
the 2022 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), but
unfortunately, the Senate language was not included in the
final bill. But Congress has a chance to remedy this policy
issue in this year's WRDA legislation. We appreciate that the
Committee is looking into this matter with greater oversight.
We believe there are two main areas where Congress could
help address the challenges posed by climate change to our
bases. First, increasing resources for existing infrastructure
and resiliency programs that help DOD and communities address
climate change. And second, fixing policy challenges such as
the Civil Works authority prohibiting inclusion of federal
properties in resiliency studies.
Solutions to the impacts of climate change on our military
bases must take a comprehensive approach as flood waters and
other threats don't care about fence lines or jurisdictional
boundaries. That can only be done when Congress provides
authorities that direct such collaboration from federal
partners as well as require local input.
The challenges posed by climate change to our national
defense are real and daunting. Congress has taken positive
steps in providing authorities and resources, but more is
needed.
I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Hampton
Roads region's work with our military partners and appreciate
your consideration of our recommendations. I look forward to
answering your questions. Thank you.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thanks very much, Mr. Dwyer. Admiral
Gallaudet.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIM GALLAUDET, PH.D., RDML USN RET.,
FORMER OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE NAVY, AND FORMER ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Prepared statement of Hon. Gallaudet appears in the appendix on
page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Gallaudet. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member
Grassley, and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding climate change and
national security.
Having been in charge of NOAA, America's top climate
science agency and having led the U.S. Navy's Taskforce in
Climate Change, I agree that climate change is, indeed, an
important topic. When it comes to national security, certain
changes to the planet's climate are concerning and my fellow
witnesses have addressed this.
However, I find it unfortunate that the approach to climate
change by the Department of Defense under the Biden
Administration is deeply flawed. Consider the 2022 national
security strategy which claims that climate change is the
existential challenge of our time. This is an unfounded claim.
It assumes that we know with certainty that a global scale,
life-threatening change will occur and our species will be
unable to adapt to that change.
Both points are problematic. For one, climate projections
are rife with uncertainty. And secondly, our species has proved
to be quite resilient through significant climatic changes in
the past. Thirdly, a majority, if not all of the scientific
literature pointing to disastrous outcomes for humanity due to
climate change employ implausible emission scenarios. Even the
Administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
adopted a more realistic scenario recently where global
emissions begin to decrease mid-century.
Personally, I view Russia's intention to developing an
indiscriminate nuclear weapon in space as a potential
existential threat or perhaps an asteroid impact on the planet,
which the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
is preparing for because we know an extinction event was caused
by one in the past. The cost imposing security threats we
should be talking about here are obvious. Russia's war on
Ukraine, the war between Israel and Hamas supported by a
nuclear aspiring Iran, strikes by Iranian proxies on global
shipping and U.S. assets in the Middle East, and China's Navy
eclipsing that of the U.S. to become the world's largest with
its sights set on taking Taiwan in the near future. None of
these were generated by or made significantly worse by climate
change.
Another failing of the DOD's approach regards the DOD's
climate risk analysis released in 2021. The disquieting aspect
of this document is the complete absence of citations of peer-
reviewed scientific research regarding the climate trends it
identifies. In fact, the climate risk analysis presents no
actual analysis at all. Instead it simply inserts a range of
security implications resulting from climate change.
The problem with these assertions is they are too vague to
make sound investment decisions and they lack the analytical
rigor required by standard defense risk analyses. In some
cases, they're flat out wrong. For example in, the forward to
the DOD Climate Risk Analysis, Secretary Austin states that
typhoons are occurring at an unprecedented scale. Not a single
scientific study supports that statement. In fact, the
frequency of major hurricanes and typhoons have seen no upward
or downward change over the past four decades.
A final fault in the DOD's approach is its emphasis on
greenhouse gas emissions. The Department of the Navy has
prioritized mitigating climate change by establishing targets
for reducing emissions and the Army has done the same. Reaching
such targets will have a near zero impact on net global
emissions, warming, and climate change.
The DOD was responsible for only 1 percent of the five
billion metric tons of U.S. CO2 emissions in 2021. This pales
in comparison to China's, which was 10 billion metric tons. So,
the Navy's objective to reduce emissions is a dangerous
distraction for this need to deter the security threats I
mentioned previously.
But I do not mean to dismiss the good work the Department
is doing to adapt to climate change. For example, I strongly
support the first line of effort in the DOD Climate Adaption
Plan, climate informed decision-making. I would even say that
DOD needs to invest more in this area.
The most effective way to prepare for climate change is to
improve short-term, sub-seasonal, and seasonal forecast for
weather, water, and ice. This can be accomplished by expanding
the network of environmental observation systems, including
satellites, buoys, ships, and drones, as well as improving the
numerical models used to predict the state of physical
environment.
Such improvements do not require significant growth in the
Pentagon's budget. As NASA has done with SpaceX, the DOD can
accelerate its climate readiness by partnering with the private
sector where a variety of innovative startups are providing the
tools that help the U.S. military prevail in any operational
environment.
I close with a development which is more germane to the
Committee on the Budget. This year federal spending for
interest on our national debt is forecast to hit $870 billion,
exceeding the DOD budget for the first time. Combined with
inflation, such a dramatic drop in the Pentagon's purchasing
power is perhaps a greater threat to our national security than
climate change.
I recommend the Committee hold future hearings on topics
which focus on our increasingly unsustainable fiscal situation.
Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much and next is Ms.
Eaglen.
STATEMENT OF MACKENZIE EAGLEN, SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Prepared statement of Ms. Eaglen appears in the appendix on
page 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Eaglen. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you,
Ranking Member Grassley. It's a pleasure to be here to talk to
you this morning about this important topic.
Climate change is an important, but shared concern by
individuals, companies, and businesses, and governments around
the world. Should it be needed, however, using violence in the
name of the state is uniquely and exclusively the
responsibility of the federal government. The world as it is
today shows us that the peace does not keep itself. An ounce of
deterrence is worth much more than a pound of war. So, while
the military budget is large for peacetime, it's a relative
bargain should we wind up in direct conflict.
Two wars of our partners and allies in the Middle East and
in Europe, trying to maintain open sea lanes and commercial
shipping in Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, and preventing an outbreak
right now this very minute in Scarborough requires global
military with power projection and reach across three theaters
of Eurasia and the Middle East.
As has already been noted this morning by Ranking Member
Grassley, and my colleagues, the defense budget is matched this
year by interest payments on the debt and defense is declining
across any lens to which you look at it. In real terms, as a
percentage of the federal budget and as a percentage of the
United States economy and what we can afford, in fact, defense
is now smaller than non-defense discretionary spending in the
federal budget.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party has seen 30 straight
years of defense budget increases. Their average annual
increase for their defense budget is 9 percent versus our 1. Of
course, that's typically below inflation. These are all still
inputs, however. The outputs of these investments are what
matters. Bolstering our conventional and strategic deterrents
to prevent war and allow prosperity for the American people is
the mission of our Armed Forces.
They are spread thin and requires sustained commitment.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much. We seem to have
agreement that the major areas of concern relate to climate
effects on military infrastructure, climate effects on military
operations, and climate effects producing the kind of conflicts
to which the military will have to respond. Is that pretty fair
summary of the problem set here, Admiral McGinn?
Honorable McGinn. It is, Mr. Chairman. I would add,
however, we have not delved into what the military can and
should be and is doing to reduce greenhouse gases. This is not
a question of doing adaptability and adjustments and not being
able to do greenhouse gas reduction. The criterion in speaking
with Department of Defense leaders for doing greenhouse gas
reduction is, is it directly related to the mission?
So, if we are electrifying forward operating bases that the
Marines are using to reduce the reliance on long, vulnerable
supply chains of diesel oil, that is directly related to the
mission and it gives their capability much, much more. There
are many examples of this, but I would say that the focus on
greenhouse gas reduction, in many cases, in the Department of
Defense and the Services, focuses on efficiency, getting more
bang for the buck, getting more military capability, more time
on station, longer ranges, greater payloads, by being much more
efficient.
However, it's also good to invest in the kinds of
technology, many of which are helping our entire society in
terms of economic development and have the Department of
Defense, not just talk the talk about greenhouse gas reduction,
but walk the walk and lead by example, as we have in any crisis
in the past.
Chairman Whitehouse. Director Sikorsky, same question.
Ms. Sikorsky. Yes, I agree. I think those are the three key
areas to talk about. I would make two additional points. One is
that addressing those threats is not just about the Defense
budget. It's also about other agencies, such as United States
Agency for International Development and the State Department
where they can make those upstream resilience investments.
And then, the second point I would make is I don't see
climate change as separate from some of the other challenges
that have been talked about here today, like China and Russia.
The International Security Advisory Board of the State
Department recently released a new report on new threats and
challenges. And they have a case study in there about Taiwan
and a conflict over Taiwan and they look at how climate hazards
might actually shape such a conflict and risks U.S. Forces and
supply chains and ability to conduct operations there. So,
these things need to be looked at, I think, together, not
separately.
Chairman Whitehouse. Mr. Dwyer, do you concur?
Mr. Dwyer. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I concur with those
assessments. And from a local host prospective, again we're
looking at it from our community and our installation
resilience perspective. And from our perspective, the focus
needs to be on adapting and mitigating those effects.
Chairman Whitehouse. And let me ask Admiral McGinn and
Director Sikorsky from a military-wide perspective, and Mr.
Dwyer from a Naval Station Norfolk perspective, do you feel
that the data is inadequate to justify the decisions that are
being made to reduce climate risks as with regards to
infrastructure, operations, and conflict?
Honorable McGinn. I do believe it's adequate, however, more
data and better analysis, as you know, sir, is always good. And
I think that we are doing commonsense, mission-focused measures
and policies and investments in the Department of Defense that
is based on an adequate level of data, but at the same time
everybody realizes we need to learn more.
Chairman Whitehouse. Director Sikorsky?
Ms. Sikorsky. Yes, I agree with Admiral McGinn. And I think
in many cases we've done the analysis and risk assessment and
now it's about action and moving forward. I do agree with
Admiral Gallaudet as well that sub-seasonal forecasting,
getting better understandings, especially in places like Sub-
Sahara Africa and the Middle East where we don't have a lot of
good data would be helpful in making risk assessments.
Chairman Whitehouse. I've still got a chance for Mr. Dwyer
to answer with regards to your sense in your planning around
HRMFFA of whether you think you're doing that based on
inadequate data and wasting people's time?
Mr. Dwyer. The data we most look at in our region in terms
of resiliency of our communities and installations is the
amount of sea level rise. How much is the water going up and I
don't think there's any dispute in terms of the data, in terms
of how much it's risen at Naval Station Norfolk--excuse me.
There's a tide gauge right near Naval Station Norfolk that's if
it's not the oldest, it's one of the oldest tide gauges in the
country and it's shown that we've had about 18 inches of sea
level rise.
Chairman Whitehouse. Maybe even a NOAA tide gauge.
Mr. Dwyer. I believe it is, sir. But about 18 inches of sea
level rise since I think 1930, so that's data nobody can argue
with.
Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Thank you. Admiral Gallaudet, I quote
from the Defense Department's 2022 National Defense Strategy
concerns about China. ``The most comprehensive and serious
challenge to the United States national security is PRC's
coercive and increasingly aggressive endeavor to refashion the
Indo Pacific region and the international system to suit its
interests and authoritarian preferences.''
Do you agree with the Pentagon that China is a greater
threat to national security than climate change?
Honorable Gallaudet. Thank you, Ranking Member Grassley. I
do agree. I believe that China is a greater threat and is
imposing more significant costs than climate change by orders
of magnitude, and you can see it everywhere we look. They're
buying land near U.S. military bases. Their surveillance
balloons have been invading our airspace. They are challenging
our allies and challenging us all around the world, especially
in the Indo Pacific through unsafe, assertive, provocative
military activities.
And their Navy, as I said,--has eclipsed our U.S. Navy as
being the largest in the world and they're also doing
significant environmental harm to our allies by destroying
coral reefs in the South China Sea and their illegal fishing
which is a global phenomenon is undermining the blue economies
of our partners and allies. So yes, China is absolutely more of
a greater threat, and I think they--we know that they are going
to invade Taiwan in the near future and that's the threat we
should be talking about here.
Senator Grassley. Admiral, to you also, not only are you
the only climate scientist testifying today, you served as the
Oceanographer of the Navy and head of NOAA. Those are jobs
where you have to follow scientific evidence and not ideology
because lives are often at stake. So, question, in your view
how credible are the assertions that climate change is going to
increase the frequency of extreme weather events like typhoons
and hurricanes, and do you see much scientific evidence
supporting the claim?
Honorable Gallaudet. Well, thank you, Senator Grassley. I
think we need to be more precise in the way we talk about
extreme events caused by climate change. For example, as you
stated, typhoons and hurricanes, there's been no upward or
downward trend since 1980 worldwide.
Now, some models do point to increasing intensification of
those storms in the end of the century, but those are often
models using extreme emission scenarios as I said in my
statement. And in terms of attribution science, the National
Academies of Science 2016 report, they ranked with very low
confidence being able to attribute tropical cyclones or any one
given tropical cyclone to climate change, and that includes the
Tyndall Air Force Base hurricane, Hurricane Michael, that
destroyed that facility, as well as the Typhoon Mawar that
caused damage on Guam.
I think also there's another point we should talk about and
that's wildfires. Looking at the data from the national
interagency wildfire center, there's been no change in the
trend of wildfires since 1980. And I think another more
important problem when we talk about wildfires is the fact that
you really can't decouple easily, if at all, the other causal
factors for wildfire frequency throughout the U.S. and that's
things like land management and forest management practices.
Senator Grassley. And Ms. Eaglen, accordingly, to official
sources, China has a defense budget of $230 billion, but like
many statistics published by the country's communist
government, the numbers are very suspect. How much do you
estimate China is really spending on its military? How does
this compare to what the U.S. is spending on defense?
Ms. Eaglen. Thank you, Ranking Member Grassley. So, the
American Intelligence Community about a year ago stated that
China spends about 700 billion on its defense budget, but no
more information was provided, so at AEI we tried to recreate,
as best we could, our own assessment and came up with a number
at least three times as large as what the Chinese Communist
Party puts out through its state media annually.
As you noted, that 230 billion it's using conservative
estimates at least 711 billion, including many things that we
would include, for example, in our defense budget, that Beijing
does not, for example, military research and development, space
activities, rocket forces, many paramilitary organizations as
well, Coast Guard, maritime militias, People's Armed Police.
When you add all of these things up and account for some other
adjustments and exchanges and purchasing power parity, it's
easily at par with the United States budget for 2022. We
estimate 96 percent of our own budget in size.
Honorable McGinn. Senator Grassley, if I may, there's an
old Russian proverb that says, ``Shoot the wolf closest to the
sleigh.'' Well, this sleigh of national security that the
United States has is surrounded by a lot of wolves or threats.
And the problem that we can get in trying to compare a threat
like China, for example, big and growing or what is going on
with Russia and Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle
East is that they are so urgent that they can take our
attention and our resources away from threats that are even
greater, but they're just not as urgent. So, we need to balance
the urgent against the important in the longer term.
Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Kaine, followed by Senator
Johnson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAINE
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Chair. And to the witnesses, I
appreciate it. I'll pick up on Admiral McGinn on urgency. This
is already urgent in Virginia. The sea level rise in Hampton
Roads is imposing significant costs on our military
installations, but also on our communities. And it's also
urgent in one other area of Virginia, the extreme nature of
rainfall in Appalachian Virginia, which on an annualized basis
isn't changing much. It's just coming in many more violent
episodes and the infrastructure there was just not built for
it, so roads, schools--it wasn't built for the violence of
storms and so pretty much every year we end up with a massive
kind of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) event in the
Appalachian region of Virginia.
You did a good job, Rick, in talking about the programs
that are already out there. I'm on the Armed Services Committee
and we work on these a lot, the Defense Community
Infrastructure Program and others. We're doing a good job on
that, and you talked a little bit about the impact on
operations in Hampton Roads when you have the main road serving
the biggest and most important naval base in the world, more
and more likely to flood just under normal tidal action. I'm
not even talking about storms or extreme events, and that's a
resilience problem that we have to invest. And I am pretty
pleased with the work in the NDAA and the Armed Services
Committee in putting more priority toward these resilience
investments, but one piece of your testimony I just wanted to
make sure my Committee colleagues understand because I do think
we have enough data. But this issue is about how when the Army
Corps does their assessments of what's needed that they don't
take into account the federal facilities.
I mean in Hampton Roads, which is the center of naval power
in the world, it's not just the main naval base. I mean, we
have 18 different military installations and annexes in Hampton
Roads, plus the Hampton VA, Fort Monroe National Monument, NASA
Langley, five different national wildlife refuges, Jefferson
National Labs, and even more federal facilities, the Portsmouth
Naval Hospital. Explain again to the Committee what the change
we need to make in either WRDA or the NDAA to enable the Army
Corps to include federal facilities when they're doing planning
about resilience investments.
Mr. Dwyer. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. The issue
boils down to those resiliency studies are funded through the
Civil Works Program. And so, based on the Economy Act and the
Corps' interpretation of that, they can't mix funding streams.
So, if they're going to include different federal agencies'
lands in that study that's a non-civilian agency, that agency
has to pay their share to participate in the study.
And the reason the naval base was left out of it last time
the Corps doesn't find out until the money is dropped on them
when they're going to get funding for these studies. So, when
they approach the Navy about participating in that 2018 or 2019
study, that installation commander doesn't have 4 or $500,000
laying around that he could pay to participate in.
I would like to say the Navy's learned from that and
they're now participating in a Virginia Beach study that
started last year. They're paying to play in that. But as you
mentioned, the real concern is the study that the Corps just
found out they got money for in December, seven different
federal agencies on the Peninsula, the military, NASA . . .
Senator Kaine. Coast Guard.
Mr. Dwyer. And people can argue that DOD's got the money to
pay for it, the Parks Service, NASA, Coast Guard, some of their
budgets don't stack up and don't have----
Senator Kaine. Well, oftentimes, we run into this problem
where we silo things to our detriment and we need to be looking
at the region comprehensively, especially with all the federal
facilities. It was good that in WRDA in the last version in the
Senate tried to correct this. It's unfortunate that that was
not included in the ultimate compromise that was reached with
the House, but whether was part of WRDA or the NDAA. We're
going to make another run at it this year so that we can,
again, take advantage of the data that we have and actually
have a comprehensive assessment about what we should do.
Last thing, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to spend a minute
bragging on Virginia. We're not just a basket case. We're not
just a problem child. Hampton Roads is the second most
vulnerable to sea level rise after New Orleans and the
Appalachian challenge, as I mentioned. But in recent years,
Virginia has become a real leader in clean energy.
When I came into the Senate in 2012, we were bottom half of
the nation in solar deployment, for example. Now, by most
measures, we're Top 10, and I'm proud to have played my own
little part in that, together with state legislators and our
governors. We were nowhere in the wind space and now we're a
national leader in offshore wind.
Part of what we're doing to improve resilience in the port
of Hampton Roads will enable us to better serve offshore wind
off the coast of Virginia and the Outer Banks. So, the fact
that we have moved from laggard to leader, at least in two
clean energy spaces, solar and offshore wind, is positive.
And just last week, the Biden Administration announced with
the Virginia DOD installations, together with Dominion, our
largest utility, that we will reach 100 percent clean energy
for our DOD facilities in Virginia by 2030. And we're excited
because you're right, in the global scheme of things, maybe
that's a tiny percentage, but our military has always been a
leader. When the military desegregated after World War II, that
was a signal that led to significant positive social change.
And if the military can lead in this space, it will not only be
good because we will be producing our own energy and not
relying on others we needn't, but it will also send an
important signal that I think others are likely to follow.
So, thank you for this hearing today, Mr. Chair, and I
yield back.
Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Senator Kaine.
Next, is Senator Johnson, followed by Senator Van Hollen and
then Senator Braun.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll start again,
as I normally do in these hearings. I'm not a climate change
denier. I'm just not an alarmist. You know, climate has always
changed. Always will. We'll have to adapt.
But let me start asking any of the witnesses, anybody know
how much the sea level has increased in the Bay of San
Francisco since the last glaciation period, you know, 12 to
20,000 years ago? Anybody?
Mr. Dwyer, you're concerned about 18 inches, undeniable.
Anyone want to take a guess? 390 feet. Do you think there's
anything we could've done to prevent the sea level rising 390
feet over the last, let's say, 20,000 years? The answer to that
is no. Okay?
The Vostok ice core sample shows five pretty distinct
cycles of temperature variation of almost 23 degrees
Fahrenheit. Anything we could've done to stop that? Anybody
know how much we've spent globally on trying to turn back the
tides to prevent climate change? Anybody have an estimate of
that? We had a witness from AEI estimate about five trillion.
This was before the Inflation Reduction Act that claims about
$400 billion. Goldman Sachs says it's really about $1.2. So,
let's say it's six trillion dollars of spending globally trying
to combat climate change, have we impacted climate change at
all? I still see the same level of hair-on-fire alarmism. Got
to spend more money. To what effect?
Honorable McGinn. Senator, as a veteran of nearly 200
combat missions and over a thousand carrier landings in high
performance jets, I have never been accused of being an
alarmist. I have been accused of being very analytical, data
driven, and I think that----
Senator Johnson. You didn't know that the sea level had
risen 390 feet. Don't you think that's an important data point
when you're discussing climate change?
Honorable McGinn. It isn't in the human life span as
important.
Senator Johnson. The human life span we're a blip in these
major geologic trends. We're a blip. Now, you can blow up that
blip and turn into alarmism.
Admiral McGinn, let me ask you a question. You're into
business now, right?
Honorable McGinn. Yes.
Senator Johnson. What kind of business are you in?
Honorable McGinn. I'm in the business of energy,
environment, and economy.
Senator Johnson. And what does that business do?
Honorable McGinn. But basically, taking a look at the
opportunities that we have to transition from our energy
portfolio, which is primarily and has for good reasons been
relying on fossil fuel.
Senator Johnson. Who are your clients?
Honorable McGinn. I'm not going to show those right now
because of nondisclosure.
Senator Johnson. Is it fair to say maybe the Defense
Department and the government?
Honorable McGinn. No, it's not. No.
Senator Johnson. Would you say that your opportunities
spring from the fact that, you know, we have a climate change
crisis on our hands creating opportunities for your business?
Honorable McGinn. It's not an opportunity that springs from
climate change. It's an opportunity to increase economic
development and create jobs.
Senator Johnson. So, we've talked a lot about studies,
right? Anybody read the Wall Street Journal article today about
the publisher named Wiley, been around for 217 years, is
shutting down 19 journals because over the last two years
they've had to retract 11,300 fraudulent research studies. Has
anybody listened to President Eisenhower's farewell address
recently?
Not only did he warn us about the military industrial
complex, which we have not heeded that warning at all. The
second warning was he warned us about public government
financing of science and research, implying that if
government's funding research those scientists are going to be
more concerned about getting a research grant turning a crisis
into an opportunity and that would corrupt science.
We've known about fraudulent research now for decades. We
just haven't talked about it. We've ignored it. We've covered
it up. But I would argue fraudulent research is probably
fueling more of the climate alarmism, creating opportunities
than anything else. I'm just not buying the science. When you
take a look at actual science, like 390 feet sea level rise,
like the Vostok ice core sample, do you realize that CO2 in
those Vostok graphs is a lagging indicator. Temperature rise is
first, then CO2 comes later. Anybody realize that?
Admiral, did you want to comment on it? You're a Ph.D. on
this.
Honorable Gallaudet. I do want to comment on that, Senator
Johnson. Thank you. I think it is true that there is a bias in
the media and some scientific journals towards negative
reporting of climate change impacts. You would never believe
this in view of the Administration's trove of climate
directives, but many climate indices related to human and
society well-being have been on an positive trend for the last
50 years, despite the 1.3 degrees Celsius of warming that's
occurred. And these are things like crop yields and calories
per individuals and these are global statistics you can go find
on Our World in Data. Things like death rates due to national
disasters, the instances of diseases related to climate like
malaria. Those are going down.
Malnutrition and famine, those trends are also going down.
And then extreme poverty throughout the world is also
plummeted, so there's a lot of positive results of technology
and our energy posture, frankly, and right now there are three
billion people who are in an energy poverty status. I encourage
everyone to look up the Breakthrough Institute and see the
recent article by Dr. Patrick Brown on this topic.
Senator Johnson. My final comment, just imagine the human
suffering we could've alleviated spending five to six trillion
dollars trying to alleviate that, rather than hold back the
tides which we're not--we won't be able to do. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Whitehouse. Just for the record, the last time
that I can recall that somebody accused a climate scientist of
engaging in fraud there was actually a lawsuit and Dr. Mann won
the lawsuit and got a million-dollar judgment against the
individual who had accused him of fraud. So, when that
proposition is tested in real life against a real individual,
the courts straighten it out pretty quickly. Senator Van
Hollen.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR VAN HOLLEN
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Right. I find this conversation a little detached from
reality, especially in light of the hearing that we had in the
Budget Committee a short time ago where it was very clear that
the big oil companies' own research investigation indicated
that their carbon emissions and carbon emissions were major
contributors to climate change. And in terms of putting a bias
on top of it, it was clear from their own documents that they
had then worked to cover up the fact that the science showed
that their contributions to climate change were real. I mean,
these are facts. These were documents that were disclosed, and
I thank the Chairman for having that hearing.
Back to the immediate impact that we're witnessing and not
just globally, not just nationally, but close to home. Like
Virginia, Maryland is home to many military installations. We
have two dozen military installations in Maryland, about half
of them are coastal. And climate change has been a big factor
in the sea level rise that we've seen in the Chesapeake Bay
over a foot over the last 100 years and projected to rise up to
another six feet over the next hundred years, and so this is
impacting our military installations,
Annapolis, of course, is home to the U.S. Naval Academy.
We're very proud to have it in the State of Maryland that broke
records in 2019 with almost 20 days of high tide flooding, up
from an average of two days per year from 1995 to 2005. And the
Naval Academy has taken steps to address sea level rise,
including a $37.5 million project to raise the height of the
sea wall to protect part of the Academy.
Aberdeen Proving Ground in northeast Maryland is the site
of important Army research that's dependent on Aberdeen's high-
tech infrastructure, and it is also threatened by sea level
rise. For example, the Army Research Lab relies on an Aberdeen
testing site nearby, Spesutie Island, which is expected to be
completely under water in 50 years. So, Mr. Dwyer, thank you
again for the work that you've done on this issue.
In your testimony, you cite how consistent under-investment
in infrastructure has created a maintenance and modernization
backlog of about $49 billion for the Navy and $47 billion for
the Air Force. So, do you believe that this is an area where we
should be investing more in order to protect our military
assets?
Mr. Dwyer. Senator, thank you for that question. The answer
is, yes, I do believe that we need to be investing more in the
infrastructure of our DOD installations. You mentioned the
backlog. That's from historical decades of underfunding. Like I
said, when I was a Second Lieutenant back in 1996, I was told
right when I came in that we're taking risks in infrastructure.
That's why we don't have enough funding to do what we need to
do on the installations and that's been the mantra ever since.
And so now we've got this huge backlog of bills and I think
the '25 budget request is requesting about $37 billion in DOD
for Military Construction (MILCON) and Facilities Sustainment,
Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) funding, $1.3 trillion
plant replacement value. So, we're at about a little less than
3 percent investment and a lot of that investment is for new
mission bed-downs, Unified Combatant Command (COCOM)
requirements, so not recapitalizing and investing in our
existing infrastructure. Industry standard is about 4 to 6
percent investment every year just in keeping your facilities
in good condition and recapitalizing.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, I appreciate that. I mean, look,
obviously we have ongoing maintenance requirements, apart from
climate change, but the reality is that places like the Naval
Academy the additional costs are necessary because of what
we're seeing.
Admiral McGinn, again, thank you for your service. You
speak in your testimony about climate change as ``catalyst for
instability in conflict.'' So, do you agree that our efforts to
make a transition toward clean energy is not only in our
interest from an economic point of view, from an environmental
point of view, but also from a national security point of view?
Honorable McGinn. Yes, sir, I do. In a broader sense, our
national security is comprised of three big pillars: our energy
security, our economic security, and our environmental
security. They directly lead to our quality of life and our
safety and our health. And so, fossil fuel has been fantastic
for this country and many parts of the world, not all, in terms
of giving us the kind of economies and quality of life that we
have. But it's time to change.
Just as we had to change years ago when we thought that
asbestos was a great insulator or DDT was a great insect
control mechanism or that leaded paint was a terrific substance
to use inside and outside of homes. What happened was there was
analysis that was done, medical research done, and we realized
that despite all of the benefits of things, there's a downside.
And we've come to realize, and you've cited the fossil fuel
industries own research that there's a downside to continued
use, unmitigated use of fossil fuels. So, it's time to switch
to another way of powering our economy and powering our way of
life and literally creating a much stronger national security
because of that.
Honorable Gallaudet. Senator Van Hollen, if I may, as a
fellow Maryland resident.
Senator Van Hollen. Sure.
Honorable Gallaudet. Even though my comments about
wildfires and typhoons were directed at the need to be more
precise in what's occurring, I fully support Mr. Dwyer's
testimony and I've lived it firsthand. I've seen the increased
inundation and high-tide flooding where I lived in North Beach,
Maryland. I just moved to Annapolis. I've seen what's happened
to the Academy. I applaud those investments and I agree we need
to invest more in our infrastructure and installations, and I'm
especially interested because my daughter starts at Annapolis
next month.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, listen, thank you and it's good
to see you. And thank you as well for your service and your
testimony. And we are very proud of the Naval Academy and
congratulations on your daughter. Thank you.
Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Braun.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BRAUN
Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We do have a couple Admirals on the panel. I want to quote
one. Back in 2010, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Admiral Mike Mullen, stated that the most significant threat to
our national security is our debt, 2010. That is back when it
was so much less than what it is now. Back in 2010, it was
probably around 15, 16 trillion. It was a lot less. I know it
was 18 trillion when I got here in '18.
Jamie Diamond and Jerome Powell in the last couple months
have said our national debt and the service of it, which is now
denominated in trillions, trillion dollars a year, is the same
as our defense budget. That finally the two biggest finance
guys in the world said enough is enough and that the dark
clouds for our economy in the future would be the behavior of
this place.
On March 20th, in this body, I introduced a resolution that
passed by unanimous consent that debt is a threat to our
national security. Remember this is the Budget Committee and we
haven't run a balanced budget since the late nineties. I want
to distill this into very simple terms.
Senator Johnson was talking about all the elements that go
into the past, the present, and the future, the modeling that's
been nowhere close and the money, the time value of money that
we are starting to spend on something that is amorphous. I'd
like each one of your opinions. Which is more of an existential
threat, our debt that's progressed as far as you can see.
That's a bird in the hand. That's absolute to be at least two
trillion dollars a year out 10 years. Sooner or later, we'll go
through like a Chapter 11 to where that'll be reduced.
What is more of a threat, climate change or our national
debt and the trajectory of it? Start over with Mr. McGinn.
Honorable McGinn. Senator, I know Mike Mullen very well.
We're friends, shipmates, worked together very, very closely
and I have no doubt in his perspective that, in fact, national
debt is a big--national security, indeed.
Senator Braun. Well, which do you think is more of an
existential threat?
Honorable McGinn. It would be a mistake to focus only on
that to the exclusion of other threats like, for example,
climate change, because climate change.
Senator Braun. And I agree with you there.
Honorable McGinn. It's not going to treat us more kindly in
terms of our national debt and our needed investments to
protect ourselves from increasing severe weather.
Senator Braun. So, I'd just like a--which one do you think
is more of an existential threat?
Honorable McGinn. It depends on the timeframe. I think
longer-term climate change left unattended or properly attended
is a greater threat. In the near-term, we have to deal with our
national debt.
Ms. Sikorsky. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Here's
what I know, that if climate change continues unabated that
will increase our national debt over time. And when we're
talking about adaptation and resilience investments, like the
kinds that all members, I think, of the panel have referred to
today, there are many studies showing that spending one dollar
today.
Senator Braun. Are you willing to borrow more money to do
it?
Ms. Sikorsky. I think we need to make these investments for
resilience and adaptation.
Senator Braun. You borrow and spend it with the
subjectivity associated with that over what we could do in our
own discipline to get back to a healthy place where you could
actually do something about it.
Ms. Sikorsky. I think making our bases and installations
more resilient, as we've talked about, to future threats so
we're not spending $10 billion like we're going to have to in
Guam due to the wave that came through there or what happened
at Tyndall Air Force Base, which cost billions of dollars.
Senator Braun. In the context of still borrowing two
trillion dollars a year or do you think we ought to work on
that first and then maybe pick the priorities?
Ms. Sikorsky. I think we've got to be able to walk and chew
gum at the same time and deal with both of----
Senator Braun. Well, we haven't been doing a very good job
at that. Next?
Mr. Dwyer. Sir, I'm a civil engineer by education and by
trade, so I look at it from an infrastructure and what's the
cost to protect the infrastructure that we have and bottom line
that's going to take investment.
To your question, I don't know what's more of an
existential threat the debt or climate change. All I know is
that if we want to keep our military installations, which we
project power from, we're going to have to invest to protect
them.
Honorable Gallaudet. Senator, I said in my opening
statement that I acknowledge the challenges to national
security imposed by climate change, but that the fact that in
2024 will be the first time the interest we pay on our debt is
exceeding the Pentagon's budget. That, I believe, is the
greater national security risk.
Ms. Eaglen. We know and you know Sir, that peace begets
prosperity, which is required for economic growth to sustain
that same peace and stability, so I would say dealing with the
debt is a immediate concern.
Senator Braun. Thank you. And if I introduce a resolution
today that climate was a threat to our national security, you'd
barely get 50 votes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Whitehouse. And I might have an explanation for
that, but I'll leave that for another day. Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER
Senator Warner. So much to say and so little time. I agree
with Senator Braun that the national debt is a huge issue. We
got close. My first gang, was the Simpson-Bowles gang. I worked
very closely with Mike Mullen. Mike Mullen also thinks that
climate change is a critical component. And I would point out
to my colleagues we're never going to get the debt under
control unless you not only look at the spending side but the
revenue side.
Of 34 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) nations in the world, America is 32. And if
you go to those individuals, I'll take them all. I'll take
Jimmy Diamond, take them all. They all agree, whether it's the
infrastructure bill or the CHIPS and Science Act (CHIPS) bill,
if we become economically noncompetitive, we're never going to
be able to grapple with the debt.
I'm sorry. My friend from Wisconsin left and when he is
starting to attack people's science, I mean, long before I was
governor or Senator I was on the Center for Naval Analyses
(CNA), the Federally Funded Research and Development Center
(FFRDC) for the Navy. Early as the mid-nineties, CNA, ahead of
political figures were saying if we don't get ahead of climate
change it is a national security imperative. And I just wish--
I'm not sure whether my friend, Tim Kaine's already raised
this, Rick, and it's great to see you again.
You know the amount of money the Navy spends every year in
Norfolk to raise the piers because of sea level rise. I would
love to have seen my colleagues who just say it's not really
happening I'd like to take them to a church in Norfolk that
floods virtually every high tide. Never did before, but because
of climate change.
I'd like to take a look at the literally $500 million of
federal funds that we have to put in Norfolk. And again, Rick,
thank you for your work on this to make sure that we could
raise sea level walls so we don't flood out one of the major
cities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. For people to deny
those facts is a complete disconnect from reality. And I would
invite anyone of my colleagues to take a trip with me to
Hampton Roads and see the effects firsthand of what it does to
our economy because if we don't have a strong economy we're not
going to be able to generate the revenues to bring down that
debt. I think $34 trillion in national debt. It's a national
embarrassment. I think we should've done Simpson-Bowles a
decade ago. And frankly, both political parties lost any
credibility on this issue, particularly my Republican friends
after the Trump tax cuts where the advocacy was borrowing is
great. Well, borrowing is great until interest rates go back to
any kind of rational basis and we're seeing the effects of that
right now, but to deny the absolute, tangible costs, not in
some future date. The costs this year is a complete divorce
from reality.
I am and I was going to give you a great softball question
about how the communities in Hampton Roads were going to work
together, but I'm down to a minute 45 and I don't get the
Budget Committee as much as I'd like and the Chairman will cut
me off if I go on too long.
So, Admiral McGinn, one of the things you said in your
testimony I absolutely believe we need to make this conversion
to a cleaner energy and deal with climate change. You've made
clear in your testimony. I frankly believe, and I think you've
raised this, respectfully to some of my other members, I don't
think we can do it with solar and wind alone. I think we need a
fresh look at small modular nukes, SMRs. I think the
technology's advanced. They are carbon free. We can do them
from micro-size to the 150 to 300 megawatts which, again, in
many ways is not that much larger than what fuels our sailors
on an aircraft carrier.
And one of the things that I'm trying to work now with our
friends on the Armed Services Committee is we need DOD to lean
in on this issue. We're already going to see the energy needs
that are going be created by the data centers that are going to
power AI, the Hyperscalers. They have to have some skin in the
game. But in the last 35 seconds, can you talk a little bit
about how we can get DOD, as an off-take provider as I think
SMRs and other technology can provide that clean energy. But
we've got to generate the demand so we can get to that first of
kind risk.
Honorable McGinn. Right on. I think that the outcome of
having SMRs is absolutely necessary. It has tremendous
benefits, not just to reducing greenhouse gases, but
importantly, to our economic development and our technology.
And I think that DOD does need to be a partner and it has to be
a public-private partnership. There are many utility companies,
Dominion being one, Duke another, Southern Company, and the
public utility company, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), very
interested. So, I think it has to be a public-private
partnership with DOD, with DOE to push forward SMR technology
to, not only get it developed fully, but to scale it and deploy
it.
Chairman Whitehouse. I'll take Chairman's prerogative here
just to add that these emerging nuclear technologies create the
opportunity to cleanly repower existing fossil heat plants
where there's already turbines. There's already transformers.
There's already a robust grid built and there's already a
technical workforce. All you have to do is boil the water with
a different form of power to provide a really major
improvement. So, thank you for bringing that up, Senator
Warner. Next, we have Senator Padilla, followed by Senator
Lujan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Senator Warner's example after example from
Virginia on the topic at hand here. I'd like to raise a couple
from my home state of California. Atmospheric rivers are high-
impact winter storm events that provide 50 percent of annual
precipitation in California and 80 percent of our flooding.
These storms also hinder military aviation capabilities, which
are kind of important on the Pacific with increased turbulence
in air space, visibility reduction, and surface wind impacts.
Rear Admiral Gallaudet, you mentioned in your testimony
that the Department of Defense needs to invest more in short-
term sub-seasonal and seasonal forecast improvements. As you
may be aware, I introduced a bill to that effect that was
included in Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization
Act, and it directs the Air Force and NOAA to prioritize
whether reconnaissance flights over the Pacific Ocean for
atmospheric river storm prediction.
Given your role as Oceanographer of the Navy and Acting
Administrator of NOAA, do you agree these Pacific
reconnaissance flights are critical for understanding impacts
on installations, training, and operations missions?
Honorable Gallaudet. Absolutely, sir. I'd like to see more
of those.
Senator Padilla. All right. Feel free to expand here for
about 30 seconds.
Honorable Gallaudet. Well, yes, and in fact when I was in
charge of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, we
also supported those reconnaissance flights with our NOAA P3
hurricane hunters. When there's not a hurricane season around,
they could go to the West Coast and support the prediction and
observation efforts which are critical to advance our
environmental modeling and the American weather model, which we
started an effort to basically take the top spot from the
Europeans, and so that work continues. It's called the Earth
Prediction Innovation Center, and the atmospheric river
prediction is a key component of it.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. The only thing I'll add to that
is to be careful now utilizing the term ``season'' when it
comes to these types of events. There used to be kind of a
defined wildfire season in California until the wildfires
started earlier and earlier and lasted longer and longer into
the year. Now, we're on our toes all year round. I think
similarly for hurricanes and tornadoes for that matter. What
used to be more of a defined season is expanding, expanding and
not a coincidence because our climate is, indeed, changing.
Now, several of you have shared, both in written testimony
and in conversation here today, you've referenced Guam. Guam
suffered catastrophic flooding that requires significant
funding now for repair and recovery. It's my understanding that
the Naval Installations Command is currently supporting a
research effort to enhance coastal resilience and better
prepare for the impacts from the changing climate on the most
vulnerable installations across the Pacific.
Question for Ms. Sikorsky, how can academic researchers in
California better support the Department of Defense's efforts
to plan for and mitigate impacts at installations that face
these threat multipliers?
Ms. Sikorsky. Thank you so much for the question, Senator.
I think that the academic community, the scientific community
can be a huge resource for Department of Defense through the
Minerva Project and other opportunities there to marry that
scientific research with the national security concerns to
better understand the resilience needs. I think investments in
that partnership are really important and can provide new
information and new data that can make the Defense Department
make better decisions.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. And a follow-up question to
Vice Admiral McGinn. How else are Navy installations preparing
for these threat multiplier events and what are the tools are
the agencies not currently utilizing, but could or should?
Honorable McGinn. I think, across the board, Senator,
especially in California, looking at the variance of threats
could be rising water in San Diego, for example or atmospheric
rivers, et cetera. Up at the mountain training range for the
Marine Corps, up in Bridgeport it could be wildfires. They are
trying to anticipate and to try to make themselves more
resilient to these effects.
Overall, I know you're very aware of power brownouts or
blackouts that've happened in very, very hot weather conditions
and usually in the late summer, early fall in California. The
Navy has been trying to be a good partner with the California
Energy Commission and the utilities out there, Southern
California, Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, to make sure that
the load is managed and reduced during those times so that we
can keep the lights on for the greatest number of people.
Senator Padilla. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Chairman Whitehouse. Senator Lujan.
Senator Lujan. Admiral, if you wanted to----
Honorable Gallaudet. I just wanted to add one more thing
about resilience in the Mariana Islands.
Chairman Whitehouse. Stop the clock for Senator Lujan so
we're not using his time for Admiral Gallaudet's intervention.
Go ahead.
Honorable Gallaudet. Thank you, Senator--Chairman
Whitehouse. One organization that I used to lead is the Naval
Metrology and Oceanography Command and they're the command that
predicts typhoons in the western Pacific and that's the most
impactful event out there in terms of climatic. And so,
improving those predictions and supporting that command with
more investments I think will be very important going forward
as we're going to operate more in the Indo Pacific and they're
doing great work with the private sector. A California company
called Sofar Ocean on Pier 28 in San Fransisco makes ocean data
buoys, and they have a global network, and that information is
critical to improving our predictions of typhoons and really
weather events worldwide.
Senator Padilla. Wonderful. Thank you.
Chairman Whitehouse. A fresh start.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LUJAN
Senator Lujan. Thank you very much, Chairman Whitehouse,
and good morning to you as well. Thank you for holding this
important hearing, and to our panelists who are here as well.
It's clear to me that the national security community needs
more quality, up-to-date information to make decisions showing
how climate change will affect military operations,
infrastructure, and global security. The question is who can we
turn to in the United States for this practical, scientific
experience?
Now, I'm proud to say that New Mexico is at the forefront
of this effort. Every day thousands of scientists and engineers
at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National
Laboratory are hard at work at the most pressing national
security issues, including those driven by climate change. And
they've demonstrated time and again how their science delivers
a safer and more prosperous nation.
As climate change continues to grow as a threat to our
security, we can rely on our labs to provide solutions to some
of our hardest problems. Now, Ms. Sikorsky, I understand that
you recently visited Sandia National Laboratory to learn about
how the lab provides climate research and modeling to support
our national security community; is that correct?
Ms. Sikorsky. Yes.
Senator Lujan. And what'd you learn?
Ms. Sikorsky. Thank you, Senator.
Well, I learned, obviously, that the federal scientific
community is a huge resource for combating the threats from
climate change, and Sandia's deep experience on nuclear
deterrence issues, right, and managing nuclear threats. The
lessons learned from that process can also help on the climate
piece. I mean the access they have to computing power and to
data is just so huge and they've got really smart people
working these problems and they're already partnering with the
U.S. Intelligence Community and the Defense Department to move
this forward.
Congress has done some great work in this space too by
setting up the Climate Security Advisory Council and the
Climate Security Roundtable at the National Academies and I
would encourage Congress to continue pursuing innovative
partnerships like that so labs like Sandia can be used to their
maximum ability to tackle these security threats.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that Ms. Sikorsky. I've been
very impressed with the capabilities of the super computer's
ability to forecast climate disaster and solve so many
challenges, not just that we face here around America and in
America, but around the world.
I recently introduced a bipartisan bill to improve our
weather and climate models so we could be prepared before a
disaster strikes. This was prompted because of the devastating
wildfires that many of us have experienced around the West and
visiting with colleagues throughout the East Coast as well. The
devastation that we've seen with erosion, rising oceans, it's
something that I've found more commonality with than
disagreement with.
Ms. Sikorsky, yes or no, are the labs well positioned to
answer key questions from the national security community
considering their expertise and resources?
Ms. Sikorsky. Yes, I think the labs are well positioned and
I would love to see even more efforts to bring lab personnel
and national security experts together on a regular basis.
Again, in my background in the Intelligence Community, I think
having lab folks on rotation in those places regularly would
really help.
Senator Lujan. Can you expand upon that with how these
teams could be brought together more and how the labs could be
utilized more in this effort?
Ms. Sikorsky. Sure. I think what you see now a lot is the
Intelligence Community has a question. They throw it over the
fence to the labs. The labs do a big study and then they throw
it back, you know, six months, a year later. What I'd love to
see instead are teams where they're doing co-production, right,
where you've got folks sitting around a table together, looking
at the question from the very beginning and breaking down the
silos, if you will, between the labs and the security
community.
And I know there's some innovation happening with some of
the labs in that vein already, but it's kind of just testing it
out. I'd love to see it expanded.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I mean, the labs
definitely have the security apparatus and clearances to be
able to hold those kinds of robust conversations and problem-
solving sessions. I appreciate that very much.
The last thing that I'll share, Mr. Chairman, is when we're
talking about some of the innovations made with small nuclear
reactors from an energy perspective and things of that nature,
I was concerned with the last, most recent blue ribbon
commission taskforce associated with spent fuel. It suggested
just putting the spent fuel in the ground.
I know it's expensive, but it's spent fuel. There's a
reason why I'm referring to it as that. There's still useful
life in this, but America's made a decision about not
reprocessing, dissimilar to other allies in the world like
France. And I just think that if there's still a useful life in
this stuff, rather than sticking it the ground in a place like
New Mexico where I don't want it, we need to be smarter about
what reprocessing would look like at existing areas, locations,
things of that nature across America.
So, Mr. Chairman, that's where my heads goes when I have
this conversation so that we include spent fuel as part of the
solutions that--or one of the challenges that has to find a
better solution as well, but very much appreciate this
conversation. Thank you all for being here.
Chairman Whitehouse. I thank the Senator for that, and I
look forward to continuing to work with him as we increase the
capacity for developing next gen nuclear reactors, which we've
done several bills to improve so that we can take that some
would say nuclear waste and repurpose it to positive value
repowering clean, safe nuclear projects. We've done
considerable work together and I'm grateful to the Senator for
raising that issue.
I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the
Committee today. Your full written statements will be included
in the Record.
Admiral Gallaudet, I want to thank you particularly for
mentioning the China fisheries threat. And for anybody
listening, Senator Sullivan of Alaska and I have a bill to
address the international fisheries problem posed by China's
very predatory fishing fleet and by the pirate fishing fleets
that are out there essentially running slave ships outside the
law and destroying the fish stocks of the world to the peril of
our legitimate fisherman, something we care a lot about in
Rhode Island.
So, to understand the national security component of that I
think is very important and I will publicly thank both the Navy
and the Coast Guard for the way that they have much improved
their working relationship in the fisheries enforcement area. A
little more progress yet, but Secretary Del Toro, in
particular, has been energized about working with the Coast
Guard to make sure that we are meeting this challenge head on.
The only other thing I'd say is that the oceans are
measurably warming at a massive scale. It's measured in zeta
jewels, which is 21 zeros. It's a really enormous number and
surface temperatures are measurably increasing, and we know
that warmer ocean surface temperatures power up hurricanes and
cyclones. So, when you question attribution science between
ocean measurements and cyclones, I would urge you to be
careful. You adjusted your testimony to say that as to any one
given cyclone, but I would suggest to you that that's not the
point. It's impossible to attribute any one given homerun to a
baseball player who is jacked on steroids.
But when you look at the numbers of homeruns and the power
of the hits, you can't then use that problem of attribution to
deny the underlying fact that steroids are warping the
performance of the baseball player. So, I'd be careful about
making that point as you pursue your repertoire.
And questions for the record are due by 12:00 noon
tomorrow. I ask the witnesses to respond to any questions that
we get by 12:00 tomorrow within seven days of receipt. And with
no further business before the Committee, I will adjourn the
hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., Wednesday, May 15, 2024, the
hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]