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


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

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

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-68

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                    

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

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

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

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

                           September 20, 2022

                                                                   Page

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

                           Opening Statements

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

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

                               Witnesses:

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

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

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

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

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

              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

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

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

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

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

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                TESTIMONY OF DR. LARRY HINZMAN,

             ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF POLAR SCIENCES,

            OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

                    AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

        INTERAGENCY ARCTIC RESEARCH AND POLICY COMMITTEE

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

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. MIKE SFRAGA,

             CHAIR, U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION

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

            TESTIMONY OF MS. VERA KINGEEKUK METCALF,

          EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ESKIMO WALRUS COMMISSION

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

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. SUSAN NATALI,

                    ARCTIC PROGRAM DIRECTOR,

                WOODWELL CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTER

    Dr. Natali. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting 
me to testify at today's hearing. My name is Dr. Susan Natali, 
and I'm the Arctic Program Director and a Senior Scientist at 
Woodwell Climate Research Center. Woodwell is a nonprofit 
organization made up of research scientists and policy experts 
dedicated to advancing climate policy solutions. My work 
focuses on the local to global effects of permafrost thaw in 
Arctic and boreal regions.
    Next slide, please.
    [Slide.]
    Permafrost is ground that has been frozen for at least 2 
consecutive years and often for hundreds to thousands of years. 
It underlies about 15 percent of the Northern Hemisphere land 
and 38 percent of Alaska's lands. Permafrost has exceptional 
significance for global climate because it holds a massive 
amount of ancient frozen carbon. There's an estimated 1.4 
trillion tons of carbon in the permafrost region, which is 
roughly twice as much carbon as is currently contained in the 
Earth's atmosphere. This carbon has accumulated for millennia 
from dead plants and animals, which cold and frozen conditions 
have prevented from fully decomposing.
    But rapid warming across the northern region, which is now 
occurring three to four times faster than the global average, 
is causing permafrost to thaw. An estimated 7 percent of near-
surface permafrost has already been lost across the Arctic, and 
about 25 to 70 percent of permafrost is expected to thaw over 
the next century. Once thawed, the accumulated carbon in the 
soil can be decomposed and released into the atmosphere as 
greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, and methane.
    Next slide, please.
    [Slide.]
    Over the coming decades, the amount of carbon released from 
thawing permafrost could be equivalent to continued emissions 
from major greenhouse gas emitting nations, perhaps even as 
large as or larger than the United States at our current 
emission rate. Greenhouse gas emissions from thawing permafrost 
could use up 25 to 40 percent of our remaining carbon budget to 
stay below 2 degrees Celsius warming, yet these emissions are 
generally under-accounted in part due to major gaps in Arctic 
carbon monitoring and modeling.
    The failure to accurately account for permafrost emissions 
undermines the integrity and efficacy of global mitigation 
policy. By not accounting for permafrost emissions, we're 
essentially aiming for the wrong climate target, making it that 
much harder to mitigate climate warming.
    Next slide, please.
    [Slide.]
    Improving understanding of permafrost thaw is also critical 
for informing climate adaptation policies. When permafrost 
thaws, it can induce ground collapse, which is impacting homes 
and infrastructure, Arctic lands, water, wildlife subsistence, 
resources, and indigenous ways of living. Further, the 
interacting hazards of permafrost thaw, erosion, and flooding 
are being exacerbated by more severe storm impacts, as was 
witnessed in Alaska this past week.
    More than 70--next slide, please.
    [Slide.]
    More than 70 villages across Alaska faced significant 
threats from erosion, flooding, or permafrost thaw. For over a 
decade, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) has warned 
that impacted communities need Federal Government support to 
adapt to climate change. And in the most severe cases, this may 
include relocation. Yet there still is no national relocation 
governance framework or dedicated and coordinated funding 
mechanism to facilitate planned relocation, which will become a 
critical need not only in Alaska, but across the Nation.
    Next slide.
    [Slide.]
    Arctic residents and scientists have been observing 
permafrost thaw for decades, but we cannot fully address this 
problem without amplified research and policy support from 
Congress. I highlight five areas that I feel should be 
prioritized for increased research support. First, strategic 
funding opportunities for permafrost as a larger scope and 
long-term research priority.
    Second, focused investment to reduce uncertainty in climate 
monitoring and modeling.
    Third, improved interagency coordination on Arctic research 
planning and funding.
    Fourth, recognition that permafrost thaw, like climate 
change, is an international issue that warrants international 
solutions, including pathways for data exchange, grant funding, 
and equipment-sharing.
    And fifth, direct support to Alaska Native tribes to co-
produce knowledge and to lead climate change research.
    Today's hearing demonstrates the Committee's dedication to 
confronting the climate crisis through a participatory and 
transparent process. I look forward to seeing Members of this 
Committee lead that effort, and I offer my continued support. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Natali follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Stevens [presiding]. Great. At this point, we'll begin 
our first round of questions, and the Chair will recognize 
herself for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Hinzman, the Arctic Research and Policy Act was enacted 
40 years ago, and Congress last amended it in 1990. Four 
decades of changes in the Arctic have had social, cultural, 
environmental, and economic impacts. How has research planning 
evolved to address today's challenges? And what steps did the 
IARPC take to balance fundamental research priorities and 
research to address local research needs? And what are the most 
important research questions that we need to address the most 
significant unknowns?
    Dr. Hinzman. Well, thank you Representative----
    Ms. Stevens. Known and unknowns, yes, thank you.
    Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Stevens. That's a 
very large question. So the the Arctic Research and Policy Act 
was established in 1984 and was initiated to facilitate 
coordination, collaboration among Federal agencies and their 
investment in Arctic research to ensure that we had minimal 
duplication, to ensure that we could facilitate the 
partnerships and collaboration needed. And I think that that 
has been very successful over the last 40 years. I am very 
pleased to see the coordination that we have today amongst the 
partnerships and the collaborations among the agencies.
    So IARPC does exist to facilitate that partnership. IARPC 
hosts a platform we call IARPC collaborations, which exists to 
enable the collaborations among Federal researchers, the 
researcher scientists in the agencies with the non-Federal 
researchers from universities, foundations, and international 
researchers. And it has been very successful in identifying the 
priorities that are of most urgent need to the United States, 
to their--to our Federal agencies and focus this large 
partnership of researchers on those issues. And so there's been 
remarkable work done, and I think there is a need to up--as Dr. 
Sfraga said, there is a need to update that policy, but I am 
pleased with where we are today.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, all hail research collaboratives like 
IARPC, and thank you to the dedicated researchers who are part 
of it.
    And, Dr. Sfraga, the witnesses today have described rapid 
changes in the Arctic, critical partnership and research needs, 
limited research vessels, and sinking research infrastructure. 
The Arctic Research and Policy Act directs OSTP to review 
agency budget requests related to the Arctic and directs OMB to 
consider all agency requests as one integrated multiagency 
request and review it prior to submission of the budget for 
adherence to the 5-year research plan. How would you 
characterize the degree to which this has been carried out over 
the years? And what should it look like moving forward to 
ensure Congress can carry out sufficient oversight of the 
Arctic research budget?
    Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative Stevens. Well, I can 
say that, although Dr. Hinzman has provided us a very good, 
practical, and informative narrative regarding the work that 
has been done by IARPC and by the Arctic Research Commission 
and the research community, I can say that definitively. What I 
cannot say is that we have a very good handle on the amount of 
investment our Nation makes in Arctic research. As you noted, 
ARPA has been in place for 4 decades. We have not had a 
comprehensive budget crosscut for our Federal research, Arctic 
research done anytime that I can remember. And by that I mean 
we simply don't know in aggregate what we're spending on Arctic 
research in the United States. We simply don't know that we 
have the resources available to us to implement, to fund, the 
IARPC plan, as outlined by Dr. Hinzman.
    And so what my recommendation and our Commission's 
recommendation is that we have a budget crosscut done each year 
by the Office of Management and Budget to secure good data on 
what each Federal agency is spending on Arctic research so we 
have a baseline and we can see our trending and funding over 
time. That demand for Arctic research will only continue, which 
means the request for resources from Congress will only 
continue, but I think we need a solid baseline of what it is we 
spend right at the moment on Arctic research. Then, I can 
answer the second part, I think, of your question, 
Representative Stevens, which is how can we take the IARPC 
plan, which has spent--which they have spent so much time 
building for our Nation in a rapid time of change? How do we 
know and how can we secure the resources to implement that 
plan? So, A, we need a good idea of our baseline over time, 
what we have provided for Arctic research, and that should be 
done every year. And two, we should take the plan that Dr. 
Hinzman and his colleagues have put together and we should 
crosswalk that with available funding to actually understand 
whether or not we can implement, whether we can afford, whether 
we can enable the research plan that his--he and his colleagues 
have put together.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes. Well, thank you for that. And, you know, 
we understand that IARPC is comprised of 17 Federal agencies, 
departments, and offices, again, a great example of a whole-of-
government approach. NSF and NOAA alone budget about $230 
million annually toward Arctic-related work as part of IARPC. 
And so we will get a question for the record to Dr. Hinzman as 
we move to the next witness--or, excuse me, the next Member for 
questioning. And I believe that's Mr. Lucas here----
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you.
    Ms. Stevens [continuing]. For 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lucas. Dr. Hinzman and Dr. Sfraga, data collected in 
2019 by a fleet of sail drone unmanned surface vehicles in the 
Arctic was found by NASA and NOAA to have a remarkably strong 
correlation to the measurements taken by satellite. Time and 
time again, commercial data has proven accurate and beneficial 
to Federal agencies at a cost-effective price. What role do you 
see the private sector and commercial data playing in the 
future of Arctic research? And along with that, should the 
Administration better utilize commercial data buys and 
partnerships?
    Dr. Hinzman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Lucas, 
excellent question and really profound insight in that the 
commercial capabilities have advanced remarkably in the past 
few decades, and they have opened up our capabilities 
tremendously, not just through sail drones but through sub-
ocean technology and through radio communications, through 
telemetry that we can impart in the field, through data 
loggers. It's been a remarkable accomplishment. And without the 
contributions, without the engagement of the commercial 
industry, we would never be where we are today. We are so 
fortunate to have as good partners, that they have stepped up 
to provide this technology to us. So I wholeheartedly endorse 
that.
    Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Doctor?
    Dr. Sfraga. Ranking Member Lucas, thank you for the 
comment. I agree with my colleague Dr. Hinzman. Public-private 
partnerships have worked well in many parts of our society. 
Arctic research should not stand alone as something where we 
don't encourage the public-private partnerships going forward. 
Industry is innovative. They move faster than government can 
move. Sometimes they're more innovative. Seated with Federal 
research funds, we see that our Nation's industry can lead in 
so many different sectors. I think it's probably part of our 
DNA, and it should be going forward. When you have a top-down 
nation that can dictate what happens within its nation, it's 
very hard--it's very easy to put resources in particular 
places.
    Our country is built differently. Our country is built to 
be inclusive. Our country is built to be innovative. And we 
should take advantage of private industry and, as Dr. Hinzman 
noted, in so many different sectors, including satellite and 
fiber communications and telecommunications, in drones and 
marine assets. We should bring the whole team to the game 
because the Arctic is changing so fast. We have to bring the 
whole team to game. And if we can bring industry to the table, 
we can show them and provide an opportunity for them to make a 
profit in the north while serving the north, I think that would 
be a very good thing.
    Mr. Lucas. Dr. Hinzman, as I mentioned in my statement, I 
had an opportunity to visit Summit Station back in 2017, and it 
was clear then that the facilities were inadequate for the 
world-class science being conducted there. Dr. Hinzman, both 
you and Dr. Sfraga stated in your testimony the importance of 
this facility and the need to recapitalize its outdated 
infrastructure. I know NOAA just upgraded the Barrow 
Atmospheric Baseline Observatory. Can you speak to any plans 
that are currently in motion to upgrade Summit Station?
    Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Ranking Member Lucas. That is--I am 
so pleased that you were able to visit Summit Station, and I'm 
so pleased that you bring that to the attention of this 
Committee. So that station is in dire need of maintenance and 
upgrades at this point. It is--the surface melt has extended 
all the way to the summit, so that station is--over the past 
few years is sinking into the ice, and it does need a serious 
upgrade. It does need serious investments to enable it to 
continue these--the important measurements that have been taken 
over the last 40 years, 50 years since that's been in 
operation.
    The role of Greenland in influencing our global climate 
dynamics just cannot be overstated. It is so important. It 
affects the atmospheric circulation. It affects the oceanic 
properties. It affects ocean circulations. We have to continue 
those observations. Thank you.
    Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Dr. Sfraga, can you--could you 
please provide--because part of my responsibility as a Member 
of Congress is explain to the folks back home why we make these 
investments. Could you provide one or two examples of how basic 
research funded by the Federal Government science agencies sees 
like NSF, NOAA, and NASA play a role in national security 
decisionmaking in support of the Arctic? And along with that, 
what role does the U.S. Arctic Research Commission play in 
connecting defense and non-defense communities? I'm looking for 
a town meeting answer here.
    Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Member Lucas. I can say that--well, 
first of all, Greenland is emblematic of the new north. It--so 
many of the issues at play right now in the new north, whether 
it's social, political, economic, environmental. If you live in 
Norfolk, Virginia, or Nome, Alaska, you will feel the impacts 
of what happens in Greenland with melting ice cap.
    But I can tell you that if you're interested in a national 
security component of research, here's where we're at. The 
United States needs to have a better idea of our domain. Why? 
Our Arctic domain is changing drastically. And if you are a 
resident citizen of our country, you need to know that Arctic 
research is a part of our national security, so securing money 
and resources for research secures our national security. If 
you're interested in homeland security, understand full well 
that we have a great power competition underway in several 
different forms, Russia, China, even North Korea and other 
countries. The Arctic now is a globalized Arctic. It is not a 
place on a map far removed. It is now a part of geopolitics, 
which increases our dependence on so many different things like 
the ripple effect of global energy, global wheat supply and 
demand, global commodities, shipping costs. If you're shopping 
each day, you're being impacted by global commodities. So 
energy, resources, shipping, I can continue on and on. All 
facets of the economy now are woven into the Arctic, whether we 
see that or not. It's really apparent to so many that that is 
the case.
    Mr. Lucas. I agree, Doctor, and yield back the balance of 
what time I do not have, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Stevens. All in good faith. And with that, we will hear 
from 5 minutes of questions from the distinguished Science 
Committee Member Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. This is such an important 
hearing, and I'm grateful to each of our witnesses for their 
important testimony.
    Pivoting to Mr. Lucas's question and the town hall meeting, 
it's worth noting that we have had some studies, one, Lawrence 
Livermore National Lab did a study in 2017, and just this year, 
the Pacific Northwest National Lab both linked wildfires in 
California to Arctic melting. The dry, hot conditions in 
California are directly linked. And so since we've learned 
these connections in our understanding, I guess the question 
is, what do we do? Can this information assist us as we prepare 
in the western continental United States for wildfires, and 
could it be an early warning to help us better cope with that 
phenomena that we are seeing in Washington, Oregon, California, 
New Mexico, and the like? Yes, Doctor.
    Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Lofgren. That's a 
very important issue and one that I think our government is 
trying very hard to address.
    So there are several advances going on. And I'll--first, 
I'll take the broader picture with respect to the role of the 
Arctic in these increasing numbers of extreme events. There's--
you are absolutely correct. There are more severe--there's a 
greater frequency of extreme events and a greater severity of 
these extreme events, and that includes wildfire. And there is 
a role of the Arctic in influencing these global climate 
dynamics that are increasing these disastrous wildfires.
    So what are we doing about that? So there is now a new 
interagency, ICAMS, Advanced--Interagency Council on Advanced 
Meteorological Services, excuse me, and one of the primary 
focuses of that is on addressing wildfire behavior, predicting, 
projecting where the wildfires will occur so we can be prepared 
for them, and then being able to better predict the wildfire 
behavior. And IARPC is participating in that group to try and 
understand--to contribute what the Arctic's role is in that 
effort, but it is--I agree with you. That's a very important 
issue.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much. Dr. Natali, as your 
statement described the latest sixth assessment report for the 
first time included the permafrost carbon in the Earth systems 
models that informed the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change) report. And we've made it clear much more is 
needed. How would--how will this research impact to allow for a 
more accurate picture as we nationally determine contributions 
in carbon budgets around the world. What--how do you see that 
proceeding? You need to turn your mic on. Thanks.
    Dr. Natali. Thank you, Representative Lofgren. Yes, so this 
is--yes, thank you for this question. So first, I just want to 
talk briefly about these models, Earth system models. Earth 
system models explain, you know, the--how the climate is going 
to work, and it incorporates biogeochemistry, so carbon 
cycling, and it puts like human actions into that.
    Earth system models were not developed with the Arctic in 
mind, so things like permafrost and things--the connection 
between the Arctic climate and the rest of the planet is not 
built into these models, and it's not trivial to build them 
into the models. And so this is one of the reasons why we are--
have surprises like wildfires in the West that--currently, in 
order to be able to respond to these and be prepared for these, 
we need to improve these models. And that's a really 
challenging thing. It requires support from the top down for, 
you know, U.S. climate-based models to advance these.
    One of the key issues is the incorporation of permafrost 
carbon. Yes, in this last IPCC report, two of the models did 
incorporate permafrost carbon, certainly not fully, not in the 
way that we understand that permafrost thaws. And what this 
means is when we're thinking about how much carbon do we have 
available for humanity to stay below 2 degrees Celsius, or 1.5 
degrees Celsius, we're not hitting the mark. So even if all of 
the nations, you know, put together a budget, and we say, yes, 
we're going to keep to that, we're not--we're aiming for the 
wrong target right now. And so the very least that we need to 
do to start out with is to do our bookkeeping correctly, right? 
We're not doing that bookkeeping correctly because the science 
isn't up to pace with the needs.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, I think that's very important. And as we 
look at the unfolding disaster around the world, it really does 
lead to how are we going to turn a corner on this if we don't 
accommodate in our models the carbon from the permafrost. And I 
would add the link to the wildfires. I mean, you know, the 
forests burn. Well, if they're no longer capturing carbon, 
they're emitting carbon throughout the West, and unless we 
adjust our models to accommodate for that, and it's not 
obviously just here, it's around the world, we're not only 
going to miss the mark because of inaction, we're going to miss 
the mark because we haven't adequately set the mark.
    So my time is up, and I yield back. And I thank these 
witnesses for their tremendous testimony.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we will hear from 
Mr. Posey for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens.
    Dr. Hinzman, the National Science Foundation recently 
announced it was relying on Starlink satellite internet to 
support McMurdo Station in Antarctica. That's a mouthful. Can 
you highlight how high-speed, low-latency satellite broadband 
systems like Starlink can enhance scientific efforts and 
connect research projects in the remote Arctic?
    Dr. Hinzman. Absolutely. And I have been fortunate to be 
able to utilize that system in the past. And it is a remarkable 
boon to science in that it does provide access in very remote 
locations, provides quick, reliable access that can be used to 
collect data from stations that are not manned and that are 
left for long periods of time. It's an incredible asset that we 
are very fortunate to have.
    I am--I understand that it's working very, very well in the 
Antarctic, and I--we do utilize it at several remote stations 
in the Arctic. And I think that it's--such capability will 
enable our science to do more activities that we've never been 
able to achieve in the past where we've had to have people in 
the process in the field to do that work. So thank you.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you. Dr. Sfraga and Dr. Hinzman both on 
this one, we're trying to increase their scientific missions to 
the Arctic, which we know are frequently dual use. What is the 
United States doing to counter their influence in the region 
and within international bodies such as the Arctic Council?
    Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative. Indeed, China has--
China is playing the game Go around the world, the classic 
board game Go. The Arctic is a part of that game for them. They 
simply want to influence the political landscape and, you know, 
exert their will around the globe. We see that in a lot of 
their hard and soft power investments. Certainly, research is 
one of them. They now have the ability to indigenously build 
their own icebreakers. They have a relationship with the 
Russian Federation that allows them domain awareness in the 
Arctic. We see their expeditions in the Arctic navigating the 
Arctic Ocean in a way that is research-based but could be dual 
use and multiuse as well.
    The best counter to that, obviously, we can get into the 
national security side of this. I guess the best possible 
counter to that is to ensure that the United States, that the 
United States leads in Arctic research as well. That means that 
we have the icebreaking capacity, the research capacity in the 
north. And we have something that China and Russia frankly do 
not have, and that is a set of partners and allies that are in 
the Arctic and outside of the Arctic that have an incredible 
amount of expertise in Arctic research.
    And this--if there ever was a time to double down to invest 
more in Arctic research, more in our presence in the Arctic, 
more of our research capacity in the Arctic, and better 
leveraging and integration with our partners around the north, 
I think now is the time because of what you just mentioned, 
Representative, and that is that both Russia and China do see 
the Arctic as an opportunity for a number of things, including 
more presence and influence in the north, along with, of 
course, basic research that can be used for other goals and 
motives that they might have.
    Mr. Posey. Yes, that was great. Dr. Hinzman, you want to 
add to that?
    Dr. Hinzman. I think Dr. Sfraga was very eloquent in his 
assessment. I do share our concerns that have been expressed 
with respect to the Chinese advancements into the Arctic. They 
are developing stations in collaborations with the Russians. 
They are incredibly investing into Arctic research, and just as 
they're doing in many other other parts of the globe. So their 
long-term motives and their short-term actions are of great 
concern to our government. And I appreciate the caution and the 
concern that our government has put forth with respect to these 
actions. Thank you, Representative Posey.
    Mr. Posey. Yes, same two--question the same two witnesses. 
With Russia currently chairing the Arctic Council, has this 
hampered the ability for international cooperation like, you 
know, what efforts has Russia made to cooperate with China 
concerning research?
    Dr. Hinzman. So I'll take the first crack really quickly, 
Dr. Sfraga. So yes, that has had a serious impact on 
collaborative research. The U.S. Government has ceased Federal 
collaborations in Arctic science. I am disappointed to see this 
impact of science, but I fully support this action of the U.S. 
Government. So Dr. Sfraga?
    Dr. Sfraga. I agree with Dr. Hinzman, fully support the 
actions that the United States and our other six partners in 
the Arctic Council have taken. It has hindered research in the 
Arctic. If you're trying to put together a puzzle and you only 
have half the pieces, you really don't have a great shot at 
completing a good picture of the puzzle. And you've just taken 
out Russia, which is 50 percent of the Arctic. So many of the 
issues we've just talked about, whether it's fire, permafrost 
thaw, ocean acidification, all of the issues facing all of the 
Arctic, which means the globe, we've just parked 50 percent of 
the Arctic to the side.
    Having said that, I am in full agreement with the actions 
that the United States and other nations have taken. It has 
hindered our ability to have solid international cooperation. 
The Arctic has prided itself, for good reason, for being a zone 
of peace and cooperation, even through the cold war. However, 
the invasion of Ukraine is beyond the pale. And so what best to 
do now? What best to do now is to work with our allies and 
partners and double down in our investments right now so that 
we can leverage the expertise of our allies in a way that we 
can continue the research that needs to be done at a time of 
dramatic change. But make no mistake, it really will hinder our 
research and our understanding of the north more fully, but we 
can't be held hostage to what has happened. We have to move 
forward. And we're lucky enough to have allies and partners to 
move forward with.
    Mr. Posey. I thank the witnesses. And I thank you, Madam 
Chair, for letting him finish answering that question. And I 
yield back.
    Ms. Stevens. Absolutely. And with that we were going to 
hear from one of Oregon's finest, Congresswoman Bonamici, for 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you to the Chair and Ranking Member and 
to our witnesses.
    Experts predict that by the end of the century, hundreds of 
towns, cities, and villages across the United States and around 
the world will be all or partially underwater. I'm grateful 
we're having this hearing today to amplify the role of the 
Arctic and, as it says, strengthening science to respond to a 
rapidly changing Arctic. And I hope that what we're hearing 
today, the solutions that we find in this Committee and in this 
Congress meet the moment with the gravity of what we're hearing 
today.
    Dr. Hinzman, you talked about the infrastructure needs for 
Arctic researchers and adaptations along shorelines or they're 
typically in, you know, gray solutions like concrete or green 
solutions such as absorbing floodwaters in urban areas. So will 
you please elaborate on how priorities are set regarding 
adaptation that's needed for the infrastructure to support 
researchers? And I know Ranking Member Lucas asked about 
research facilities, but if you could also mention the 
challenges of travel now and how that has changed in light of 
the thawing permafrost.
    Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. Again, 
excellent questions. And so the way the priorities are set, we 
exist--IARPC collaborations, IARPC exists to facilitate the 
collaborations, the partnerships with the Federal agencies and 
with non-Federal partners. And so we've gone to great efforts 
to solicit input from the Federal agencies what the urgent 
research needs are but also from the Arctic communities, from 
the individuals, from indigenous organizations, and from the 
State of Alaska. So we've identified those urgent priorities 
that must be identified and then worked with the Federal 
agencies, the indigenous communities to try and understand the 
best approach to address these urgent priorities.
    As far as, you know, what the urgent needs are and the the 
priority approaches to address the rising climate--or, I'm 
sorry, the rising sea levels, that is a huge challenge, which 
requires again, as Dr. Sfraga was talking, about huge 
international collaborations in partnership to address the--
we're seeing remarkable degradation of glaciers around the 
world, which in the past several decades, it's been primarily 
the glaciers that have contributed to the sea level rise, and 
now we're facing the incredible degradation of Greenland and 
the losses from the Antarctic. It is a tremendous problem. What 
we're trying to do now is just trying to characterize--best 
understand what that sea level rise is going to be over what 
time so that we can help our communities adapt. And I'll stop 
there. Thank you.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Hinzman. I'm want to ask Ms. 
Metcalf. Welcome. You discussed the importance of better 
connection between Indigenous Knowledge and what you refer to 
as the science-research-government-industry. One issue 
mentioned is a mismatch or disconnect. That's harmful algal 
blooms, or HABs, which with warming temperatures are creating a 
new threat to the Arctic. This is an issue that I've worked on 
on a bipartisan basis, particularly with Representative Posey 
over the years. In fact, we just recently received a GAO report 
about the interagency NOAA-EPA (Environmental Protection 
Agency) workgroup confirming that we need to do more.
    So, Ms. Metcalf, what are your suggestions for addressing 
that disconnect so that you can access the reliable testing you 
need for the water and for the food you eat that comes from the 
ocean?
    Ms. Metcalf. Well, thank you for that question. 
Congresswoman. One of the issues that we constantly deal with 
is that our communities are well-adapted to providing 
biological samples to science who can do the assessment of if 
it's safe to eat some of our food resources. The problem is 
that sometimes it's very, very difficult to get results back in 
a timely manner to our--back to our communities who harvest, 
you know, bowhead whales and Pacific walrus and ice seals and 
birds. You know, is it safe to eat these resources when we 
don't get any results back in a timely manner? Although our 
communities have been providing samples for many, many years, 
that's the issue that we have. How can we incorporate 
Indigenous Knowledge, local input in adapting or mitigating 
coastal erosion, for example, that was mentioned, or changes 
along our coastline? How can we incorporate our knowledge into 
these issues that we've been saying----
    Ms. Bonamici. Ms. Metcalf, I don't mean to cut you off, but 
I want to get one more question in. My time's running out.
    Ms. Metcalf. No problem.
    Ms. Bonamici. Quickly, Dr. Natali, you testified in Foreign 
Affairs--the Foreign Affairs Committee you mentioned last year. 
And then in your testimony today, you said less than 1 year 
later, we discovered that the negative consequences of inaction 
are much higher than we previously understood. What happened in 
the last year?
    Dr. Natali. I think each year and each day and each week 
that goes by the scientific community [inaudible] continuously.
    Ms. Stevens. Could you please turn----
    Dr. Natali. Sorry about that--continuously surprised by the 
rapidity of the changes and the interactions that are 
happening. And I'd say this storm that happened in Alaska, 
I'm--is not--maybe is not a surprise, but it was a surprise, 
and it's something that I think we need to be continuously 
prepared for. And I think what's happening now is that I think 
the climate is actually changing faster than the science can 
happen. And so what that means is that we're seeing extreme 
events both in the Arctic and also in lower latitudes as a 
result of the rapid Arctic changes that are happening. And 
these extreme events are impacting Arctic residents and also 
the rest of the planet.
    Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. I see my time has expired. 
Thank you to the witnesses for your excellent answers. I yield 
back.
    Ms. Stevens. OK, and with that, we will move to Mrs. Bice 
for 5 minutes of questioning from the great State of Oklahoma.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I want to say 
thank you to the witnesses for joining us for this discussion 
today.
    Dr. Natali, in your bio, you mentioned that you had 
testified to the Foreign Affairs Committee about some of the 
challenges with the changes with the Arctic and particularly 
Greenland ice shelf. Do you want to maybe expand a little bit? 
As someone who sits on the Armed Services Committee, certainly, 
national security is something that I, you know, take very 
seriously. Can you talk a little bit--since some of the other 
witnesses have broached the topic, what are your perspectives 
on these changes and how it impacts our national security?
    Dr. Natali. Yes, thank you for that question. So there's 
very direct impacts when you think about the changes that are 
happening on the ground, and so I focus a lot on permafrost 
thaw, but permafrost thaw does not happen independent from the 
rest of the system. So these changes that are happening on 
lands in the Arctic are impacting communities that live in the 
Arctic, but also military facilities and in other 
infrastructure, gas and oil pipelines. And so I'm talking about 
ground collapsing when the ice and the permafrost melts and the 
ground starts to collapse. That in turn then causes flooding 
and increases coastal erosion and makes infrastructure more 
vulnerable to storm damage. And so this is a very direct 
impact.
    And I guess I would say another priority that needs to be a 
focus when we're thinking about, I guess, security, I guess I 
would also really want to highlight security of human systems 
and food security and food sovereignty because this is also 
being impacted not only by permafrost thaw, but by the number 
of other changes that are happening across the Arctic. And I 
think others on this panel can speak more directly to that from 
their personal and professional experiences, but the impact of 
the climate changes on both the human communities, the 
infrastructure, the economic impacts that is happening are far 
and wide-reaching beyond the Arctic.
    Mrs. Bice. And to follow up on that, and this is actually 
for Ms. Metcalf, or Dr. Hinzman. Aside from the release of 
carbon and methane emissions, are there any other threats from 
thawing permafrost that could potentially pose a threat to 
local or global community's health, and can you gauge the 
seriousness of those?
    Ms. Metcalf. Thank you for that question. Yes, sinkholes 
are something new that is happening in our region. We see that 
because moose hunter--moose hunting just ended, but hunters are 
reporting large sinkholes along the roads that are affecting 
our ability to harvest these resources that are very important 
to us.
    Dr. Hinzman. If I may add, thank you for that question, 
Representative Bice. If I may add, it is a very important issue 
for national security in that all of our--in the Arctic, all of 
our military facilities are built upon permafrost, which is 
also degrading, so the infrastructure is at risk. And we need 
to develop better techniques to improve our design criteria and 
our construction techniques so that the facilities that are 
built are functional throughout their projected lifespan, so we 
have to come up with better building techniques and we have to 
come up with better design criteria.
    Mrs. Bice. That's a great, I think, perspective there. This 
is to all of the witnesses. Given the harsh environment in the 
Arctic, can you talk about the need to invest in Arctic 
technology that is developed to maintain and to remain 
operational and sustainable under these extreme circumstances? 
We've talked a little bit and I know that we're putting 
together sort of this holistic view, but what are some of the 
technologies you think are really maybe crucial currently?
    Dr. Hinzman. May I?
    Mrs. Bice. Please.
    Dr. Hinzman. So thank you again for that question. So I 
think what we need to do--the mistakes we've made in the past 
is that when we were building--we were building facilities, 
pipelines, roads, we built upon the historic weather data. We 
didn't look forward. We weren't using climate projections to 
understand how the--how this environment was going to change, 
and to build the--our facilities to design our infrastructure 
to last for that design criteria. So what we need to do, we 
need to come up--we need to use climate models to integrate 
with our building techniques, with the engineering designs so 
that these facilities are appropriate for the environmental 
conditions they are going to see throughout their lifespan. And 
that's something we--we're not doing now but we really need to.
    Ms. Metcalf. May I add quick?
    Mrs. Bice. Yes, Ms. Metcalf.
    Ms. Metcalf. Yes, Indigenous Knowledge and local 
perspectives need to be included in these plans, so that's very 
important to consider. So thank you.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. And that concludes my time. Madam 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we will hear from 
Congressman McNerney for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairwoman. You didn't say 
anything about California, so I'll live with that.
    Ms. Stevens. From the wonderful State of California, the 
jovial State of California.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, I thank the witnesses. Dr. 
Hinzman, the Arctic Observing Network is a system of 
atmospheric, land, and ocean-based environmental monitoring 
capabilities. Data is received from ocean buoys, satellites, 
and other sources. How would you characterize the current state 
of Arctic monitoring, observing, and modeling in the prediction 
efforts?
    Dr. Hinzman. Our observing system in the Arctic is very, 
very sparse at this point. And so it--as far as the role that 
it plays in observing, predicting, it's tenuous at best in that 
our models are developed--they--our models require validation, 
verification, and it is very difficult with the extent of the 
observations that we have now to really rigorously validate 
those models. And so it does hurt our ability for even short-
term predictions with respect to weather predictions, which has 
a big impact on the more temperate regions but also with 
respect to the long-term projections of future climates.
    Mr. McNerney. Is there an opportunity to fill in those 
gaps?
    Dr. Hinzman. I certainly hope so. We are trying to enhance 
and improve the observing network in collaborations with many 
of our international colleagues, and with other institutions, 
other governments. We are trying to build a reliable, robust 
Arctic Observing Network.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Now, Dr. Natali, a top priority of 
the Permafrost Pathways is to fill in the gaps again and 
monitoring greenhouse gas emissions across the Arctic. What are 
your recommendations of a Carbon Flux Monitoring Network?
    Dr. Natali. Thank you for this question. So as part of the 
Permafrost Pathways Project, we're trying to fill in gaps in 
carbon cycling on land from the Arctic so that we can know now 
is the Arctic a carbon source or a sink as it has been? So is 
it continuing to take up carbon as it has been for thousands of 
years? And what will this look like into the future?
    One of the challenges we've recognized are these major 
gaps. And so we're taking a--I'd say a top-down approach, 
saying if you want to know the carbon budget of the Arctic, 
where would you strategically put these monitoring sites? And I 
feel like in terms of Arctic carbon cycling, that hasn't 
happened in the past. Sites generally get established somewhat 
opportunistically by grants, and so I think that kind of more 
coordinated effort. There is a challenge right now because we 
cannot be working on the ground in Russia.
    I think another major need here in order to help us to fill 
this gap is this satellite data. So right now, high-resolution 
satellite data is critical for seeing places in the Arctic that 
we can't access on the ground. Some of the commercial data 
right now is only accessible if you're an NSF- or a NASA-funded 
scientists--accessible, I would say like for free. So making 
these data widely available and beyond the funding cycles would 
greatly advance the scientific community's ability to continue 
monitoring these sites, even in places and to get the ground 
truth data, even from the--from satellites in order to verify 
these models.
    And I'd say the last thing we need is really dedicated 
commitment toward improving these models. There are a number of 
U.S.-based Earth system models that could use that support.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, has there been any research on how 
solar radiation management, for example, by injecting sunlight 
reflecting particles into the stratosphere, would slow the 
permafrost thawing?
    Dr. Natali. I think there are a lot of challenges with this 
and solar radiation management I think--I'm not opposed to 
exploring all options, but I would strongly, strongly suggest 
that that conversation is--that indigenous Arctic residents are 
brought into the room and others as part of that.
    Mr. McNerney. Anyone else on the panel want to take that? 
Dr. Hinzman?
    Dr. Hinzman. Yes. Thank you for that questions. So there 
has been extensive discussion within the Arctic research 
community, within the whole scientific community as far as 
geoengineering, and they're--at present, the United States does 
not support research into geoengineering as far as any of those 
activities. We're not really--we're more concerned about the 
possible consequences. But there are right now active 
investigations going on into potential modeling studies to try 
and understand that, if that occurred, what the consequences 
would be.
    Mr. McNerney. That was my question. Thank you.
    Well, major changes in the Arctic can be seen within a 
single generation. Now we're seeing that happen. And I don't 
have time to ask anyone specifically, but I'll throw the 
question out there before I retire. How many--how will the 
biennial implementation approach for the Arctic Research Plan 
impact research effectiveness?
    And with that, I'll yield back.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you. And as I had passed the 5 
minutes of questioning over to my colleague who has served this 
Committee very admirably, I did so with a lot of admiration. 
And, you know, the remaining weeks that we have of this months 
that we have of this term, it's just been such an honor to 
serve with my friend and colleague, Jerry.
    And with that, we're going to pass it over to Mr. Feenstra 
of Iowa for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you, 
Ranking Member Lucas. And thank you all to our witnesses for 
your testimony and sharing your extensive experience and 
knowledge on this subject.
    There's been a lot of research on the Arctic, and that--and 
could--can be very important, but we should build off what 
we've already done. For example, the DOE's (Department of 
Energy's) Biological and Environmental Research Program used 
drones to conduct high-resolution monitoring for changes in the 
Arctic vegetation. There was also collaboration between the DOE 
and the NSF to study microbes in Arctic soil that can absorb 
carbon dioxide, as well as adapted to take advantage of a 
thawing of permafrost.
    So my question is this, Dr. Sfraga. Can you tell us more 
about incorporating these terrestrial research investments with 
the Arctic? And are there studies and data produced by 
agricultural--agriculture and life sciences research like Iowa 
State University that can also be used in the new Arctic 
research?
    Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative Feenstra. Yes, the 
answer is yes. I think where your comments and your questions 
are coming from is, is there a better way to integrate and 
leverage what we already have invested as a country, not just 
in financial resources, but in our intellectual capacities and 
capabilities as a way to feed that into the more broader Arctic 
research indefinitely? And the answer is yes because the 
systems are connected. This is a globalized Arctic now.
    So if we're doing research in Iowa on the hydro cycle, if 
we're doing research on vegetation, water cycles, we're looking 
at pestilence, migrations, all of those issues, since the 
global patterns have changed, we can see the benefit of 
understanding what the impacts are across our country and 
indeed, across the world. So if there are assets like drones 
being used, if there's research, as you have noted, on 
microbial research endeavors, then I think there is a way and 
there are ways to leverage those areas of expertise and show 
the interconnectedness, the cause and effect, the impacts of 
what's happening in the Arctic to places around the world, 
including crop yields.
    Mr. Feenstra. Can I further ask that question of--so I'm an 
academic myself. How do we get more involvement in the academic 
world in this arena? Dr. Sfraga?
    Dr. Sfraga. Yes. Thank you. Thank you again for that. I 
think there's an understanding. You know, as fellow scholars 
[inaudible], and we're seeing more and more institutions, 
whether they be in Iowa or in Florida or in California, have 
increased capacity and interest in the Arctic. And that is 
where one academic may--one scholar may have had a particular 
focus in their area and that might have been a region outside 
of the Arctic, and now we're seeing the transfer of their 
intellectual capacities and their research to the Arctic and 
even in the Antarctic as well. So we're--we see a lot of this 
referencing and transition of their work [inaudible] with 
scholarship. It comes with publications, it comes with 
conferences, but it also comes with the understanding 
[inaudible] throughout the Arctic community and throughout the 
academic community that these global systems are indeed tied. 
And we're seeing the----
    Mr. Feenstra. Absolutely.
    Mr. Sfraga [continuing]. Cause and effect of it.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for that. So 
Iowa State also recently received an award from NSF for the 
project entitled ``Collaborative Research Toward Resilient 
Water Infrastructure in Alaska Native Communities Through 
Knowledge and Co-Production.'' One of the major research 
objectives for this grant will be to outreach efforts aimed at 
training community members in the use of water supply and leak 
detection sensing equipment. Ms. Metcalf, from your 
perspective, how receptive are Alaskan indigenous communities 
to implementing Federal research ideas like this? So it's 
coming out of the academic world, so how do we apply it and how 
do we implement it based on the community members that are out 
there?
    Ms. Metcalf. Yes, thank you for that comment and question. 
We have a similar project here that we are doing called SEARCH 
that is funded by NSF and it utilizes our 12 IK experts in that 
project that is looking at health policy and knowledge systems 
within the Arctic to conduct that project. So I think I keep 
emphasizing Indigenous Knowledge, the use of and incorporating 
that in any kind of project is important, so thank you. I hope 
I answered the question.
    Mr. Feenstra. Absolutely. Thank you so much for your 
comments. I'm very grateful for each one of your testimonies. 
And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentleman yields back, The 
gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina. Representative Ross, you're recognized for 
5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the 
Ranking Member. And thank you so much to all of the witnesses 
for your testimony.
    I recently returned from a climate and energy meeting with 
several Members of Congress. It was bipartisan in Iceland. And 
we looked at geothermal energy, we looked at carbon capture, 
and we talked to a wide variety of people in Iceland, working 
in both climate and energy. One of the biggest takeaways that 
we took from that trip was how there were many, many women 
involved in energy and climate. And for some of the largest 
companies dealing with these issues, 50 percent of the board of 
directors. And of course, we have a female Prime Minister of 
Iceland, who's in D.C. this week.
    And so one of the focuses of this Committee has been 
increasing the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics) pipeline so that we can have many different 
perspectives and talents addressing the most difficult problems 
that we have. And so I wanted to know what the STEM education 
and work force needs are in the Arctic, including supporting 
the continuity of Indigenous Knowledge, and what are the 
challenges?
    Dr. Hinzman. Are you--can you--who would you direct that 
question to?
    Ms. Ross. Anyone. You can start, sir.
    Dr. Hinzman. Well, thank you. Thank you for that question. 
So I will--I'll certainly jump in and then perhaps pass to my 
colleagues. So IARPC, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy 
Committee, has recently released the Arctic Research Plan. A 
component of that plan, one of the foundational activities of 
that plan is, of course, STEM education. That is very important 
to us. So we are--and another component of it is--actually is 
indigenous engagement, and--I'm sorry, participatory research 
and indigenous leadership in research. And part of that is we 
want to utilize the co-production of knowledge. We want to gain 
from the expertise and the culture that exists, but we also 
want to improve the capacity of the--in the community so that 
they can address the issues and take these challenges on 
themselves. And STEM education is a critical part of that. And 
so we've been directed by the agencies to address that to the 
best of our abilities, and we are definitely trying to respond. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Ross. And, Ms. Metcalf, I would love to hear from you.
    Ms. Metcalf. Yes. Thank you for that question. I am a big 
proponent of co-production of knowledge. I would suggest 
including Indigenous Knowledge or local communities from the 
beginning of any project development. I think we are--always 
have been part of the solution, so it's very important to note 
that. Thank you.
    Ms. Ross. Does anyone else have anything to add before I 
ask my next question?
    OK. My next question, right before we went to Iceland, 
President Biden announced that he's interested in creating a 
position of Ambassador to the Arctic. And I know that we--we've 
talked a lot about the international challenges in the Arctic. 
I'd like any reaction that any of the panelists have to that 
and how you see dealing with climate and science as a role for 
whoever that Ambassador might be. And why don't we start with 
Dr. Hinzman and then anybody else who wants to chime in?
    Dr. Hinzman. So the United States is one of the very few 
Arctic nations that does not have an Arctic Ambassador, so we 
are very pleased to learn of this new announcement. And I think 
that there are some wonderful people who can really play a 
great role for us and facilitating these engagements we need 
with our other Arctic nations partners. And so this is a great 
step forward, particularly at this time when we've ceased the 
active engagement of the Arctic Council, so this is a critical 
role at this time. And I'll pass the floor from that. Thank 
you.
    Dr. Sfraga. Representative Ross, I would just--please.
    Dr. Natali. OK. I guess I'll just quickly add I think from 
a science perspective, the climate and the changes that are 
happening don't see national boundaries, and so I think this is 
really a critical point in helping us to advance the science 
across the Arctic outside of the United States as well.
    Ms. Ross. Great. Dr. Sfraga?
    Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative Ross, I, too, think 
that it's a pretty good idea for the United States to create 
this Ambassador position. I see the role as someone who can 
project and reflect United States policy across the board to 
international partners, especially at this time, as Dr. Natali 
just noted, someone who can communicate in aggregate all of the 
U.S. policies, can communicate where we stand on many issues 
across the board, one office, one individual with support that 
can do that for all of the--our interests in the north would be 
not only something good for the United States but I think our 
allies and partners, too, are awaiting someone like this as 
well.
    Ms. Ross. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Kansas. Representative LaTurner, 
you're recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to 
all of our conferees.
    Dr. Hinzman, how are the goals for the current Arctic 
Research Plan--how do the goals for the current Arctic Research 
Plan improve on previous iterations of the plan? And are you 
concerned that overly broad priority areas will make 
substantive change difficult?
    Dr. Hinzman. So that's an excellent question. This plan is 
very different from previous plans. And I think it's taken a 
new approach because this is where we are with respect to the 
science. Previous plans were really focused upon understanding 
the disciplinary sciences, looking at sea ice processes or 
permafrost dynamics or ecosystem evolution. At this point, what 
we're trying to do is we're trying to take on the more complex, 
the more sophisticated societal-level questions of health and 
community resilience and economies, livelihoods, risk 
management, hazard mitigation. Those are areas where we need to 
draw together the many disciplines of science, the many, many 
components of science, but also engineering and economics and 
the other policy issues so that we can address these higher-
level questions, these more sophisticated questions that can't 
be taken on from a more basic disciplinary perspective.
    Mr. LaTurner. Can you talk about the economic change that 
occurs in Arctic communities and how that influences your goal 
setting for the IARPC?
    Dr. Hinzman. Yes, unfortunately, Arctic communities have 
very limited economic opportunities, and so what we're trying 
to do is we're trying to understand how we can--what the 
research components--what research can add to understanding 
sustainable livelihoods, what--how we can help understand--help 
communities understand what their resources are, how they can 
utilize them to best move forward to maintain a thriving 
community into the future. And so we're really looking at the 
economies of the resources but also the human resources, the 
capital and the capabilities and the culture that they have, 
how we can pull all this information together to make 
sustainable, thriving communities.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. Dr. Sfraga, how could 
collaboration be improved between U.S. Arctic Research 
Commission and other government agencies to promote research in 
Arctic communities?
    Dr. Sfraga. Thank you for the question, Representative. We 
do that a great deal now. There's a lot of communication 
between the Arctic Research Commission, our Commissioners. 
They're representative of--five of the seven Commissioners are 
Alaskans. They each have different seats on the Commission. So 
there's a lot of integration and a lot of communication between 
the Commission and communities throughout the State of Alaska. 
So that's one.
    Two is that we spend our days communicating to--throughout 
the State of Alaska with the government, with indigenous 
groups, with State Commissioners, but also with our Federal 
partners as well. Most of the work of the Commission is not 
creating a 2-year goals report. Most of the work of the 
Commission is exactly what you know, Representative, which is 
communicating to communities and having communities communicate 
to the Commissioners to inform our work, and then work with our 
Federal partners as well, as well as our international 
partners.
    Mr. LaTurner. I appreciate that. I want to stick with you. 
And this is really important. How does the United States use 
research and development programs as soft diplomacy tools to 
build relationships with our allies?
    Dr. Sfraga. Yes, that's a wonderful question. I would say 
that--let me give you--I'll give you one example. You know, 
research has always been a part of the U.S. soft diplomacy, 
always, and it's a bedrock of what we do. If you look at the 
Arctic and you think about it in arcs, just in these arcs to 
and from the Arctic, there's an arc of, I would say, 
commonality and an arc of cooperation in the North American 
Arctic. That's Alaska, the United States, Canada, Greenland.
    And by looking at that tranche of North American Arctic, 
you can see many research projects that span the Arctic with 
likeminded nations that already have working relationships in 
research from Greenland, as noted, to our bilateral 
relationship with Canada and Alaska through the United States. 
So by reinforcing those areas, that's reinforcing a rules-based 
order. It's reinforcing a transatlantic alliance and the 
transatlantic partnerships, as you'd think about this arc of 
commonality that goes into the Nordics and into Europe. So 
these are the ties that bind us. Research is a bedrock of that 
partnership and those ties that bind us.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 
answers.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Ms. Stevens [presiding]. Thank you. And with that, we are 
going to hear from Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you to Madam Chair. So, Chair 
Johnson and Chair Stevens, and Ranking Member Lucas, thank you 
for hosting us today. And to the witnesses, thank you for being 
here to provide great insight.
    The consequences of a rapidly changing Arctic landscape 
have the potential to impact billions of people worldwide. 
Alaskan residents and countless indigenous communities, 
however, are already on the frontlines of the most observable 
impacts of climate change such as thawing permafrost. As global 
temperatures continue to rise, millions of lives and critical 
civilian and military infrastructure in the Arctic are urgently 
at risk.
    So, Dr. Natali, we know that when permafrost thaws, 
enormous quantities of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and 
methane are released into the atmosphere, not to mention the 
ancient bacteria and viruses that could trigger another global 
pandemic. How are increasingly frequent extreme weather events 
speeding up permafrost thaw? And what are the immediate and 
long-term consequences of abrupt thaw events?
    Dr. Natali. Thank you for your question, Representative 
Tonko. So abrupt climate events like heat waves, like these 
massive storms that we're seeing, can trigger rapid permafrost 
thaw, the sinkholes that Ms. Metcalf had mentioned. And when 
these rapid events happen, so when the--when the ground thaws, 
it can happen very gradually where you have heat being 
transformed, but you can also have these rapid events 
happening, particularly in areas where you have a lot of ice in 
the ground. Once those happen, then you have more ground 
exposed, so it can happen faster and faster and faster. So 
rapid events that trigger it then cause this exponential 
increase in the rate of permafrost thaw.
    Once that happens, it's essentially irreversible, at least 
on a human-relevant timeframe. It's taken a long time for the 
carbon, thousands of years in many cases for the carbon to get 
into the ground. When you have this massive erosion, even if we 
cool our climate, you're not going to get the shorelines back 
that have eroded. And so these triggering events can--even 
though they're happening perhaps on a--you know, on a smaller 
spatial scale, can have outsized impacts, both on global 
climate and on the ground for people who are living on 
permafrost and the infrastructure that's on permafrost.
    Mr. Tonko. So that being said, how does this impact on 
accurate pictures for nationally determining contributions and 
carbon budgets?
    Dr. Natali. Yes, so that's the challenge because right now, 
permafrost is rarely included in global climate models and 
rarely incorporated into these budgets for how much carbon is 
remaining to stay below 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius. These abrupt 
events are absolutely not included at all. They're quite 
complex to put into a model. We can make estimates of it, and I 
strongly suggest that, using the best information that you have 
at hand. There are a number of models, and my group is one of 
them, working on advancing the models to incorporate these 
abrupt events. But when we're thinking about analyzing and 
responding to risk, I think we need to really seriously 
consider these upper extremes that we're being pushed to that 
we perhaps haven't been able to consider in kind of the 
traditional models that we've been running.
    Mr. Tonko. And can you elaborate on your approach to 
collaborative research with Alaska Native tribes?
    Dr. Natali. Yes. So as part of a new project that I'm 
leading called Permafrost Pathways, we'll be working with 10 
tribes in Alaska who are making really difficult decisions 
about climate change adaptation as a result of permafrost thaw, 
flooding, and erosion. And so my approach for going into this 
really is to let the tribes lead the research that's needed. So 
what I do when I'm there is based on what their needs are. And 
so yes, my specialty may be in permafrost science, but if the 
needs come out that, you know, there's--the ground is sinking 
and this is then impacting water quality, then I try to make 
this happen.
    And, as Ms. Metcalf mentioned, there's been a real 
challenge for the tribes getting information back to them, so 
any information that is collected, it belongs to the tribe, 
it's driven by the tribe, and it's for their information in 
terms of helping them making decisions for moving forward.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And my time is just about up, but 
I'll ask that all of our witnesses consider any recommendations 
that you could share with us as a Committee for making Federal 
funding more accessible for Arctic research, and perhaps 
provide that to us in writing since I have just seconds 
remaining.
    OK. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you to our very dedicated 
Committee Member, Mr. Tonko, for those 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    And with that, we're going to turn it over to Ms. Kim for 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you very much. I want to thank our witnesses 
for appearing before us today and answering our questions and, 
you know, discussing this very important topic.
    I know you just talked about--Dr. Natali, about the 
permafrost emissions and all that so--but I--for my better 
understanding, I want to continue on that line of questioning. 
In your testimony, you call for increasing data coverage in 
space and time and better connecting the measuring and modeling 
communities to reduce uncertainty in climate monitoring and 
modeling. So in recent years, we have seen the innovative 
carbon and methane emission detection technologies come forward 
in the oil and gas sector. So can you talk more about the 
Woodwell Climate Research Center, how it is leveraging new and 
emerging technologies like these to improve permafrost 
emissions tracking, as well as those barriers to deploying 
those technologies?
    Dr. Natali. Yes, thank you, Representative Kim, for your 
question. One of the challenges of working in the Arctic is 
that it's dark and it's cloudy, and this makes it a real 
challenge for using some types of satellites to detect changes 
that are happening on land. The other issue with using 
satellite data, say, for detecting greenhouse gas emissions 
from thawing permafrost is that they're currently tuned to 
detect peaks, very, very high spikes that, say, that may be 
coming out of gas and oil industry, less so tuned for this 
very, very large area where emissions from a very--you know, 
one area itself may be relatively low, but it's this sort of 
cumulative effect over this large area.
    And so that's one of the real big challenges and barriers, 
say, for using remote technology for detecting what's happening 
on the ground, which is why we are working to set up on-the-
ground monitoring. And then we use satellite data to, what we 
say, upscale that information. And then we are also working to 
link that information into process models to make sure that the 
monitoring information--monitoring and modeling are 
communicating with each other because that currently, 
surprisingly, is not the case. The scientific communities tend 
to kind of get separated when when we're working by discipline 
and also just by methodology. And so this is key for us. It's 
a--called a data model simulation and it's a process that's 
used by the weather forecasting community. It's made our 
weather forecasts much better. And so we're working on a new 
data model assimilation framework for carbon cycling for the 
Arctic.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you so much. I'd like to ask the next 
question to all three doctors, Hinzman, Sfraga, and Dr. Natali. 
In your testimonies, you also emphasized the need for 
international research and scientific collaboration in the 
Arctic. And you also share concerns regarding the barriers to 
future science collaboration and explicit restrictions on data 
sharing and financing of foreign investigators, right? So in 
your opinion, how can we best navigate those transnational 
collaboration on scientific and advancement in the Arctic amid 
the ongoing geopolitical tensions, as well as future conflicts 
that may arise? And how do we balance protecting our U.S. 
national security and our allies and promoting scientific 
collaboration with adversaries like Russia?
    Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Kim. That's, again, 
an excellent question. So I would like to go back to what Dr. 
Sfraga said earlier, sorry if I steal your thunder, Mike. But 
the collaborative research that we've had with our 
international partners has been just a cornerstone of our 
international relationships of our partnerships. And so the--
even now, we anticipate, we expect, we hope that this conflict 
in Ukraine will end. And following that, that the scientific 
collaborations will, again, open the door for better scientific 
relationships, and hopefully better policy relationships among 
our nations.
    At the same time, we do--we must protect our intellectual 
properties, we must protect our capabilities, but we can also 
benefit by sharing our expertise and sharing our understanding. 
And so hopefully, these partnerships, these collaborations can 
open that door for that better policy relationship.
    Ms. Kim. Would you like to chime in?
    Dr. Natali. Data sharing is--I have to say, has been a 
problem for a long time now. As a U.S.-funded scientist, all of 
my data are publicly shared. That's required from the Arctic 
funding agency. It's very challenging to get data from other 
nations and I would say particularly Russia, and this has been 
for a while now. So the solution to that, I don't know what the 
solution to that is. You know, as a scientist, I work one-on-
one with other scientists, and we collaborate and we share 
data. At some point, it would be great to see a top-down effort 
to encourage data sharing, to encourage--you know, bringing 
equipment in and out across nations is also another challenge. 
So just really recognizing sort of that these boundaries are 
creating a barrier for scientists trying to work across the 
Arctic and to come up with a pan-Arctic answer to some of these 
issues.
    Ms. Kim. Do we have time to listen from--Dr. Sfraga, would 
you like to chime in?
    Dr. Sfraga. Oh, thank you very much. I'll make this--
hopefully make this brief. Again, encouraging the international 
cooperation with allies and partners, as I noted before, but we 
should not underestimate the power that--and expertise that 
other countries bring to the table, countries that believe in a 
rules-based order like Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom. 
The EU has a Horizons Europe Program with a significant 
investment being made in Arctic research.
    In aggregate, when you look at all of that together with 
the United States in a leadership role here, you can leverage 
the expertise and focus the Arctic research that needs to get 
done not just for a nation-state, but also for the entire 
Arctic region by encouraging that, by the United States 
communicating its interest in continued leadership, but also 
these international cooperations and partnerships. I think that 
would be responded to well, but also with U.S. leadership, 
areas in which we believe to be important, I know many other 
nations do as well, and encouraging these international 
partnerships going forward would be helpful.
    I would also note that the United States is a part of the 
International Science Cooperation Agreement signed through the 
Arctic Council. That will--that has been helpful, but it has 
not solved the problem of at least data and assets crossing 
borders, as Dr. Natali has noted, but it is helpful to know 
that there is an agreement in place. It will not help us with 
the information in and out of Russia at the moment, but the 
international community continues to try to think pan-Arctic.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we're going to hear 
from Dr. Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you, Ms. Chair.
    Ms. Metcalf, I have some questions related to sort of 
demographic trends and particularly in Inuit areas. Are the 
Inuit areas, for example, facing the same sort of--in Russia 
facing the same sort of demographic collapse that the rest of 
Russia is facing? Or is it--is there a fairly uniform situation 
around the Arctic? And how are they--these demographic trends 
likely to be impacted by climate change? And what's the sort of 
range of opinion on how to support the population under 
different climate scenarios going forward? Has there been, you 
know, some scenario planning done for what the future will look 
like, depending on how well we deal with this?
    Ms. Metcalf. Well, I hope so. Thank you for that question. 
Well, the Arctic Council has stated that the Arctic should be a 
conflict-free zone, so that's what we hope would be emphasized. 
The Inuit Circumpolar Council, which is a permanent participant 
to the Arctic Council, recognizes that and really emphasize 
that the Arctic is supposed to be a conflict-free zone. We do 
have people across the waters that are our family and friends 
and neighbors, and they are living in Russia's Chukotka 
Peninsula. We maintain that relationship, despite the 
differences or despite the politics. We hope that research 
continues to be conducted because this--we share the same 
resources that they do. Marine mammals have no boundaries, but 
we have a very straight region that separates us, so I hope 
this is a good answer for you. Thank you.
    Mr. Foster. Yes, and, Dr. Natali, you mentioned relocation 
as--you know, what sort of scenario planning has been done for 
relocation if, you know, we have 5 or 50 feet of sea level 
rise? What does that do? Has that been looked at in any detail 
about how this is going to play out?
    Dr. Natali. I think on the Federal level, there perhaps 
might be others here who may want to comment on this. But my 
understanding of this is that there's limited Federal 
governance framework for addressing relocation and other 
adaptation needs related to climate change in the Arctic or 
anywhere else in this country, so I think this is something 
that is a very high priority. This would involve teams of 
Arctic residents, of scientists, decisionmakers, engineers, and 
policymakers because, right now, in addition to the really 
difficult environmental challenges that are happening, there 
are major, major policy barriers to communities who are having 
to make these decisions about how to protect themselves from 
the changes that are happening right now.
    Mr. Foster. Yes. Dr. Hinzman, are there----
    Dr. Hinzman. Yes, thank you. Thank you for that question, 
Representative Foster. Community relocation is very important 
in Alaska right now. There are--the GAO did a report on the 
number of communities threatened. I believe it was 23 
communities are actively being threatened right now by coastal 
erosion or riverine erosion. Many of those communities are 
actively considering relocation or actively making plans, and 
so they're--they are working with several of our Federal 
agencies. The Corps of Engineers is playing a very important 
role, the Denali Commission, Housing and Urban Development. 
It's--there is a very--a formal and coordinated process that is 
going forward to help these communities consider relocation, 
but it is--as Dr. Natali said, it does begin with the 
community. The community must come together to decide if that 
is in their best interest, if that is what they want to do, and 
then to determine the locations that would be suitable for it.
    And it is, as Dr. Natali did, I agree 100 percent. It is 
such a complicated issue, involving biological sciences, 
economics, social science, engineering, and so it's a very 
difficult process. But we are fortunate right now that many 
of--the bipartisan Infrastructure Act is helpful. There are 
resources available. And I do believe also that the IRA 
(Inflation Reduction Act) will also be beneficial in this 
regard. Thank you.
    Mr. Foster. Now, one of the areas where we have, I guess, 
sort of diverged from Russia is that they're continuing to work 
and develop and produce nuclear icebreakers, which are, of 
course, much more--they're actually one of the technologies 
that are--where nuclear reactors are really valuable. And 
then--is that something that we suffer from a lot by not having 
that capability in research?
    Dr. Hinzman. So Russia has many nuclear icebreakers, and 
they are currently planning on building more. And actually, as 
Dr. Sfraga mentioned earlier, China has two icebreakers, and 
they're considering--they're trying to develop a third nuclear 
icebreaker. Nuclear icebreakers do have incredibly more power. 
The United States research community has partnered with Russian 
icebreakers in the past to do some midwinter research into the 
deep ice. And so it does limit our capabilities. There are, of 
course, many other considerations besides the value of the 
research or the access, and so, you know, that's a more complex 
question than than I'm capable of answering.
    Mr. Foster. All right, thank you. My time is up, and I'll 
yield back.
    Ms. Stevens. All right, we're going to turn to Mr. Beyer 
for 5 minutes of questioning from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. And thank you 
for this incredibly important discussion and hearing.
    Dr. Natali, you make the really powerful case about the 
dangers of the permafrost melting, you know, that it has four 
times the amount of carbon that humans have released since the 
Industrial Revolution, twice as much carbon as is in the 
Earth's atmosphere right now. And there were--you had a number 
of recommendations. The first was about lengthening the grant 
periods from a 3-year cycle to much longer. But overall, almost 
all the recommendations were about greater investment in the 
science, climate monitoring, research planning, data exchange, 
grant funding. Is anything we can actually do, not just study, 
but do to slow or stop the permafrost thaw right now?
    Dr. Natali. Thank you, Representative Beyer. So a really 
great question. I mean, the No. 1 priority I guess I would say 
is to--you know, we've taken great steps in the United States 
for reducing and planning to reduce our fossil fuel emissions, 
but I think the main message is that that needs to be greatly 
ramped up if we actually want to keep global climate below 2 
degrees or 1.5 degrees Celsius. I think we also need to 
recognize that we've already committed to a lot of changes in 
the Arctic, and so the emphasis on understanding the science, I 
think, is really critical in order for planning and for risk 
assessment and for understanding both what's happening now but 
what's happening in a year and in 10 years and 50 years and 100 
years.
    So I think--yes, I mean, I think the Arctic is a challenge 
because really, it's a global problem. Greenhouse gas emissions 
from thawing permafrost impact everywhere else on the planet, 
but at the same time, protection of forests, keeping carbon in 
agricultural soils, reducing fossil fuel emissions, all of 
these things will impact permafrost. And, you know, permafrost, 
can refreeze. There are some changes that are happening that 
are irreversible. The carbon that's coming--or irreversible on 
a human timeframe, these abrupt events that are happening. But 
we're not at a point where we can't decide the future. We can 
certainly reduce the amount of permafrost that will thaw by 
sort of greatly increasing our ambition for mitigation.
    Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Hinzman, you wrote that we have had no choice but to 
forego the regular collegial communication that enriched our 
understanding of our science since the thawing of the cold war 
because of the war in Ukraine. Dr. Sfraga had made the same 
comment, I think Dr. Natali the same. You know, we're still 
working with Russia on the International Space Station. We know 
how horrific and upsetting the war in Ukraine is, but we also 
know that the melting of the permafrost could change not just 
tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives but 
billions of lives on Earth. Is there no case to be made that 
this should be the one area where we continue to work with 
Russia?
    Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, sir. I--that is such a difficult 
question, and there is no good answer in that the threats to 
democracy and the suffering in Europe are, you know, almost, 
you know, terrible and compare--and so in comparison, you know, 
the setback to the sciences is hard to place it on the same 
scale.
    I do understand what you're saying as far as looking at the 
long-term threats to humanity with respect to the changing 
climate, and so that--I guess I don't believe that we can 
forsake our approach with respect to ceasing these 
collaborations with Russia to stop this terrible conflict. I 
think that's critically important. At the same time, I think we 
can work with our researchers, with our collaborators, 
researchers to--and with all nations to try and stop this 
continued emissions of carbon and the effect on the climate 
change and the effect that it does have on permafrost. I don't 
believe that the partnerships with Russia on permafrost are 
going to change the climate in the--over the next year or 
whatever it takes to end this war. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Beyer. Yes, yes, thank you. The tradeoff there, too, is 
not working with Russia on permafrost, is that going to be the 
lever that somehow ends this war? But thank you very much. And 
with 8 seconds left, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Stevens. All in good faith. With that, we're going to 
hear from Mr. Casten of Illinois for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to our speakers. 
The challenge with being late in the session is I got to try to 
say something novel that hasn't been said before.
    I also had the good fortune to travel with Congresswoman 
Ross to Iceland recently, and we met, among others, with former 
President Grimsson, who's now the Chairman of the Arctic Circle 
organization, and fascinating conversations, a lot of it well 
beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee. But a lot of our 
conversation with him was around the fact that as these sea 
lanes have opened up--his words, not mine--he said Russia has 
basically been acting like a toll collector in areas that are 
well beyond their international waters, but they've been 
allowed to block some of those areas and limit access to those 
areas.
    And I guess my first question for you, Dr. Hinzman, is have 
you seen that, and has Russian access to these melting waters 
or limitations on access in any way interfered with our ability 
to do research in the region?
    Dr. Hinzman. So we have seen tremendous increase over the 
last--you know, over the last decade, we've seen tremendous 
increase of Russian traffic through the Bering Strait. The 
current conflict has certainly affected the Arctic research, 
you know, particularly the collaborations that we have with the 
Russians, and Russia does occupy 50 percent of the Arctic. They 
have, you know--most of it--or a large part of the land area, 
at least 50 percent of land area, more than half the 
population, probably more than 50 percent of the minerals. And 
so it does have a big impact.
    The important collaborations that have ceased are the the 
major Arctic rivers, the biggest rivers that flow into the 
Arctic Ocean are coming from Russia. We no longer have access 
to that data. They also have important measurements on the 
carbon emissions, as Dr. Natali mentioned. We don't have access 
to that data. There are other issues, too, as far as we have--
in the past, we have partnered on polar bear distributions, on 
walrus populations, on migratory waterfowl. And so there are so 
many important things that have ceased, important research 
activities that have ceased. But again, I believe at this time 
that is the appropriate course of action.
    Mr. Casten. OK. And you've touched on this before, but from 
a scientific funding perspective, one of his other observations 
was that the United States and our allies have strategic 
superiority in the air, strategic superiority underneath the 
ice cap but increasingly, because of our lack of icebreakers, 
don't control the surface as much as we used to. There's a 
military angle to that that's outside of this jurisdiction. But 
can you give a little bit of color on to what the scientific 
community is doing to expand our access to icebreakers? Should 
we? Where are we limited? And what would you like to see our 
Committee do to try to make sure--and I hate to frame it in a 
militaristic sense, but there is that link to it. So your 
comments, thoughts, requests?
    Dr. Hinzman. Yes, thank you, Representative Casten. So I 
cannot address the military aspects, but I can address what the 
IARPC, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, and 
our Arctic research community is doing to help address the 
scientific needs of our military. So you--we did talk about the 
infrastructure needs before and how we're--we are trying to 
develop more stable infrastructure, trying to develop a better 
understanding of the sea properties, the ocean properties, the 
ocean circulation, the weather forecasting. All of those 
characteristics, all those scientific needs do affect our 
military readiness and our domain awareness for our military. 
And so the research that we're doing does benefit our national 
security.
    Mr. Casten. Dr. Sfraga, with the time left, anything that 
you'd like to add on either of those questions?
    Dr. Sfraga. Yes. Thank you, Representative Casten. I would 
say that, back to my original testimony, which is if the Coast 
Guard does purchase a commercially available icebreaker and 
it's retrofitted, that we ensure that the scientific--the needs 
of our scientific and research community is placed on that 
research--on that vessel so that we can take advantage of that 
research platform. And that should go for any research--any 
icebreaker that the United States builds. Right now, we're 
lined up to hopefully have six new polar security cutters built 
over the next several years, maybe a decade. And the scientific 
community, in my opinion, their needs should be incorporated 
into those designs, along with other research vessels that the 
Nation should build. That's on the research side.
    Obviously, presence is influence, and so there's two parts 
to your conversation with President Grimsson. One is the 
research capacity of the United States. Here, we can partner 
with other countries that do have far more icebreaking capacity 
and research vessel capacity than we do. We have good relations 
with these countries. We should continue to do that. And two is 
on the security side, which is again, presence is influence in 
the north, whether that's with our U.S. Navy or with our United 
States Coast Guard.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you all, and I yield back.
    Ms. Stevens. OK. So before we bring this hearing to a 
close, I want to thank and recognize our witnesses for 
testifying before our Committee today. We want to sincerely 
thank all of those dedicated to the pursuit of scientific 
research in the face of enormous challenges. I came into this 
hearing thinking ice, ice, ice, ice, ice. You know, I read a 
lot of articles about a world without ice, and now I'm leaving 
thinking permafrost, permafrost, permafrost. So thank you, Dr. 
Natali, and--for your contributions today. And thank you all 
for leaving this Committee with a program of thought on how we 
can go forward for our Arctic. And particularly as those who 
authorize on behalf of this Nation, a budget, a design, and a 
scope of work for the future of this Nation.
    And as a reminder to everyone watching at home that, yes, 
the United States is an Arctic nation. And to have, you know, 
this great representation here today of witnesses so connected 
to the beautiful State of Alaska and what contributions that 
that State makes to our Nation is certainly quite 
determinative. And we have just witnessed a, you know, 
representation change in Alaska with the passing of Mr. Young 
and now the arrival of Ms. Mary Peltola, so, you know, 
certainly encourage you to reach out to her today as well.
    But know that our Committee as a whole stands committed to 
what we discussed today. And thanks, you and your teams, by the 
way, and certainly, Ms. Metcalf, for everything you represent. 
We can't be doing this without our friends in the tribes and 
who are connected to some of the incredible origin stories of 
this Nation and how we do address what is changing in the 
Arctic going forward without all of you. And thank you, too, to 
Dr. Natali for your contributions on that front as well.
    So the record is going to remain open for 2 weeks for 
additional statements from Members or additional questions. 
Some already made recognition that they were going to be 
submitting questions for the record, and so they may submit 
those for the 2-week period.
    And at this point, the witnesses will be excused, and the 
hearing will now be adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                Appendix

                              ----------                              

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

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

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

                                 [all]