▶ 0:47:12Committee on Homeland Security will come to order. Without objection, the chair may declare the committee in recess at any point. First of all, let me uh apologize for being here so late. Um, and we were waiting for votes to happen and um, you know, we don't run like uh, you know, like the trains in Europe. I guess they're right on time. Uh, so we uh, we're in the United States. We don't we don't do that.
▶ 0:47:36Uh, but first of all, again, apologize to for everybody that's here and also the witness, especially the witnesses for, you know, uh, indulging us for the uh, 90 minutes. The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the current readiness of US Arctic forces, evaluate inter agency capabilities, and account for strategic investments in Arctic security assets.
▶ 0:47:57And I recognize myself for an opening Good afternoon everybody and thank you uh to our witnesses for joining us today. Today's hearing will focus on the importance of Arctic security and the urgent need for the United States to strengthen its presence, coordination, and defense capabilities in this challenging yet vital region.
▶ 0:48:19The Arctic, long considered a strategic frontier for the United States, has become a competitive tundra with melting ice opening new shipping routes and expansive new accessing critical to critical minerals. Given these developments, Russia has stepped up its Arctic posture despite its ongoing war with Ukraine.
▶ 0:48:37Russia has quietly expanded its military footprint in the high north and reactivated its cold war era uh bases to deploy more advanced air and missile defense systems and increase complex naval operations across the region. Over the years, Moscow has built up the world's largest fleet of heavy ice breakers and increased investment in northern ports, airfields, nuclearpowered vessels, and critical energy infrastructure.
▶ 0:49:02This allows Russia to strengthen its projection of maritime power and close in on critical maritime quarters along the northern sea route. At the same time, China is positioning itself as a quote near Arctic state and steadily expanding its presence along the region. Beijing has invested in Arctic infrastructure and pursued what it claims to be scientific research activities to gain greater access to critical minerals and natural resources.
▶ 0:49:30China is actively integrating the Arctic into its broader global strategy, leveraging investments in dual use capabilities that could support future military and intelligence gathering activities. These aggressive tactics by Russia and China demonstrate a clear intent by two of our greatest adversaries to expand their Arctic domain and put pressure on the United States. Meanwhile, as our ad adversaries plot in the Arctic, the United States has limited operations in the region.
▶ 0:49:59Uh to support our national security priorities, we must re-engage as an Arctic nation and harness the power of the high north. Last year, congressional Republicans bestowed the Coast Guard with unprecedented resources through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed at the law by President Trump.
▶ 0:50:14This $2 billion investment, including tens of billions directed towards the procurement of new icebreaking, polar security and national security and Arctic security cutters, gives the US an unprecedented opportunity to deploy the Coast Guard's Arctic assets and exert greater dominance. As such, the Coast Guard has commissioned the building of a new medium polar icebreaker called Storis in addition to its one medium icebreaker, the Healey.
▶ 0:50:41The Coast Guard's only operational heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, just completed its 29th Antarctic Tour despite being long past its intended service life. This widening gap in US Arctic capability is unacceptable and the US cannot afford to fall behind Russia and China. We must implement this historic investment expeditiously to expand US presence, capability, and commitment to Arctic security.
▶ 0:51:09For years, the Coast Guard has been plagued by delays, cost overruns, and contract mismanagement. And this subcommittee has sounded the alarm. These are not just acquisition challenges. They are growing national security vulnerabilities. While these investment act as a down payment on Coastg Guard readiness, Congress must also consider future opportunities and challenges on the frozen frontier, including through improving international partnerships and hardening our intelligence gathering methods to improve our Arctic strategy on all fronts.
▶ 0:51:40We must recognize that the Arctic is a challenging but promising frontier and the competition to dominate it is increasing daybyday. Trump administration is appropriately considering how to leverage strategic vantage points such as Greenland to improve US military readiness in the Arctic. Today, we should explore those opportunities and examine why the Arctic matters, where the US stands with our Arctic allies and what must be done to prepare and protect our interests.
▶ 0:52:07Thank you again to our witnesses for appearing in today's hearing and I like look forward to your uh testimony. I now recognize a ranking member uh MacGyver, the gentleoman from New Jersey to deliver her opening statements.
▶ 0:52:20Thank you uh chair. Good afternoon and thank you to our witnesses for being here today and for your patience. The Arctic is no longer a remote or frozen frontier. It is rapidly emerging as a central arena of geopolitical competition, economic activity, and national security risk. As sea ice rece recedes and as and access to the region increases, so too does the urgency for the United States to define and defend its role in the Arctic.
▶ 0:52:49Russia has significantly expanded its military footprint and China is actively attempting to position itself as a global Arctic stakeholder. The reality is simple. The Arctic is becoming more contested, more accessible, and more significant to our national security. Unfortunately, at the very moment when strategic focus and coordination are mo or are most needed, the United States is falling behind.
▶ 0:53:17We are operating with limited icebreaking capacity, underdeveloped infrastructure, and significant gaps in domain awareness. The Coast Guard, which serves as the primary federal presence in the Arctic, continues to face workforce strain, aging assets, and increasing mission This is not suitable.
▶ 0:53:39We cannot expect the Coast Guard to carry out complex and expanding missions in one of the most challenging environments on Earth without the tools, personnel, and resources necessary to do so. But capability gaps are only part of the problem. Our strength in the Arctic has always depended not just on our presence, but on partnership.
▶ 0:54:03Cooperation with allies like Canada and our border Arctic partners is essential to maintaining a stable and secure region. Yet, recent actions by Trump and his administration have placed unnecessary strain on those relationships at a time when unity is critical. Trump has threatened to invade Greenland, an insane proposition that has angered and made our NATO allies very weary.
▶ 0:54:32And Trump has launched a reckless, illegal war in Iran without attempting to build support among NATO allies, only to then call upon those allies to place their service members in harm's way to assist the US. These actions have increased terrorist threats to the homeland and our allies generated a growing energy crisis and embolden our adversaries around the globe including the Arctic.
▶ 0:54:59When we undermine trust with our closest partners, we do not strengthen our position. We weaken it. The United States cannot lead in the Arctic alone. And we cannot afford to create conditions where our allies question our re our uh our When we fail to lead with clarity, purpose, and credibility, we risk seeding influence in a region that is increasingly vital to our national security and economic future.
▶ 0:55:28I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how we can close these gaps, strengthen our partnerships, and ensure that the United States is prepared to meet the challenges of of a rapidly changing Arctic. With that, I yield
▶ 0:55:43I want to thank the ranking member, and I recognize Chairman Fluger, the gentleman from Texas, and the chairman of the subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence to deliver his opening
▶ 0:55:52Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, our apologies for holding up uh this hearing today. Thank you for your patience and for being here and especially as we consider the security of the Arctic, uh the newest frontier, I think, for for great power competition. Uh the witnesses that we have here with us this afternoon each bring a deep knowledge uh of the Arctic and the operating environment and our readiness to confront emerging threats and I'm grateful to them and to chairman Jimenez for bringing this forum uh together. And until recently, the Arctic was really only a peripheral place in our strategic guidance.
▶ 0:56:22Uh, and understandably so, but limited navigability constrained our access to its sealanes. And with NORAD established at the height of the Cold War, North America airspace remained well protected. Arctic security at that time was largely unquestioned. Today, however, the strategic landscape has shifted dramatically. New sea lanes and rapid advances in military capabilities have expanded the region's operational significance. While our capacity to detect, monitor, and mitigate these threats has really largely stayed the same.
▶ 0:56:50And this widening gap demands a renewed and more deliberate approach to that security. It can no longer be viewed as a safe haven or a peripheral theater. Complacency severely uh reduces our competitive advantage. ODNI's annual threat assessment released just last week underscores the ambitions of our adversaries. They assess that Russia seeks to leverage its Arctic presence as a pillar of its broader efforts to reshape the global balance of power, relying on persistent military activity and assured access to the region's natural resources.
▶ 0:57:21And China, for its part, continues to pursue dual use scientific and commercial investments that could advance its own strategic aims. The challenge for the US now is to ensure that we can detect and defeat threats to the homeland in a way that keeps pace with the environment and the tools that adversaries are using.
▶ 0:57:37Aside from sustained investments in polar capable ships and aircraft, vulnerabilities below the surface, especially surrounding subca cable infrastructure should inform our posture to prevent any actor from being able to exploit or disrupt everyday service used by Americans. Like the Arctic itself, the space domain presents new challenges and opportunities. As groundbased assets start to wear and provide a soft target for our adversaries, space-based assets can help complete our operational picture and enhance our defense posture.
▶ 0:58:05But beyond physical assets, we must ensure the US security interest in the Arctic are not casually inter agency are not a casualty inter agency silos. The intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of War, and many of our NATO allies are all Arctic stakeholders. A spirit of partnership and cohesive information sharing should characterize this security and relationships do serve as force multipliers. And if that's not the case now, then our job as policy makers are to engage the experts and create the needed efficiencies.
▶ 0:58:36As this committee knows well, threats to our interest in our homeland are pervasive. And it's through dedication of the service members, the skill of our intelligence analysts, and a consistency in our homeland workforce that we remain proactive and agile in confronting these threats. Today's Arctic may remain a forum for great power competition for the foreseeable future, but we have a small window of opportunity to prevent it from becoming exploited and weaponized by bad actors. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yel back.
▶ 0:59:01I want to thank the uh chairman Fluger for your opening statements. Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. I would now like to formally uh introduce our witnesses. Uh Miss Heather Connley is the a non-resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where she focuses on transatlantic security, Europe, Eurasia, and Arctic geopolitics. She previously served as president of the German Marshall Fund of the United States and held senior leadership roles at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
▶ 0:59:32Earlier in her career, she worked at the US State Department, including as deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. She is widely recognized as an expert on security policy regarding Russia, Europe, and NATO security. Mr. Brian Clark is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, serving as the director of its center for defense concepts and technology, specializing in naval operations and autonomous systems.
▶ 0:59:55He was also previously a senior fellow at the center for strategic and budgetary assessments leading studies for the department of war on emerging technologies. Before that, Mr. Clark served in the US Navy, including as special assistant to the chief of naval operations and in strategic planning roles with experience as both an officer and submariner. Miss Marisol Maddox is a senior Arctic fellow at the Institute of Arctic Studies at Dartmouth College where her work focuses on geopolitics in the Arctic.
▶ 1:00:25Through her research, Miss Matic assessed how emerging threats and strategic competition in the Arctic uh intersect with national and international security. Previously, she taught Arctic security and institutions such as the Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies and was an adjunct professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School. I would like to thank all of the witness uh for being here today. Pursuant to committee rule 8C, I ask that the witness please rise and raise their right hand.
▶ 1:00:58Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give before the committee on homeland security of the United States House of Representatives will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered the affirmative. Thank you so much and please be seated. I now recognize Miss Connley for 5 minutes to summarize her opening
▶ 1:01:20Chairman Gimenez, Chairman Flugo, Ranking Member MacGyver. Uh thank you. This was very worth the wait. So we appreciate uh your time. Thank you for convening this hearing despite the many serious and pressing priorities this committee currently addresses. However, if we do not maintain a sustained focus on strengthening America's Arctic security, we will have failed in our duty to protect the United States.
▶ 1:01:46I would just like to offer three observations and I look forward to your questions and comments. First, I believe it's extremely important to acknowledge a significant shift uh in policy by the United States.
▶ 1:02:00The United States has moved away from its postcold war concept of a circumpolar Arctic that is a separate and distant region where long security long-term security challenges and new economic opportunities are managed cheaply and from a distance and we have reentered that uh the Arctic region within homeland defense and as part of an integrated defense strategy of the western hemisphere.
▶ 1:02:26the ongoing modernization of our Arctic-based missile defense architecture as well as developing a persistent presence in the maritime um Arctic with overdue investments in our icebaker icebreaker fleet are critical components of this shift and in response our Arctic allies have also shifted their policies to one of homeland security.
▶ 1:02:49Canada has committed 29 billion US dollars to substantially increase its military force presence across the Canadian Arctic. The Kingdom of Denmark has committed over $6 billion in two new agreements to improve Arctic security in Greenland. And after much delay, NATO has now embraced a more active deterrence and defense role in the Arctic. It is an important first step. But I also want to acknowledge this shift came at a cost of the loss of trust between our NATO allies.
▶ 1:03:20But the response of our NATO allies is important is the US will be unable to secure and defend the homeland effectively from the north without the strong cooperation and integration and coordination with our Arctic allies.
▶ 1:03:35uh the Arctic uh the ice pack, the new allied defense procurement model uh to help us develop those Arctic security colors are really a leadership model to rapidly develop interoperable platforms to strengthen allied defense and deterrence. And it it this is why I believe that we need to create an allied Arctic shield working closely together with our six NATO Arctic allies and those who wish to be part of that shield.
▶ 1:04:04We do this because Russia and China are advancing their interest in the Arctic and your opening statements framed this perfectly. I'm particularly concerned about China's scientific and economic activity that's focusing on the future biodiversity and fishing opportunities of the central Arctic Ocean, the testing of future shipping routes in the high sea area and seabed mining.
▶ 1:04:29And we need to make sure we have a persistent presence to ensure that that in no way hinders freedom of navigation uh for the United States. Combined, Russia and China are certainly solidifying their military their joint military operations specifically in the Pacific Arctic. We've seen that increase over the last several years. Uh just as of August uh 2025, there were five joint maritime patrols between Russia and China.
▶ 1:04:59They've had a joint bomber patrol entering the Alaskan Air Defense identification zone in 2024. It was the first time that both aircrafts uh were detected simultaneously in our ADIS. So the challenge is great. We have a new approach and now it's time to uh shift our policy uh and rethink our organizational structure.
▶ 1:05:22US Arctic policy as homeland defense requires a very different a high level and purpose-driven strategic coordination effort at the highest levels of government. The Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon, the Interior, the energy departments, as well as the state of Alaska. The private sector also must be meaningfully engaged to develop dual use infrastructure and build greater resiliency to Russian and Chinese military and hybrid tactics.
▶ 1:05:50This new coordination effort will likely require new command and control arrange arrangements for the US military as well as new lines of civilian authority. For example, this new wonderful icebreaker fleet must be integrated into an overarching new national defense strategy.
▶ 1:06:07It is critical that America's Arctic science agenda is fully integrated into this national strategy as science is the underlying foundation for all future activities in the Arctic, particularly the seafloor and the high seas area. With this new policy approach with an Arctic allied shield and a new organizational structure, I believe the United States will be well prepared to enhance Arctic security. Thank you.
▶ 1:06:35Thank you, Miss Connley. And I recognize Mr. Clark for 5 minutes to summarize his opening statement.
▶ 1:06:40Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Chairman Jimenez, uh Chairman Fluger, and Ranking Member MacGyver. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. Uh you've all laid out the challenges that we face, I think, very uh effectively. And Heather did a great job of identifying kind of the strategic overview of of where we stand with regard to Arctic security. Um, after having served in the military for 25 years, I could tell you we went 20 years by developing new road maps and strategies and plans for the Arctic and never really translated any of those into improved arctic security.
▶ 1:07:10Uh, now we see how much more important the Arctic is becoming because climate change is making it more available. Uh, our adversaries are beginning to operate there much more uh uh much more consistently than they have in the past and obviously commerce is is taking off in the Arctic region. So, we need to pay attention to it. we need to start translating our aspirations into something real uh on the ground and in the air and I'm going to identify three major areas uh where we need to improve our efforts with regard to Arctic security. Um so the first is is uh air and missile defense.
▶ 1:07:40Uh since the cold war we've been trying to protect uh the the homeland from ballistic missile threats emanating from Russia, Soviet Union before that and then now China as well as North Korea. But we really have only focused on the ballistic missile threat. our new golden dome uh that we're developing to try to protect the homeland is still primarily focused on that ballistic missile threat. But as we look at what happening right now in Iran, what's happening in Ukraine, uh drones are now the newest uh air threat that we're going to face.
▶ 1:08:07And drones can be deployed from uncrrewed vessels of their own or they can be deployed from uh civilian vessels that merge into uh the background traffic. We could find ourselves facing significant air and missile threats uh via the Arctic that have nothing to do with ballistic missiles and at a scale that our existing defenses would not be able to handle.
▶ 1:08:25We could e easily find ourselves overwhelmed uh and surprised about what an adversary whether it's a a non-state actor or an actor like Russia or China might be able to do using drone technology and other uncrrewed system technology via the Arctic. So plugging these holes in the golden dome will require a different set of surveillance mechanisms and targeting mechanisms and also interdiction methods which might have involve more consistent presence with our own uncrrewed systems uh up in the Arctic region to complement our existing radars.
▶ 1:08:55The other thing we uh the second area I want to talk about is undersea. You've all mentioned the threat to undersea infrastructure that's posed in the Arctic. We depend on the Arctic uh to uh run communications between here and uh Asia or Europe. Uh and we also depend on the GI UK gap or Greenland Iceland UK gap as the main choke point between our North Atlantic waters uh and Russia.
▶ 1:09:18Uh today uh Russia's been mapping the undersea infrastructure in the along the GUK gap uh and has been looking for our our undersea sonar arrays looking for undersea cables. uh we surmise they probably have the ability to uh break some of those or interdict them and and even destroy them and necessary in conflict leaving us potentially unable to communicate with uh Europe and also unable to find their submarines at the kind of scale we need uh to successfully defend the homeland.
▶ 1:09:44Um having the ability to both uh augment that capability and then respond to the undersea threat that China and Russia might pose in the Arctic will involve new investments in uncrrewed systems to augment our existing submarine force. The third area I'll note is uh presence and Arctic presence. Uh since uh my time in the Navy, we treated the Arctic as kind of flyover country, right? So stuff would fly at us from the the Arctic. We might fly over the Arctic to the other guy, but nobody really lived there. Um well, now there's a lot of people operating there full-time.
▶ 1:10:13We need to think about having Arctic presence in the same way that we maintain presence in other areas of the homeland. Um the investment in ice breakers is a great way to start. Uh but if you want to buy 17 ice breakers and give those to the Coast Guard, you need the people to crew them, the investment in the maintenance to to keep them up and the infrastructure to to have them somewhere close to the Arctic to deploy. Um that infrastructure investment will be sizable and could also redown to the benefit of our other military forces, especially if we use more uncrrewed systems in the Arctic.
▶ 1:10:43Uh making that investment though will be a consistent uh level of of uh spending that has to happen each year rather than a one-time infusion of cash like we had with reconciliation. So keeping that investment up be necessary for us to be able to treat the Arctic as a destination in the future rather than as flyover country. So I think these three areas are ones we need to focus on as we think about how to make changes to improve our Arctic security. Uh and I'm looking forward to the discussion and your questions. Thank you.
▶ 1:11:09Thank you Mr. Clark. I recognize Miss Maddox for five minutes to summarize her opening statements.
▶ 1:11:16Thank you. Um, Chairman Jimenez, Chairman Fluger, Ranking Member Mcyver, uh, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Uh, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Marisol Maddox and I'm a senior Arctic fellow at the Institute of Arctic Studies at Dartmouth. Today I am testifying in my personal professional capacity and the views expressed are my own. The three pillars I will speak about today provide an overview of the strategic environment.
▶ 1:11:45This includes Russia and China's Arctic activities and interests, why the alliance is our strategic advantage, and why environmental change matters for security. Despite the massive expenditure of missiles used in the war against Ukraine, experts estimate in early 2026 that Russia's stockpile includes about three times as many cruise, ballistic, and quasi ballistic missiles as they had at the beginning of 2022 and that their military will likely reconstitute once the war is over.
▶ 1:12:15Particularly if the war against Ukraine does not end in a just way, Russia is likely to expand their aggression in the Arctic and beyond, especially if the US commitment to Article 5 is at all in doubt. China has invested in Arctic capable platforms to gain domain awareness, operational capability, and to position themselves as an indispensable provider of key data to understanding changes in the fastest warming region on Earth.
▶ 1:12:42China is interested in the Arctic as it relates to the larger vision they hold for themselves as a great power including as an arena for power projection. It is important for the US to meet presence with presence. So it is really encouraging to see the US Coast Guard as the US primary surface presence in the region finally receive an historic level of appropriations.
▶ 1:13:05Now, it will be important for Congress to have tight oversight to keep the service on time and on budget and to ensure that Coast Guard has the necessary pipeline of expertise and staffing. Programs like Evergreen are also important to resource as they play important roles in developing robust strategic foresight amidst significant environmental change.
▶ 1:13:25The Department of Defense's 2024 Arctic Strategy update identified a significant increase in collaboration between China and Russia, and that trend has only continued. However, this relationship is at its heart a transactional one, and it doesn't have the longevity of a true NATO is the greatest strategic enabler of US interests in the Arctic region.
▶ 1:13:48One of the biggest challenges in the Arctic is the pursuit of all domain awareness from space to the seabed so as to detect, track, and defend against any threats. The complexity of this task requires allied cooperation from innovation to leveraging strategic geography. In 2024, for instance, Space Norway's Arctic satellite broadband mission launch uh marked the first time an allies space vehicle hosted an operational US military payload.
▶ 1:14:17This allows us to fill a gap in vital secure communication capabilities for Arctic operations until a more advanced platform can come online in the early 2030s. The US does not need to acquire new territory in the Arctic in order to implement the Golden Dome or any type of highly coordinated continental defense architecture.
▶ 1:14:37Language from the US indicating a desire to acquire an ally against their will, such as the repeated statements about buying Greenland or making Canada the 51st state, is counterproductive and harmful. Our competitors benefit when trust between America and her allies erodess, and it is damage not easily repaired. At Munich Security Conference, China's foreign minister Wong Yi pointedly stated, "China will be a reliable force for stability.
▶ 1:15:07Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov used the rationale given for a US acquisition of Greenland to justify the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Forums like the Arctic Council are crucializing stabilizing forces in the Arctic region as well as platforms for demonstrating inter agency leadership by the US government. Geopolitical and security dynamics can change, but geography doesn't.
▶ 1:15:32And the Arctic remains a region strongly characterized by transboundary challenges and The growing risk of wildland fire in the Arctic puts our assets, personnel, and readiness at risk. Perafrost underlines 15% of the northern hemisphere and increasingly is thawing. In a 2023 report to Congress, Patufix Space Base in Greenland was identified as having moderate to considerable levels of risk because it is entirely underllayed by pro by perafrost.
▶ 1:16:02Growing powers such as India point to Arctic climate change as an acute security threat because of how it affects their monsoon precipitation and therefore their economic and food security. Our planet is composed of complex systems. So systems level analysis is necessary to understand the consequential systems at play when referencing significant environmental change and for this reason I recommend referencing the planetary boundaries framework to appreciate the complexity of changes underway.
▶ 1:16:30Lastly, robust international cooperation on scientific research and the incorporation of different types of knowledge systems are essential for understanding these changes uh so as to mitigate risk and eliminate blind spots. The complexity of the threat environment requires unprecedented levels of cooperation for successful risk mitigation and opportunity realization. I look forward to answering your
▶ 1:16:55Thank you, Miss Maddox. I now recognize myself for five minutes uh for questioning. Um Miss Miss Connley, uh you stated that the Canada recently stated that they're going to increase their defense spending or or spending in that region by was it $29 billion?
▶ 1:17:11Yes, sir.
▶ 1:17:11When did they make that statement? Uh this statement was this year. It's a combined of of two significant packages in part uh modernization of NORAD as well as an enhanced Arctic security package to create for forward operating locations uh northern uh operational support hubs as well as their continued satellite uh Arctic patrol vessels and and assorted packages.
▶ 1:17:37And you said Denmark uh uh also put an additional $5 billion um
▶ 1:17:42yes six billion billion through two
▶ 1:17:45Is that for Greenland?
▶ 1:17:46It is primarily yes for Greenland. It is sensors uh patrol vessels additional presence to strengthen Dana Shark
▶ 1:17:55and this was done after uh President Trump said that he would like to acquire Greenland and then and after he said about the 51st state of Canada. Is that what happened? It was certainly motivated by President Trump's uh comments, but I will say uh senior leadership of both governments have also been clear to say they were behind. They needed to do this. This was long overdue.
▶ 1:18:18So I it was a motivating factor and it's also the acknowledgement by both countries that they have to protect their sovereignty and their territorial integrity in the end.
▶ 1:18:26Correct. And do you think that maybe that's exactly what President Trump wanted them to do? Get come to that that conclusion. Would they have come to that conclusion on their own? I don't believe we would have seen the substantial investments without the president's comments. That's the upside. Exactly. The downside is um it's a different security relationship moving forward and we'll have to reckon with that.
▶ 1:18:48Well, the the different uh security relationship is actually that the that Denmark and Canada are footing more of the bill uh which I think is exactly what the president wanted to happen and also to acknowledge the fact that there is a problem up there and that they needed to invest more in securing their territory and becoming partners. All right. And so, look, President has a president has an interesting way of of trying to push our allies, okay, into doing what what he thinks they should be doing.
▶ 1:19:18Um, and I don't think there's any threat to the alliance to be honest with you. It's just his way of getting them to do things that they should have been doing all along. And so, Mr. Clark, do you agree with that that assessment?
▶ 1:19:32Uh, that they were doing things they should have been doing all along. uh this is the the US is obviously behind in its investment in the Arctic and uh our allies were even further behind arguably in their investment. Um and this is sort of them trying to catch up. And the same thing happens with the war in Ukraine that the the the president by saying that they needed to spend more is that they the Europe needs to spend more in its in its defense because they have a bear in their backyard. Okay.
▶ 1:20:00And while we may still be there and we will be there and we will answer the call, they also need to shoulder a little bit more of of the burden of defending uh their their homeland right from Russia. Uh and Russia needs to understand that it's not just the United States that they're going to be facing. They're going to facing a much more potent Germany, a much more potent Poland, a much more potent France. All of them will be much more potent. And then the United States will always be there. Will always be there.
▶ 1:20:29it is the greatest alliance and it's the one that keeps the world safe. Uh but they needed to step up and so yeah some people may not agree with the way it's done. Uh and you know some people go oh god but at the end at the end we actually got the world is a safer place because they are making those investments and I doubt those investments would have been made by saying gee please could you do this because we've been asking them to do that for a long time and they haven't done
▶ 1:20:59that for a long time now going to to um we've had issues with our the procurement and the design and the uh construction of our icebreaker. So, I don't know which one of you would answer this question if you have the answer.
▶ 1:21:19Where are we on the the design and construction of our new heavy So, the uh polar security cutter uh program, which was the first out of the gate, um had significant issues with the initial uh builders. So, VT Halter down in Pascula um they were way behind on the design. They were having difficulty uh starting at the manufacturing process.
▶ 1:21:43They ended up getting bought out by another ship builder, Ballinger, who now owns the company, is now restructuring the program with the the Coast Guard. Um so it's it's getting back on track, but it's years behind now as a result of poor decisions made early on with regard to how you going to manage the program. They started to do construction before they had completed the design. All practices that we kind of know from history are bad things to do when you're trying to start a ship building program. In fact, it should already have been launched.
▶ 1:22:11And it's not even the draws drawing is not even completed, right?
▶ 1:22:15Uh, correct.
▶ 1:22:16It's not under construction.
▶ 1:22:17Detail design, right? Detail design is not complete in there.
▶ 1:22:20Yeah. I I think we need to look at that entire program. Anyway, my five minutes are up and I recognize a ranking member for five minutes of questioning.
▶ 1:22:28Thank you. Um, there has been first of all, thank each of you for your uh testimony and your expertise. It's truly appreciated and I just want to thank you again for your patience because I know what that's like waiting around uh for us to vote. Um there has been growing discussion about how the United States engages with key partners in the region including Denmark and Greenland and whether certain approaches may be creating friction at a time when cooperation is increasingly important.
▶ 1:22:56Miss Maddox, if you can elaborate a little bit what you talked about in your statement, how critical are alliances to achieving US objectives in the Arctic? The alliance is our critical strategic enabler for being able to realize US interests in the Arctic. Um, both because of the strategic geography that our allies hold.
▶ 1:23:20Um, and we have uh different defense cooperation agreements that allow us to preposition um assets uh to be able to exercise uh so that we can regain our our war fighting capabilities for the Arctic to not just survive where you know you hear about the operators in the region they talk about uh you know that the environment is the number one enemy trying to kill you.
▶ 1:23:43you want need to have that ability to to uh to survive and then to be able to be you know a capable war fighter amidst all of that is no easy task. So our allies are are critical in in teaching us that. Um and I would just say that uh you know there are ways that we can be very clear that there are certain things that need to change but in a way that's rooted in the respectful cooperation that has characterized the alliance and that does not in any way threaten their sovereignty.
▶ 1:24:14Um because what happens there is it erodess trust which is really at the heart of you know is the US a credible ally and if that's not perceived to be so it emboldens Russia uh and and that you know leads to a whole slew of other issues.
▶ 1:24:30Yeah I would agree. Um in your opinion how has the Trump administration's actions the way they do things and statements with respect to Greenland alone impacted those alliances? So, uh, again, I think that the the language that we've seen has has really demonstrated a high level of personalization.
▶ 1:24:51Uh, so when President Trump has said things like he would psychologically feel better about owning Greenland, um, you know, the letter that he sent to the Norwegian prime minister saying that because he didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize, that he uh that there's not a value in him being peaceful, so he's going to pursue an acquisition of Greenland one way or another.
▶ 1:25:11uh you know a a after uh you know the Venezuela invasion then saying that he doesn't need international law um he's only kind of constrained by his own morality and that he wants to own Greenland. So these repeated statements uh make the Greenlanders think it sounds like he wants us and he is the commander-in-chief and you know for a small uh nation that is rising in strategic importance you know where we've had such a great relationship it's it's really um harmful
▶ 1:25:42uh the approach because they fear us now and they look at our presence where they used to see it as positive it's seen with the same level of skepticism as Chinese offers of presence and that's not good for being able to pursue the opportunities that we
▶ 1:26:00Yeah, thank you so much for that. Um, Miss Connley, if trust among our partners is weakened, does that make it more difficult for the United States to effectively lead in the Arctic?
▶ 1:26:12So, I I think we have some repairing to be done. Uh, and I'll just take the the relationship with the Kingdom of Denmark, but I think we are in a much better place post the crisis over Greenland. We have strong agreements. The 1951 US Kingdom of Denmark defense agreement uh testimony uh earlier this week uh by the commander of Northcom suggests we are now thinking about opening new uh military bases on Greenland. This is how partners work.
▶ 1:26:43uh there is a strong relationship with our military, our intelligence sharing it. We need that political that top level political dialogue to support and nurture that. But I think we're repairing it. And and to to Chairman Himenez's question, look, we're rebalancing this relationship. It is painful to rebalance a relationship that has been out of balance for two decades.
▶ 1:27:05Europe is having some painful decisions and I think President Trump just discovered that if you don't have our allies there at the beginning of an operation, it's harder to fit them in afterwards. We're learning to rebalance this critical relationship. So, we keep it on repair. Our Arctic allies understand the critical nature of of Arctic security. We have to be there together and we have to create the mechanisms to make sure the US is at the center of it.
▶ 1:27:32not having our Arctic allies coordinate outside of us and that's what we have to focus on.
▶ 1:27:38Thank you so much for each of you um your expertise and with that I yield
▶ 1:27:44Thank the ranking member. I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane.
▶ 1:27:48Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh thank you guys for coming today. Uh Miss Connley, you talked in your opening statement about eroded trust with our allies in NATO. Can you unpack that a little bit for the committee? Uh yes, Congressman. So the the question uh of many of our NATO allies regarding um the president's comments about Canada and Greenland would would the United States respect the sovereignty of our NATO allies.
▶ 1:28:15They interpreted the president's comments as calling that into question and our NATO allies began to respond to protect that sovereignty. I believe the worst of this crisis is over. We need to begin to repair and rebuild that trust. Um, we have a ways to go and it's also a new relationship moving forward. The old NATO is gone.
▶ 1:28:36The new NATO is arriving and I think this is new security uh that the substantial Arctic security packages that both governments of Canada and Denmark have responded. That's where we build the future and hopefully put this crisis behind us and build that future. I do find it interesting, ma'am, when I listen to your response to my question that you only covered one side of that trust issue.
▶ 1:29:05How do you know how many countries within NATO were paying the 2% benchmark of defense spending before the war in Ukraine?
▶ 1:29:18Yes, sir. before well 2014 before the Wales declaration was pledged uh there were only seven NATO members that were paying a 2%
▶ 1:29:27out of how many countries
▶ 1:29:28well in 2014 uh that would have been before some of those 26 yes thank you um but here's the good news congressman today NATO released their annual report you now have
▶ 1:29:43Yeah I understand that ma'am I understand that they they have started spending more now with the war in Ukraine And I think that's a great thing. And I think part of that has to do with what we were talking about earlier and the language and rhetoric that came from the president because as Mr. Himemenz pointed out, hey, please pay the 2% that you're required to pay per our agreement and they hadn't done it for a long time. So clearly what the president was doing in his first term and even now has had some effect.
▶ 1:30:13I know the war has had some effect, but I think it's interesting when you testify before this Congress and this committee that you point out both sides of it because I can tell you right now that a lot of my constituents that I represent up here and a lot of Americans I talk to, they do feel like NATO is a paper tiger and they feel like NATO often the many of the countries in NATO ride the curtails of the United States and hope the United States is going to come and bail them out and that's why they don't pay their fair share.
▶ 1:30:42in defense per the agreement. Do you think that's fair,
▶ 1:30:46I think that's certainly a fair public perception. I I think what's vital though for for the American people to understand a new NATO with our our allies uh increasing their defense spending and making a contribution keeps the United States safer. It's not a one-way street. It is a two-way street. Um, and as I said, I I I wish the more more American people understood the value of that that alliance.
▶ 1:31:14But your points are absolutely correct that they have underspent. It has taken threats of sovereignty to get them moving in the right direction. That's not what we want to see. But let's hope we are in a better place because allies are important. We understand the costs when when we go in it by ourselves. We can do it. We have massive strength. But it's we are better and stronger with overwhelming force with as many partners on our side. That's the vision we'd like to see.
▶ 1:31:39Thank you, Miss Connley. Uh, Miss Maddox, in your opening testimony, you talked about um, as we're talking about the Arctic, the importance for environmental change. Can you unpack that a little bit for us?
▶ 1:31:52Yeah. So, a lot of times when people talk about Arctic uh, change, they they really reference the Arctic ice cap uh, shrinking and thinning, so facilitating new maritime routes. But it's much more complex than that. Uh like I said, 15% of the northern hemisphere is underlaid by perafrost that is thawing. Uh this is uh about uh 60% of Russia, 80% of Alaska, 40% of Canada.
▶ 1:32:19Uh so you we're having lots of infrastructure that's being impacted, runways, uh roads. So the maintenance that goes into infrastructure in the Arctic where there's perafrost involved adds to the enormous costs of maintaining it. Um, but we're also seeing things like, you know, we had billions of snow crabs that died off the coast of Alaska because of a marine heat wave that uh that gutted the industry and collapsed it, right?
▶ 1:32:46So, in terms of being able to understand the changes that are occurring uh and how do we understand looking ahead to advise industry on what should they be investing and what are the economic opportunities and where uh should they not be putting investment, right? So both from the economic security side, the food security side, uh we have harmful algae blooms that are activating in the warmer water at higher latitudes.
▶ 1:33:12Uh so this is compromising again, you know, the fisheries from a subsistence as well as an economic harvesting perspective. Um and then the wildland fire as as these fires are um becoming more intense because there's prolonged droughts and then more extreme temperatures and there's actually more lightning occurring in the Arctic. Uh so this is creating the conditions for these extreme fires that pose an acute threat to human health um but also to our military infrastructure.
▶ 1:33:39There's questions about um how sensors uh and military uh uh infrastructure is impacted by prolonged smoke exposure. So there's knowledge gaps here. Um and there's there are solutions as well, but we need to draw from different types of knowledge for that.
▶ 1:33:56Thank you. And I'd like to get to those solutions at some point. I have run out of time for my questioning. So, thank you and I yield back.
▶ 1:34:04Want to thank gentleman from uh from Arizona. Now, I I recognize the uh gentleoman from New Jersey, Miss Pope.
▶ 1:34:12Thank you. Thank you, Chairman uh Himenez and Ranking Member MacGyver for calling this hearing and thank you to the witnesses that are here today. Um the Arctic region is of great consequence to both America's national security and our domestic interests and while we have maintained a presence in the region for nearly 150 years years today we face a new challenge from
▶ 1:34:43challenge from both China as well as Russia as as well as the from actorless threats like climate change And you were just speaking about that u Miss Matic. Uh Russia controls over 50% of the Arctic uh ocean coastline and has the largest flea of ice breakers in the world.
▶ 1:35:07Meanwhile, China is aggressively expanding its presence in the region with its polar silk road initiative and collaborating more closely with uh Russia than ever before. The United States must work with our allies to combat these threats. But instead, we are actually straining our relationships.
▶ 1:35:29Our degraded relationship undermines joint planning, information sharing, and cooperation as a critical at a critical point. For example, the Trump administration repeated threats towards the Greenland has badly damaged our relationship with Denmark and Europe and has been and and has long been critical to Arctic uh cooperation.
▶ 1:35:55For months, the president has publicly stated his intent to annex Greenland by force. He has threatened tariffs on our uh eur European allies. And in January, Trump stated that the only constraint in his power is quote own morality.
▶ 1:36:16Miss Matt, if the United States uh uses economic and military coercion to achieve our goals in the Arctic, how do you think China and Russia will act towards us uh and other smaller re uh nations in the region? and is coercion the best way to achieve our aim in the
▶ 1:36:39Thank you for the question. Um, so the way that uh I think Russia and China are uh you know kind of looking at what the US is doing uh and trying to kind of figure out because there is a certain level of unpredictability associated with the the strategy that President Trump employs.
▶ 1:36:58Um but there's also it's kind of a figuring out you know how do you have that that balance of effective deterrence and effective signaling right and there are concerns about the ability especially as China's um seeking to become a nuclear peer of the United States and Russia you know how does that that signaling work out and how do we prevent uh unintentional um escalation or misinterpretation um but like I said in my um initial remarks We've
▶ 1:37:29seen that uh China has really been quiet uh fairly quiet uh when seeing what how the US is speaking about Greenland uh kind of within the the context of the the idea that you don't interrupt your adversary when they're making a mistake.
▶ 1:37:46Uh and then with Russia, you know, having um Sergey Lavrov uh specifically, you know, pointing to the language that the US uses to justify Greenland annexation to justify their annexation of Crimea.
▶ 1:38:02So it it it's about that whole spheres of influence uh approach um and you know might makes right and uh you know the ways that if the US is not um abiding by the rules-based order doesn't um signal or demonstrate a regard for international law. There's some challenges with that
▶ 1:38:22and I know that my time is running out very quickly. I do want to put on the record and perhaps if we can get some response and if not through the chair I'd like to perhaps be able to get those answers um um you know in in writing.
▶ 1:38:38uh one one of the two questions the other two questions I wanted to talk about was in fact uh some of what has occurred with the reduction in Noah's workforce and the proposed budget cuts of how is it affecting America's ability to address the impact on climate change and develop strategies in the Arctic.
▶ 1:38:58The other question is, is it important for the Coast Guard to maintain an understanding of climate change to comprehend um the ice coverage and sea level in the Arctic? And I know that many of you can are wellversed in that area and certainly can help to respond to those question. I have like six minutes, right? Oh, actually I it looks like I've ran out of time, but please if you would through the chair, uh Mr.
▶ 1:39:26Chairman, I would love for the opportunity to uh get those responses if uh through you, sir. And I yield back.
▶ 1:39:35Want to thank the gentle lady from uh New Jersey. Uh um without objection, if you could uh respond uh to those questions in writing, we would appreciate it. Members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we would ask the witnesses to respond to these in writing. Uh pursuant uh to committee rule 7E, the hearing record will be held open for 10 days. Without objection, uh this committee stands adjourned.