▶ 0:19:45Chair Cruz: It is fitting as we convene a hearing on greenland we have snow on the ground and ice surrounding us. We are here to talk about something that just a few years ago was treated as far-fetched. It has long been worth serious consideration. The potential of the united states acquiring greenland.
▶ 0:20:17Chair Cruz: Back in 2019, president trump raised the issue, the idea of purchasing greenland. It was dismissed by some as outlandish. But given shifting global dynamics, that you political importance of greenland makes the conversation one we can no longer ignore. It is a topic of interest to members on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, the idea is one the ranking member suggested early this year.
▶ 0:20:45Chair Cruz: Greenland has never been some remote island. It holds immense strategic and economic importance. It's location and proximity to critical trans atlantic trade routes places it at the center of several global debates.
▶ 0:21:06Chair Cruz: With growing influence of china and russia in the arctic region, where russia had maintained military assets and china has invested heavily with a clear strategic eye is a direct challenge to the united states and our allies. This deserves serious consideration and response. Greenland sits on the shortest flight path for intercontinental ballistic missiles traveling from russia or the middle east to the united states.
▶ 0:21:38Chair Cruz: Making its positioning critical to our security. We have maintained a military presence in greenland since world war ii. The northernmost U.S. military installation and provides critical missile warning and space surveillance will the base, along with its deepwater port and airfield is an integral part of our national security infrastructure.
▶ 0:22:08Chair Cruz: Also key to our operational presence and influence in the arctic is a healthy number of polar ice breakers. The U.S. built its last heavy icebreaker nearly five decades ago. Meanwhile, china has four. Russia has over 40. Whose warships increasingly appear near alaska.
▶ 0:22:36Chair Cruz: The only operational united states heavy icebreaker, the polar star, is 20 years beyond its service life. This is simply unacceptable. President trump has highlighted the urgent need for a new fleet. As chairman, I'm committed to ending russian and chinese icebreaker dominance.
▶ 0:22:59Chair Cruz: Executing on this quickly, not waiting for years and years on piecemeal annual appropriations is vital for our national security, the economic productivity of alaska and the arctic, and our national shipbuilding capacity in american shipyards. It is not just about defense. Greenland sits atop vast reserves of elements, materials critical for everything from technology to national defense.
▶ 0:23:31Chair Cruz: These elements are vital in the production of smartphones, military equipment, medical technologies, and much more. If the U.S. were to gain access to greenland's resources, it could reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers, particularly china, which currently operates a virtual monopoly on the rare earth market. Some may argue the U.S. purchasing territory is out of the question.
▶ 0:24:00Chair Cruz: It is an unusual -- not unusual for us to do so. The history of our nation was formed by acquiring territory. In 1803, president jefferson negotiated louisiana purchase with napoleon. Spending $15 million to purchase 820,000 square miles of land. Land that ultimately became part of 14 states, many of which are represented on this committee today.
▶ 0:24:29Chair Cruz: We got portions of arkansas, iowa, missouri, oklahoma, nebraska, minnesota, louisiana, new mexico, the great state of texas, north dakota, south dakota, wyoming, montana, and colorado. Without the louisiana purchase the united states would be a very different place than it is today.
▶ 0:24:53Chair Cruz: In 1867, the united states purchased alaska from russia, spending $7.2 million for what became our 49th state. What ultimately gave this committee senator dan sullivan. Indeed, purchasing territory from denmark is not unusual. The united states purchased the virgin islands from the danish crown in 1917, to secure a strategic military position in the caribbean.
▶ 0:25:25Chair Cruz: Especially to protect the newly opened panama canal and safe maritime routes from germany at war with western powers. The acquisition of greenland is not about military force. It's about diplomacy and shared interests. The same way we acquired the territories that make us the nation we are. Let us not forget friends and allies can have tough conversations. The U.S.
▶ 0:25:54Chair Cruz: And denmark have a strong relationship. Discussions about greenland's future do not have to be adversarial. If greenland's future included joining the united states, that would require the approval of the greenlandic people through public referendum. This would be a mutual decision and it is one worth discussing.
▶ 0:26:16Chair Cruz: For greenlanders there are many benefits, including american citizenship, including billions of dollars of new american investment in greenland that would raise the standard of living of the 50,000 greenland ers there today. I look forward to hearing the testimony from eyewitnesses about the national security and economic implications of acquiring greenland and the opportunities and challenges we face.
▶ 0:26:46Chair Cruz: I recognize the ranking member.
▶ 0:26:48Sen. Cantwell: Thank you for holding this important hearing on the arctic and greenland, america's economy, national security. The united states is in our technician. Senator sullivan and senator murkowski say that early and often. Senator murkowski and I took a trip to the arctic and greenland in 20 with several colleagues. -- 2019 with several colleagues. She has called for a more robust american leadership in the high north.
▶ 0:27:20Sen. Cantwell: My state has long-standing ties to the arctic. When you talk about 125 years ago and the klondike gold rush and how everything sent to alaska came through puget sound, the 200 vessels home ported in seattle that are part of a multibillion-dollar fishing industry in alaska. There's a good reason the magnuson stephenson act in place to protect he was fisherman is named after two senators who served as chairman of this committee.
▶ 0:27:48Sen. Cantwell: During the cold war, america recognize we had a vital economic and national security interest in the arctic. As climate change opens up new sea routes of top of the world, we must do so again. New shipping channels can shorten shipping times between europe and should buy two weeks or more.
▶ 0:28:07Sen. Cantwell: Tourism, developing infrastructure, can drive economic opportunities in remote communities and are arctic allies could help replace china as the beginning of a new critical mineral supply chain for semi conductors, defense technologies. However, as the ice melts we face growing competition from our international competitors and adversaries. Russia and china are both increasing their military presence in the arctic. I'm sure we will hear about that today.
▶ 0:28:38Sen. Cantwell: Last year they conducted a joint military exercise in the far east and arctic. The reality is they want to be able to control the sea lanes, block freedom of navigation of our commercial and shipping and military. They want to be able to tap into and sabotage undersea cables. They want to move their stealth submarines and launch hypersonic missiles undetected.
▶ 0:29:04Sen. Cantwell: Russia is also engaging in illegal fishing in alaskan waters and operating a shadow dark fleet to evade we will sanctions. Following russia's invasion of ukraine, it became impossible to reach consensus on the arctic council. That is why I believe in partnership with canada and greenland and nato the U.S. must renew and recommit to and arctic strategy that solidifies america's leadership in the arctic.
▶ 0:29:34Sen. Cantwell: Instead of starting a new trade war, america must reinvigorate and expand cooperation with our allies, including canada and other nordic countries. We should be pushing to expand nato's commission in the high north with finland and sweden joining the alliance, seven of the eight nations are now nato members.
▶ 0:29:54Sen. Cantwell: Our good model is how nato recently launched its baltic century operation where allies work together to monitor and promote early warnings of threats from forward adversaries and protect shared infrastructure. I encourage that and I have encouraged that in recent weeks. Nato's secretary-general has called for a more proactive nato engagement in the region to strengthen collective defenses.
▶ 0:30:24Sen. Cantwell: The reality is the arctic is too vast to police alone. It will take time and investment by both the U.S. and our like-minded allies to meet those threats from russia and china. Russia has already more than 40 icebreakers. I'm glad to hear the chairman's commitment to icebreakers. I'm sure senator wicker is too, the place where many are built. While the U.S. coast guard only has two and the navy has zero.
▶ 0:30:56Sen. Cantwell: Things to the bipartisan support of this committee, the coast guard will soon operate a third icebreaker. Additional investments are desperately needed to make even this one additional ship operational. Congress has authorized six more icebreakers but that is still only a fraction of what is required. I commend president trump for saying that "we are going to order about 40 coast guard icebreakers." we will need those icebreakers.
▶ 0:31:25Sen. Cantwell: In fact, in 20 years ago -- 20 years ago I brought in the commandant to meet with several colleagues who are blocking these icebreakers. The future of the U.S. leadership, commerce, and security will require investments in these coast guard and military capabilities.
▶ 0:31:43Sen. Cantwell: We need shoreside and for structure, including icebreaker home ports, new helicopters, more c-130s, and p8's in the region and other assets. That is the braun. We also need the brains to win the high north. I hope the committee can work together to explain why massive layoffs and budget cuts -- I believe they were shortsighted.
▶ 0:32:15Sen. Cantwell: The university of washington had a $400,000 study on how glacier breakups off the coast of greenland contributed to coastal flooding. Something I think we would all be interested in. This seems particularly shortsighted we need to understand greenland better than ever before. In world war ii, it served as an essential refueling lane for military aircraft between north america and europe. Cryer light was used to make U.S. fighters and bombers.
▶ 0:32:43Sen. Cantwell: During the cold war, greenland served as a home to the U.S. early warning network against soviet missiles. Once we had 10 military bases on the world's largest island. Today only the space-based remains. If we stop talking about buying greenland and instead work to reestablish U.S. interests, there have been since 1951 many updated agreements between greenland and the united states.
▶ 0:33:13Sen. Cantwell: The most recent was 2018 during the trump administration. These agreements are in place that authorize will use investments, newport infrastructure, fiber-optic cable, radar, and power plants. Over time greenland can be a rich source for critical minerals, but there are still barriers to developments. Something we will hear about today.
▶ 0:33:37Sen. Cantwell: We can also support the expansion of tourism and infrastructure with airports, roads, hotels, and I'm sure as our witness from the wilson center Dr. pincus will point out today, greenland has a tremendous untapped hydropower potential. Someday greenland could become home to data centers to give us the edge in the race for ai.
▶ 0:34:01Sen. Cantwell: I plan to introduce legislation to authorize the department of energy to provide feasibility studies on the development of greenland's potential. I believe we should direct the agencies to provide support for investments for arctic nations like greenland. The united states needs to do more to improve our strategic investments to counter our adversaries. I believe cooperation is the best interest of the united states.
▶ 0:34:32Sen. Cantwell: The arctic is too vast to police alone. Hopefully this can help exit I -- expedite the U.S. interest and national security. I look forward to hearing from eyewitnesses and continuing to make sure america -- maybe this will elevate this discussion senator murkowski, senator sullivan, myself have been trying to get so many people to realize. We are in arctic nation.
▶ 0:35:02Sen. Cantwell: We have interests there and we need to move forward. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:35:07Chair Cruz: We now have four expert witnesses before the committee. The first is alexander gray, senior fellow at national security affairs of the american foreign policy council. Mr. gray served as chief of staff to president trump's national security council from 2019 to 2021. He helped form the administration's positions on elevating the U.S.-greenland relationship. Our second witness is Mr.
▶ 0:35:33Chair Cruz: Anthony marchese, chairman of the texas minerals resource corporation. A public company focused on rare earth production developing one of the biggest positive rare earth elements in the united states. He has over a decade of experience in the economics of mineral exploration. Our third witness is Dr. jennifer mercer. Section head for the national science foundation's heartache sciences section.
▶ 0:36:01Chair Cruz: She has more than 10 years experience in greenland and more in antarctica. Our final witness will be Dr. rebecca pincus, the director of the wilson center polar institute. She is focused on arctic security and geopolitics. Mr. gray, we will start with the. You are recognized for your testimony.
▶ 0:36:21Mr. Gray: Thank you very much, Mr. chairman, ranking member cantwell, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today on an important topic. My name is alex gray from the american foreign policy council. I served as deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff of the white house national security council.
▶ 0:36:48Mr. Gray: I served at the nsc as director for oceania and I worked on china's relationship in the polar regions. My calmest today will focus on the strategic and military importance of greenland to the united states. Beginning in 2019 and continuing to today, president trump has brought critical public attention to the question of greenland's strategic significance in the western hemisphere and to america's national security.
▶ 0:37:19Mr. Gray: It is critical to acknowledge while the topic is only recently gained widespread public attention, greenland has long been a focal point for U.S. strategists looking to safeguard the periphery of our hemisphere. Before reviewing the history of U.S. interests and the threats adversary influence can pose on the united states, I want to make a general point about the ongoing dialogue concerning potential U.S. acquisition of greenland.
▶ 0:37:49Mr. Gray: First, I strongly support president trump's stated effort to bring greenland closer to the united states. As I will mention, the administration has several excellent options to do just that. Second, and I think this is an important point that has been overlooked, the current debate has unfortunately become centered on the kingdom of denmark rather than on the people of greenland themselves. Denmark is a key ally of the united states, both bilaterally and through nato.
▶ 0:38:19Mr. Gray: Danish servicemen have fought and a alongside the united states for decades. This debate must move beyond U.S.-danish lesions. That is simply -- relations. That is simply ancillary to the larger choice facing the united states. Washington copenhagen will be close friends regardless of the ultimate status of greenland.
▶ 0:38:42Mr. Gray: Put simply, and as embodied in greenland's foreign security and defense policy strategy put out last year, the ultimate goal of nuuk is to obtain independence from denmark. When this will happen is subject to debate, including in greenland and denmark itself. For U.S.
▶ 0:39:00Mr. Gray: Purposes it is vital leaders in washington take seriously what the greenlanders are telling us and with the last several decades of self-governance and autonomy demonstrate. Members of the committee, the question facing american policymakers comes down to the following. When greenland obtains independence, as their leaders tell us they will, who is going to greet them on the other side?
▶ 0:39:30Mr. Gray: Will russia and china with her history of predatory behavior and small developing states and their unwillingness to respect state sovereignty? Will it be the united states, with our commitment to sovereignty, the rule of law, respect for the environment and for the rights and heritage of indigenous people? Now is the time to lay the groundwork for what arrangements can be put into place once greenlandic independence is imminent. History tells us how critical this is.
▶ 0:39:59Mr. Gray: I preview in my testimony going back to the 1860's just how much the united states has focused on greenland as a potential strategic threat if it is occupied or controlled by an adversary. I would highlight a couple of things for these purposes. The U.S. actually occupied greenland during world war ii because it was so essential that we keep the nazis from occupying it and launching u-boats or bombers against these coast of united states from greenland.
▶ 0:40:30Mr. Gray: United states has attempted to purchase greenland at least four times depending on how you count, starting in 1867 and is recently as 1955. The administrations of both parties, harry truman, frankel roosevelt, dwight eisenhower seriously considered bringing greenland closer because of the strategic logic is so clear. The island has 27 thousand miles of coastline -- 27,000 also coastline.
▶ 0:41:00Mr. Gray: At its shortest 1, 1100 miles to the united states. Foreign vessels have repeatedly arrived in greenland waters with without -- without authorization or in violation o need op -- native protocols. A russian sub was discovered by accident.
▶ 0:41:23Mr. Gray: Our friends in copenhagen have not devoted to defense resources necessary to ensure greenland and the coastline and airspace is protected the way it should be. During the cold war, the gap remains an area of considerable strategic concern for the united states as an area for submarine passage going to the east coast of the united states.
▶ 0:41:48Mr. Gray: Finally, the united states has a significant interest in the space base, which remains one of only two U.S. arctic facilities -- military bases in the arctic at that altitude that would serve strategic space interests. There's no redundancy if he were to lose one of them. -- we were to lose one of them.
▶ 0:42:19Mr. Gray: Dramatically increasing their capabilities. China has called itself a near arctic power. It has launched a polar silk road initiative within road initiative withi the intention of doing what it did in africa and the pacific, undermined sovereignty of developing states at the expense of regional and global security. I would just mention a couple of things on how the united states could best bring greenland closer to the united states. We have a couple of options.
▶ 0:42:49Mr. Gray: We can make greenland a territory and insular area. We have 14 insular areas. Guam, americus, the U.S. virgin islands to name a few. They have various levels of self-government and various levels depending on congress' intent of day-to-day autonomy.
▶ 0:43:11Mr. Gray: Alternatively, the united states can offer a compact of free association to greenland similar to what we have with the marshall islands, micronesia and palau. This is in my view an excellent option, whereby sovereignty by greenland would be maintained. At the same time, the united states would have a defense obligation and defense access to greenland that will ensure our strategic interests are upheld.
▶ 0:43:39Mr. Gray: This would grant us also the right to deny military access to an adversary power who sought to use greenland for its own purposes. While both options present opportunities and challenges, the point I want to make is this, Mr. chairman, the united states is running out of time to develop a coherent strategic response to an independent greenland. Security stakes are too high to allow greenland to obtain independence without a plan place for the U.S. to ensure our core strategic interest are assured.
▶ 0:44:09Mr. Gray: As stated above, excellent options exist and can be implement it given the appropriate attention, focus, and will from the administration and congress.
▶ 0:44:18Chair Cruz: Thank you. Mr. marchese.
▶ 0:44:27Mr. Marchese: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address greenland's mineral riches and more specifically the potential development of a critical minerals industry. I meant that he marchese -- I am anthony marchese, chairman of a publicly traded company that is developing the round top project, a world-class critical minerals deposit just outside of el paso and senator cruz's home
▶ 0:44:58Mr. Marchese: State of texas. It's a diverse array of critical minerals. When combined with my experience in the capital markets, I believe it gives me a unique perspective on the discussion of greenland's riches. As arose largest island, roughly 1.5 times the size of alaska, it present a mining conundrum. It is a treasure chest of critical minerals but base metals, precious metals, and industrial minerals. A map prepared by the government of greenland illustrates the obvious.
▶ 0:45:28Mr. Marchese: Greenland's entire coastline holds what is indisputably one of the world's greatest clutch and a minerals in one jurisdiction. There were dart at any portion of the coastline and you will undoubtedly hit a potential world-class target. Conversely, the topography presents a potential -- significant challenges. One mile thick ice and its interior covering 85% of the country. Winter temperatures averaging 16 degrees fahrenheit.
▶ 0:46:00Mr. Marchese: 10 thick sea ice which could create clogged shipping lanes. While geological maps present a vast array of critical mineral deposits along its coast, the presence of such deposits is only a starting point for exploration. Critical minerals vary in value significantly. Where earth minerals such as -- although considered critical by the U.S.
▶ 0:46:24Mr. Marchese: Geological survey because they are part of the rear earth minerals -- rare earth minerals basket, they are not as valuable as others that are essential for magnets and batteries. Mineral characterization is essential in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, to focus on economically profitable deposits. Such characterization requires significant amounts of exploratory drilling.
▶ 0:46:51Mr. Marchese: Drilling provides answers to questions such as what minerals we have, the estimates of the quantities we have, and the grades of the minerals. Drilling is expensive and the costs are magnified in greenland. Once characterization costs are addressed, capital and operating costs are cap related in a feasibility study.
▶ 0:47:14Mr. Marchese: After receiving the necessary approvals and permits, the study requires drilling data, metallurgical data, processing cost data, environmental data, and the downfall of many projects, commodity prices. Accommodating commodity prices. Mining and greenland dates back to the 1950's. Greenland was at one time the world's largest producer of cryo-light, using aluminum production.
▶ 0:47:43Mr. Marchese: Serious mining in greenland commenced in the 1990's. Unfortunately there has not been significant critical mineral mining in greenland. In 22 anyone, the government -- 2021, the government ended a promising rare earth project because uranium would be mined as a byproduct. Greenland banned uranium mining due to indigenous opposition.
▶ 0:48:09Mr. Marchese: A study sponsored by mcgill university in canada several years ago found over 85% of the population surveyed favored mining, with the exception of the radioactive materials. Without characterization, we don't know if future deposits are accompanied by uranium, thereby limiting development unless there are policy changes. An acquisition by united states can take many forms. Alex mentioned those.
▶ 0:48:39Mr. Marchese: There needs to be a determination as to which regulatory authorities would govern mining projects. In the united states, the bureau of land management and the forestry service govern hiding regulations on federal lands while states like alaska also give serious consideration to the desires of the indigenous population.
▶ 0:48:58Mr. Marchese: At the present time, greenland's 56,000 inhabitants are predominately inuits which has a strong voice and in varmint a policy -- environmental policy. Regulatory authorities are critical for the economic incentives for mining. Characterization of mineral deposits is time-consuming and expensive, tantamount to venture capital investing.
▶ 0:49:23Mr. Marchese: The usgs to provide government funding for such characterization to lessen the expiration risk for private industry. In this regard it is imperative to remember capital costs for greenland projects are highly variable. Frigid winters create restrictions. Significant hurdles are timely project development. Lack of infrastructure such as roads, fuel, and electricity and housing exacerbate capital costs.
▶ 0:49:51Mr. Marchese: Workforce needs require the import of foreign labor given skilled mining labor is minimal in greenland. Metallurgical equities necessary to process mineral material would prevent -- present challenges as such expertise is generally available primarily in asia. Greenland's mining challenges would likely require the U.S.
▶ 0:50:14Mr. Marchese: Government to provide significant financial assistance in order to attract private capital with funding needs required in both upstream and downstream development. Short sidedly, current U.S. policy provides funding solely for downstream development, which has been a severe impediment to our own domestic production.
▶ 0:50:34Mr. Marchese: In conclusion, mining and green can likely attract capital by providing significant financial incentives while simultaneously aligning local politics and environment of regulations in an effort to create a supportive investment climate for private industry. Thank you for your attention and interest and I'm pleased to answer any questions you may
▶ 0:50:54Have Chair Cruz: Thank you. Dr. mercer.
▶ 0:51:02Dr. Mercer: Good morning. My name is Dr. jennifer mercer and on the head of arctic scientists in the office of polar programs at the U.S. science foundation. Thank you for the opportunity to share the important research and collaboration nsf is facilitating and greenland -- in greenland. Nsf supports the U.S. research enterprise and fostering talent.
▶ 0:51:29Dr. Mercer: Nsf support also establishes that U.S. presence in the arctic and demonstrates our capabilities as a nation and builds goodwill with other nations. The research is important in polar regions where, as you know, russia and china are increasingly seeking to extend their reach.
▶ 0:51:49Dr. Mercer: I oversee scientific research conducted in greenland and the research and for structure that enables research funded by nsf, other federal agencies, and international partners. It advances U.S. national interests. I was born and raised in south dakota and completed my undergraduate studies there. After earning my phd, at new hampshire I was a researcher at the university of wyoming before joining the federal government. First in the department of defense and then at nsf.
▶ 0:52:21Dr. Mercer: The first, deployed to greenland was 15 years ago, bringing with me a decade of experience as a researcher in antarctica. I'm excited to share with the committee why greenland is so important to the U.S. science and engineering research enterprise. The polar regions have a long history with both U.S. scientific research and defense operations. Greenland was strategic during world war ii and the cold war for the U.S. and its allies.
▶ 0:52:49Dr. Mercer: It was the site of camp sent ry, an operational base under the ice. Efforts taught us a lot about ice sheets and snow mechanics and how to operate in the sick stream environment. Knowledge and methods we still use today in both the arctic and antarctica. Mr. gray -- nsf has a relationship with the government of greenland which has authority over research there.
▶ 0:53:16Dr. Mercer: All the research activities nsf supports are conducted consistent with greenland law and regulations. Nsf collaborates across the U.S. government with the department of state and several department of defense services. Nsf funds the research capabilities as well as research projects on the U.S. coast guard's icebreaker healy which visited greenland last summer.
▶ 0:53:39Dr. Mercer: Nsf facilitates research logistics in the arctic on a cost reimbursable basis for nasa, noaa, and other agencies that support activities there. U.S. scientific research spans from the earning in varmint to the coastal villages and towns to the top of the greenland ice sheet. Today about 80% of greenland is covered in ice. At its thickest point is nearly two miles deep.
▶ 0:54:07Dr. Mercer: It is a massive feature that is important for understanding variability in the earth's land ice and ideal location to study atmospheric circulation. Research in the coastal waters is important for understanding marine ecosystems, ocean circulation, and the submarine environments that support fishing and vessel navigation. Nsf awards support upwards of 300 people at 15 to 20 research locations throughout greenland each year.
▶ 0:54:36Dr. Mercer: Nsf's main operational locations of the village and the united states's space base on the west coast. And summit station and raven camp on the ice sheet. Raven camp is a training site for the new york international guard's 109th airlift wing that operates the c-130 aircraft fleet. The only fleet of its kind capable of landing large loads of cargo and fuel on ski ways. The U.S.
▶ 0:55:05Dr. Mercer: Is ely country with this capability -- only country with this capably. The lc 130 is the backbone of trans-rotation within antarctica and on the green that I sheet. -- greenland ice sheet. Summit station is the only high latitude inland year-round research station in the arctic. Summit sits at a physical elevation of over 10,000 feet. It was established in 1989 as a nice drilling camp -- ice drilling camp.
▶ 0:55:36Dr. Mercer: Year-round operations began in 1997. Nsf is currently in the process of designing new station for structure for summit. This will serve as a hallmark of U.S. scientific research in the arctic. Nsf has a proximally 75 active awards to U.S. institutions for research in, around, and about greenland. The arctic contains distinct physical features that allow for unique research opportunities with practical impact.
▶ 0:56:04Dr. Mercer: These are just some highlights of the important scientific study happening in greenland where the U.S. is a leader and collaborator in research. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:56:16Chair Cruz: Thank you, Dr. mercer. Dr. pincus.
▶ 0:56:22Dr. Pincus: Thank you for convening this hearing on the arctic and greenland. I'm honored to appear as director of the wilson center's polar institute. Keeping with a nonpartisan policy focused work of the wilson center, I offer the following comments on U.S. strategic interests in the arctic and greenland's significant.
▶ 0:56:41Dr. Pincus: The arctic region, which has important strategic significance to the united states, has taken on an added measure of global importance due to its natural resources, emerging shipping lanes, and relevant to space issues. Greenland's importance is best understood in this context. The arctic hold significant natural resources.
▶ 0:57:04Dr. Pincus: Emerging shipping lanes across the arctic, including the northern sea route across russia's coast and the northwest passage are drawing increasing interest as I scourged -- as ice coverage declines. Polar and your polar orbits provide valuable satellite views. Russia has national security and economic interest in the arctic. It's a region of top importance to russia. China also has interest in the arctic, including natural resources and emerging shipping lanes. China has no territory in the arctic.
▶ 0:57:33Dr. Pincus: The region is outside core p.r.c. Interests. The complex and emerging china-russia relationship plays out in part in the arctic. This makes china an important and influential regional actor. The U.S. established itself as the dominant polar power through significant effort and investment at the peak of the cold war. Today the effort that went into building the interest russia in the polls is at risk. The U.S. faces a new and more complex global competition.
▶ 0:58:05Dr. Pincus: Without a fresh wave of investment and attention, the U.S. faces limitations on its presence in the poles and can lose its dominant position. These weaknesses are apparent and not surprising U.S. competitors are leveraging the symbolic value of polar capabilities and operations to apply pressure on us. For example, china leveraged its world leading shipbuilding capacity to build a small fleet of research icebreakers. In contrast to the degraded condition of the U.S.
▶ 0:58:31Dr. Pincus: Polarized breaker fleet. The polar star and the healy were great ships in their day but the start is now 52 and the healy is 28. The U.S.'s lc one 30's were built in the early 1970's. They are all now 50 years old. These unique capabilities are approaching the end of their operational lives. Losing them would directly risk U.S. presence in the polar regions.
▶ 0:59:00Dr. Pincus: When it comes to greenland, I underscore that greenland has enduring national security significance to the net estates by virtual of its -- virtue of its geographic position. I would note that greenland has other strengths that merit consideration. I will offer comments on each of those points. Greenland's importance to U.S. homeland defense and securing door than approaches is heightened by today's increasing activity by U.S. competitors and the prospect of increasing accessibility throughout the arctic.
▶ 0:59:31Dr. Pincus: The space base is critical to missile defense. Greenland provides the western most location for monitoring russia's naval activities. Other nato allies are critical to this effort and the U.S. enjoy strong defense relationships in an adjacent to the region. Denmark recently announced a $2 billion package of defense investments for greenland, with a second tranche of investments announced the summer.
▶ 0:59:55Dr. Pincus: Greenland has a rich and eminent minerals, most yet undeveloped due to several significant complicated factors. The foremost challenges the harsh climate and lack of infrastructure which raised development costs. Greenland's energy potential is overlooked. They allen has virtually unlimited hydropower around the ice sheet. The potential is high quality and offers the potential to code locate energy intensive industrial facilities in the icelandic model.
▶ 1:00:25Dr. Pincus: The cold climate would make data centers and obvious choice although it would require a fast fiber connection to the united states. Possibly via by the plant far north fiber project between japan and ireland or through quintillion's plan invention. It would hence regional security through a dual use benefit to communications capabilities. It would tie greenland closer to the U.S. tourism is another significant area for growth.
▶ 1:00:52Dr. Pincus: Starting this summer, the united airlines offered direct flights just over four hours long from the work to -- newarkt the work to -- newark to nuuk . This message of mitt's economic opportunity and need for strategic investment and development planning. Many challenges and opportunities in greenland are echoed across the north american arctic, including alaska and the canadian arctic.
▶ 1:01:22Dr. Pincus: I welcome the committee's attention to this problem set and its strategic locations. The polar institute stands ready to support congress' efforts through our research and analysis. Thank you so much w,
▶ 1:01:37Chair Cruz: Senator sheedy preside in a few minutes so he's asked if he can go first. I will yield my time to him and recognize senator sheehy. >> thanks all of you for your testimony. Very enlightening. Dr. pincus, it seems like you have a pretty informed policy view on this. The only constant is change.
▶ 1:02:02Chair Cruz: Right now we are seeing aggressive territorial expansion from russia through force, and china is literally building islands to expand its sphere of influence as you pointed out using every tool at its disposal to grow its influence elsewhere.
▶ 1:02:20Chair Cruz: I think the discussion we are having here is a commonsense discussion about how we can maneuver ourselves to ensure an important piece of real estate, which is what we are discussion, whether it is data centers, article minerals, shipping lanes, does not fall into the wrong hands. From your policy perspective, what is the best approach? I will move to Mr. -- Mr. gray as the secondary.
▶ 1:02:50Chair Cruz: What is the best approach to achieve what the best outcome can be so we do not allow greenland to become a territory of our adversaries in the future?
▶ 1:03:00Dr. Mercer: Dr. pincus: -- Dr.
▶ 1:03:03Pincus: Thank you for that question --
▶ 1:03:05Dr. Pincus: Thank you for that question. From a policy perspective, the U.S. has a range of options in greenland. The choice until the consideration of priority, risk, and cost. The president and congress will make those determinations and set policy.
▶ 1:03:22Dr. Pincus: I think a thorough review of various scenarios and contingencies would be worthwhile exercise to carefully review the range of possible scenarios for greenland's future and evaluate a set of options for the united states along those parameters of priority, risk, and cost.
▶ 1:03:42Dr. Pincus: We have heard that greenland is in a global context in which we have options that span the pacific in terms of different approaches to our relationship with greenland. We have both a geographical span as well as an evolution over time. Greenland has been very important to the united states' missile defense for decades. We have an enduring significance there as well.
▶ 1:04:11Dr. Pincus: Thinking about geographical span, risk over time, and the questions of priority, risk, and cost would merit a thorough review. I welcome this discussion here today. I think a more in-depth analysis of options would give you better grounds for making those determinations.
▶ 1:04:31Mr. Gray: Senator, I agree with you completely that the threat is very real. The threat of both russian and chinese penetration in greenland , and not just greenland but the high north is something we need to be more attuned to. The pharaoh airlines -- faroe islands, the high north region.
▶ 1:04:57Mr. Gray: The number one objective of the united states in greenland has to be the same since the 1860's, to prevent, deny access and control to an adversary power who would use that space to threaten our homeland and hemisphere. The best way to do that ideally would be as an insulator area of the united states, one of the 15 areas we have.
▶ 1:05:27Mr. Gray: If that was not feasible for whatever political or other reason, the alternative of a compact free association whereby critically we would have nila terry access, and more significantly similar to our pacific friends in palau and micronesia, we would have right of denial. To deny through a legal mechanism the right of a foreign adversary to use that space. I think that would be the ideal american solution.
▶ 1:05:53Sen. Sheehy: What do you think the -- is not going to come for free. What is that going to cost?
▶ 1:06:02Mr. Gray: In the instance of palau, micronesia, marshall islands, it does cost development assistance. It costs -- in palau, we have a trust fund that we have funded for decades. It is on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. I think it solves a security dilemma we had for decades or centuries. Two, Dr.
▶ 1:06:28Mr. Gray: Mercer is more eloquent --Mr. marchese is more eloquent on this, but we can offset the cost if we do it strategically and thoughtfully. There are ways to offset the costs in short, senator.
▶ 1:06:45Sen. Sheehy: Thank you.
▶ 1:06:46Chair Cruz: Ranking member cantwell.
▶ 1:06:49Sen. Cantwell: Thank you for holding this hearing. Dr. pincus, greenland is a nato ally, correct? We have military relationships now that allows us to be there. We have all these other relationships we can take advantage of. Both on minerals -- to me, there is a cheering session in congress that wants us to understand the arctic.
▶ 1:07:14Sen. Cantwell: We have been yelling about it or cheerleading for icebreakers for a long time, because it starts way over on our side of the country. Before you get to greenland. We are seeing the intimidation, the activities of russia and china as they relate to our fish, intimidation in our waters. For us it does not start and end with greenland.
▶ 1:07:43Sen. Cantwell: It's an issue that you articulated that gives a whole new trend of interest. When you think about what you mentioned, everything from space to natural resources, what do you think is the most important thing we can do now to bolster that alliance? Is it a more broadened nato agreement?
▶ 1:08:12Sen. Cantwell: With this baltic sentry operation where they were trying to stop at rush is doing, is it -- russia is doing, is it some other capability on this communication issue? While not against the mineral agreement, it seems to me that the hydro relationship giving what Mr.
▶ 1:08:37Sen. Cantwell: Marchese said about the ice being a challenge, here it is our friend. Ice is creating a ton of hydro. If you do the sea cable, it seems like that getting us a stronger need a relationship, -- need a relationship, -- nato relationship, how this fits into the larger picture and taking advantage of the easy layouts are the things we should do.
▶ 1:09:08Dr. Pincus: Thank you for that question. I will go back to my earlier point, the U.S. having a range of policy options. The first step is to define the problems we are focused on carefully. It is hard to talk about answers if were not all in agreement on what the problem is.
▶ 1:09:27Sen. Cantwell: I call that the correct environment of assessment.
▶ 1:09:30Dr. Pincus: In terms of policy options, I think the acquisition of greenland is interesting and deserves careful scrutiny. I do think that it is a challenging option. There are some practical hurdles that would have to be overcome. I think cost is an issue.
▶ 1:09:57Dr. Pincus: I think there are a range of options that can be weighed against the problem -- the risk we face in our relative privatization of it. If we put territorial expansion at one of the spectrum and you can think about what might be smaller scale policy options that would be a less total solution --
▶ 1:10:25Sen. Cantwell: We were not discussing greenland and with the president said, would you be arguing for a larger nato relationship and a larger arctic agreement between the united states and nato allies?
▶ 1:10:41Dr. Pincus: I think the nato alliance is becoming more active in the arctic region without the agreement. Nato is a large alliance that moves fairly slowly. It has taken significant steps to be more active in the arctic in the last for years. The process has been balanced against the ongoing demands of the war in ukraine.
▶ 1:11:00Sen. Cantwell: You could say we are slow and icebreakers too. This is the awareness issue of what we are trying to get. The whole country to understand the challenge.
▶ 1:11:09Dr. Pincus: The U.S. and denmark have a bilateral defense agreement for the defensive greenland from 1951 that did not include greenland. It was expanded in 2004. To better include greenland's voice. 2004 is 20 years ago and greenland has taken many steps for independence since then.a new agreement responsive to U.S.
▶ 1:11:37Dr. Pincus: Acuity concerns and the new political -- security concerns and the new political powers in the greenlandic government is something that in the short term could also deserve attention.
▶ 1:11:48Sen. Cantwell: Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:11:52Chair Cruz: Thank you, senator cantwell. Mr. gray, if the united states were to go forward with attempting to acquire greenland, they would likely require -- it would likely require the active agreement of denmark and the vote of the people of greenland that this was a mutually beneficial step. Let's focus on the first part.
▶ 1:12:18Chair Cruz: From the perspective of denmark, what are the benefits to denmark of considering this negotiation?
▶ 1:12:27Mr. Gray: Senator, denmark has failed unfortunately to provide the type of security the alliance, that nato, that we all need in the greenland region for a long time. Having a U.S. commitment to take on some of that security burden would be beneficial to denmark based on their behavior to date.
▶ 1:12:54Mr. Gray: They have recently increased some defense spending relative to greenland. That's great. We have a pattern of decades of neglect. I would think that would be to their benefit. I think the larger question here, senator, is, denmark is not going to have as a constituent part greenland over the long-term. Greenlanders have made that clear.
▶ 1:13:20Mr. Gray: The question is, what is the security architecture that will be in place at that altar midpoint of independence? It is not just in denmark's interest to have a vacuum that is filled by china and russia. That is why having some sort of discussion about what comes next is so critical.
▶ 1:13:35Chair Cruz: If I'm understanding your testimony correctly, there are three principal benefits to denmark of considering selling greenland's territory to the united states. The first is their existing defense obligations put significant cost on denmark. Costs that are a real burden to the government of denmark and the people of denmark. The second is if united states were to shoulder the cost of providing that defense.
▶ 1:14:06Chair Cruz: Defense of denmark would significantly increase the defense -- defensive greenland would increase the defense and security of denmark and limiting the role of russia and china in the arctic to the defense benefits of denmark. Number three, an important point you made, we are seeing a growing independence movement in greenland.
▶ 1:14:32Chair Cruz: If denmark were to negotiate today with the trump administration to sell the territory of greenland to the united states, it would presumably be able to negotiate substantial sum of money. That is how we purchased c1 if denmark does nothing in greenland eclairs independence, then rather than getting some substantial sum of money, denmark gets nothing. Is that a fair summary?
▶ 1:15:02Mr. Gray: Over the ultimate timeframe we are talking about, that is true because I think we should take the greenlanders at their word and they will be an independent country at some point. Ultimately, it is not in denmark's interest to leave security that high north in addition to the cost they will suffer as much as anyone from having what I think is the 100% predictable outcome of china and russia stepping into that vacuum if we don't have some so to
▶ 1:15:32Mr. Gray: Security architecture in place.
▶ 1:15:35Chair Cruz: I think that's very powerful. Let's turn to the benefit to the greenlanders. If this were to proceed, it would require a referendum, the people of greenland making a choice, do you want to join the united states as a territory or some other structure. There has been some chatter on line about an early public poll that suggested currently greenlanders did not want to do that.
▶ 1:16:05Chair Cruz: That does not strike me as terribly probative given that this is the beginning of a discussion and any referendum would be made with the greenlanders assessing, what is our benefit? How are our lives better off? In your judgment, how would the lives of greenlanders be better off where they to become part of america?
▶ 1:16:29Mr. Marchese: Senator, I mentioned in my testimony mcgill university had done a survey of the population and I believe part of it is the recognition that where the united states to come and more than likely they would provide some form of financial assistance to allow private companies to come in and mine.
▶ 1:16:59Mr. Marchese: I think they said 85% of the inuits wanted mining. I believe once they greenlanders recognize that the united states would provide a lot of assistance that mining jobs would be there and that is very important for the population. There just isn't that much mining right now.
▶ 1:17:25Mr. Marchese: I think if there were the prospect of financial assistance to jumpstart mining, I think you would see more greenlanders interested in becoming part of the united states.
▶ 1:17:36Chair Cruz: We see significant discussion, I set down this past week with the ambassador of denmark and with the ambassador representative of greenland and we discussed the significant benefits that come with american citizenship. Think for example of puerto rico. The people of puerto rico enjoy a considerable upside.
▶ 1:18:01Chair Cruz: Were greenland to agree to this acquisition, the greenlanders would get the invaluable asset of american citizenship. Also, they would benefit from billions of dollars of additional investment in greenland to develop those rare earth minerals, the vast resources they have that are currently not being developed.
▶ 1:18:22Chair Cruz: Tell us how would the investment increase and how would that benefit greenland and america if greenland's status were to change such that it were part of the united states?
▶ 1:18:37Mr. Marchese: The first step would be to actually provide, I believe the usgs would be one of the best agencies to do this, with the usgs's assistance undertake a massive mineral characterization in the country. That in and of itself, not a short-term process. That is probably a few years to do that.
▶ 1:19:06Mr. Marchese: That in and of itself would provide jobs. There are only 56,000 people. The usgs comes in, provides assistance to map the area to provide which deposits are real, which deposits are not real. Once you do that, you start getting into convincing companies to put money in. That provides even more jobs.
▶ 1:19:35Mr. Marchese: Even before you start putting a shovel in the ground to create a mine, you have in my opinion the potential for thousands of new jobs in a mining industry. At the end of the day, greenland in my opinion with obviously responsible environmental oversight can become a major international producer of all types of minerals, not to mention as senator cantwell said, a potentially large hydro
▶ 1:20:06Mr. Marchese: Industry. That in and of itself requires minerals. The hydro industry would require a tremendous amount of jobs. The expertise has to be developed also.
▶ 1:20:20Chair Cruz: There are potentially massive economic benefits.
▶ 1:20:24Mr. Marchese: I believe massive. >> I would like to start with you, Mr. gray. You talked about two different ways in which this might proceed . Does that mean it is safe to assume that you don't think the U.S. should consider use of force or economic coercion to take control of greenland?
▶ 1:20:45Mr. Gray: Sir, I don't think united states should use any sort of coercive behavior toward a nato ally, being denmark.
▶ 1:20:57Sen. Kim: This has implications beyond just greenland, beyond just our conversations with denmark. Do you think that the U.S. talking about potential use of force or not taking use of force off the table in places like greenland or panama that that weakens our arguments when we are criticizing or going against russia and china for their infringements upon sovereignty in ukraine or maritime boundaries in the end of pacific?
▶ 1:21:24Mr. Gray: I think that what is critical is that the united states, the comments I think you are referring to had to do in my view with making sure that nothing was off the table in terms of an adversary were to gain access to key parts of the western hemisphere. I don't think we can take anything off the table to prevent adversaries of taking control of key chokepoints. We would never want to use military force or coercive means with allies.
▶ 1:21:54Sen. Kim: When it comes to this decision you are saying that we would benefit from having a cofa, we would benefit from having insular partnerships with insular areas, I want to understand why does it have to be that route? Iceland is also up in that area. Would you recommend to us that we consider making offers to those places for those same offers of insular areas or cofa?
▶ 1:22:26Mr. Gray: I wouldn't mainly because they are not part of the western hemisphere. If you look at the history of our relationship with greenland, the history of our strategic concerns with greenland, it is unique.
▶ 1:22:40Mr. Gray: If you go back and look at the history of the united states in the world war I period when we were negotiating with denmark to retain, to purchase the virgin islands, one of the things we did that same period is we actually waved to the monroe doctrine, one of the few times we have ever done this, and told the danes we had no objection to them gaining additional political control over greenland, which wasn't fully established at the time, as part of our larger negotiations over
▶ 1:23:11Mr. Gray: Purchasing the virgin islands. So, this is clearly within the framework of the monroe doctrine, of hemispheric defense, of traditional U.S. strategic conceptions of the outer perimeter of our hemisphere. I think this is very different from some of the examples you mentioned.
▶ 1:23:27Sen. Kim: I think the faroe islands, iceland closer to the united states, than micronesia and other places where you said we had cofa agreements.
▶ 1:23:38Mr. Gray: Those are uniquely important because of their strategic location relative to the indo pacific and some of the scenarios in a military contingency. You know the history of how we acquire those and why they continue to be critical.
▶ 1:23:55Sen. Kim: What I'm just trying to get across and I also had conversations with greenlanders over the course of the last week is everything we are saying in this room, we are all in agreement there is strategic value in greenland. We should be pushing for it, on icebreakers and so many other things we should be doing. I feel like we are getting in our own way by having this conversation about acquisition at a time when that is not even needed.
▶ 1:24:22Sen. Kim: I will be honest with you, the greenlanders I talked to were insulted that we were talking in this way about their own land as if they are not even there, as if we can purchase this and by this, as if they are just an object. That is what they said to me, it feels like we are saying they are just an object and we can just take it because we are the richest, most powerful country in the world. I just want to push back because there were so much we can be doing without having to own greenland.
▶ 1:24:52Sen. Kim: So much more scientific partnerships, so much more that we can offer when it comes to minerals and mining. We should just be pushing for it regardless of what happens with a potential referendum going forward. So that if they do get to that place, we are already positioned ourselves as a strong partner.
▶ 1:25:14Sen. Kim: No doubt more we can do right now, but I just think that this is getting in our own way and when you look at the polling, 85% of greenlanders say they are opposed to becoming part of the U.S. 46% view of president trump's interest as a threat. If we are trying to solidify our relationship with them, especially in some post-independence position, we are burning those bridges, we are sowing a sense of distrust right now that I think will make it even harder for us to achieve that goal.
▶ 1:25:45Sen. Kim: With that, I yield back. >> thank you, senator marino. There has been much discussion of late on greenland, but I think what is underappreciated is something you were trying to focus on and that is the importance of greenland to a whole host of U.S. strategic interests that are there and obviously yes we need to develop a good working relationship, a good partnership with greenland.
▶ 1:26:16Sen. Kim: You mentioned the space for space that is in greenland. Critical forward operating location. It is the department's northernmost installation. It hosts radar systems that are essential to our missile defense. The comment was made that there could be flight paths of icbms over greenland.
▶ 1:26:44Sen. Kim: That may or may not happen, but what is key is that no matter where in the arctic icbms are flying, what we have to have our radars to be on greenland so that not only can they track, they can also detect any incoming threats. I would also like to consider the greenland-iceland-u.k. Gap. Mr.
▶ 1:27:13Sen. Kim: Gray, maybe you want to add some into this discussion as well. As we look at the increased russian submarine activity in recent years and you couple that with the growing chinese and russian presidents in the arctic, I think it is hard to understate that that cap is important. So both of you, do you assess that increased U.S.
▶ 1:27:38Sen. Kim: Presence in the giuk gap would be beneficial? >> thank you very much, senator, for that question. I think it is very helpful to talk in terms of specifics. In greenland, we have long had radar installations to give us early warnings of the icbms coming from eurasia.
▶ 1:28:08Sen. Kim: It is very important that we recapitalize and modernize them to us much as possible. There is a big airfield, there is a deep water port. On the east coast of greenland, that is the westernmost point of the gap.
▶ 1:28:27Sen. Kim: It is a key point for monitoring russian activity and I think we are looking at a set of challenges in the gap related to russian undersea activity. The gap between greenland, iceland, the u.k., also norway provides us with important points from which to support monitoring and activity.
▶ 1:28:53Sen. Kim: It would be best to dock -- talk to the department of defense and a classified setting. But 1951 defense agreement gives us wide access to greenland. We have never had a problem asking for access and permissions. I think the danish defense investments that have been announced include delayed awareness capabilities and presence that will help us. There is certainly more that can be done.
▶ 1:29:25Sen. Kim: I think being specific about what the problem is. Fixing installations, they would be taken out with long-range missile strikes. I would say russia doesn't have the capability to seize and hold greenland and nor would there be a strong military argument for it to do so.
▶ 1:29:58Sen. Kim: >> which would also make it extremely important that dod maintains that spectrum use to identify what is going in. >> I think having a conversation about air defense and missile defense options. I think there is a conversation to be had about that specific capability.
▶ 1:30:28Sen. Kim: >> so many of our concerns strategically about greenland have been about the g.I. U.k. Gap and it has been a concern across power competitors.
▶ 1:30:44Sen. Kim: The question is less militarily it would probably not be taken out, I'm more concerned about future political arrangement in greenland that could be influenced or controlled adversely by an adversary power in a way that would prevent us from being able to exercise the type of control or domain awareness over the gap over the years.
▶ 1:31:13Sen. Kim: That is why I think these proposals I've mentioned for what is the long-term political arrangement, it is so important for us to have the ability to maintain control or awareness over that gap. >> thank you for the recognition.
▶ 1:31:41Sen. Kim: And for convening this hearing about our partnership with greenland. Greenland is positioned near the next vital strategic region for the united states and our adversaries, the arctic. As we all have discussed here today, russia and china know well that the arctic is important to controlling the flow of trade and global security. They are increasing their economic and military activities in the region.
▶ 1:32:10Sen. Kim: That is why we must simultaneously strengthen our relationship with denmark and greenland while addressing the growing international threats to the region. Our alliance with denmark and greenland is critically written to our shared economic and national security. I would like to focus my questions on our critical mineral supply chains.
▶ 1:32:39Sen. Kim: The natural resources offer opportunities for greenland itself, for the united states, denmark, and our allies. As greenland's own minister of business has noted, greenland has 39 of the 50 minerals we have classified as critical to national security. This is why supply-chain resiliency is one of my top priorities. Ensuring the innovative industries in the U.S.
▶ 1:33:06Sen. Kim: And the allied nations have the resources they need is critical for the expansion of good things jobs, for greenlanders and a strong economy. We need to put a fine point on the fact that we need a national strategy for our supply chains which is why I'm happy to be working in a bipartisan way. Dr.
▶ 1:33:30Sen. Kim: Pincus, how would you say we can strategically leverage and work with greenland on their abundant critical materials to enhance the resiliency of domestic industries? Our domestic industries.
▶ 1:33:46Dr. Pincus: Thank you for that question. Greenland has abundant minerals, they have been discussed extensively by Mr. marchese, I appreciate those facts. There are significant challenges bringing those minerals to market. As he also discussed, there are conditions that increase the price.
▶ 1:34:12Dr. Pincus: It is a harsh climate./ companies operating in a market context are generally going to look elsewhere. This is amplified by global context in which mineral prices are volatile and a mine is a long-term bet, a 20, 30, 40, 50 year vet. Under that current set of conditions where you have to develop a mine in greenland, we don't know what prices are going to be in 20 years.
▶ 1:34:42Dr. Pincus: It is hard to justify that. That would require nonmarket interventions to overcome. That problem set exists in alaska and in the arctic as well.
▶ 1:35:09Dr. Pincus: It is very contempt in to construct short supply chains but the price challenges remain. We can find solutions to help overcome some of these challenges. The environmental standards across north america are the highest in the world. The problem is solving for these nonmarket interventions.
▶ 1:35:33Dr. Pincus: I think that is going to be an ongoing challenge and we can think creatively about new tools that can be brought to bear about joint partnerships. Our allies are also breaking -- interested in breaking china stranglehold on rare earth minerals.
▶ 1:35:52Sen. Blunt Rochester: Are there any initiatives that we should know about or consider?
▶ 1:35:56Dr. Pincus: We have agreements with a lot of our close allies and that will continue to be advanced. If it was easy, we would have done a long time ago. It is important to remember that processing remains china stranglehold. We can't just secure access to minerals, we need to break their grip on processing.
▶ 1:36:25Sen. Blunt Rochester: Just a follow-up on senator kim's points, in what ways can we build on our strong historic partnership with greenland while respecting sovereignty and our commitment to our nato allies?
▶ 1:36:39Dr. Pincus: I would echo what Mr. gray said about putting greenlanders at the center of this conversation. They very clearly want independence. They are interested in developing their minerals but are very concerned about environmental standards. The greenlandic government took on the authority over natural resources in the 2009 self-government act.
▶ 1:37:07Dr. Pincus: The greenlanders fought for the right to control their natural resources and I think it is unlikely they would be willing to concede that control. As we move forward with this conversation about potential acquisition I think the importance of the regulatory authorities should continue to be at the center.
▶ 1:37:25Sen. Blunt Rochester: Thank you so much, I yield back. >> thank you, now I recognize myself. Question for all of you, just a quick hit here. Starting with you, Mr. gray. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called president trump's desire to purchase greenland a click bait distraction. Yes or no, do you characterize this conversation as a click bait distraction.
▶ 1:37:51Mr. Gray: No and it wasn't when harry truman or andrew johnson or dwight eisenhower did it either. >> no, we have a lot of mineral potential there. >> Dr. mercer?
▶ 1:38:08Dr. Mercer: Thank you for that question. I apologize that that is outside the purview of my agency.
▶ 1:38:16Dr. Pincus: Not at all and I would note that president trump's expressed interest in greenland during his first administration yielded significant steps forward in the U.S.-greenland relationship. There was a landmark accomplishment that has done tremendous good for the U.S.-greenland relationship as a direct result of the interventions. >> so not a click bait distraction, in where the conversation.
▶ 1:38:43Dr. Pincus: Let me ask you from the perspective of the 56,000 people who live in greenland, let me point out that that is basically the size of westlake, ohio, where I live, the entire population of a country that is sorry to say it to my colleague from alaska 50% bigger than alaska. He always likes to point out how big alaska is versus the rest of us. Mr.
▶ 1:39:09Dr. Pincus: Gray, if you were a greenlander, would you rather be part of america, a 27 trillion dollars economy or part of denmark, that is a $407 billion economy given the strategic imperative, the costs of investment, the ability to yield money from the international markets, the ability to defend yourself against russia and china, where this is going to become a strategic imperative?
▶ 1:39:39Dr. Pincus: Who would you rather be on the side of?
▶ 1:39:41Mr. Gray: Senator, I think the answer is obvious that it is the united states, but the question for me is not between denmark and the united states, it is between the united states and china and russia. I think that answer is even more obvious. Your colleagues had mentioned something about sovereignty.
▶ 1:40:03Mr. Gray: To me, this is about preserving the sovereignty of the greenlanders from countries from adversary nations who have a long history of undermining just that type of sovereignty, when our tradition has been to uphold and protect it. >> Mr. marchese, let's say greenland became a sovereign, independent country. 56,000 people.
▶ 1:40:26Mr. Gray: How would it possibly be able to afford the kind of infrastructure improvements, mining operations, and the ability to provide for its own people as an island literally and figuratively financially?
▶ 1:40:39Mr. Marchese: Senator, by itself, first of all, it is obvious now according to my purview mining there, so clearly something needs to be done. I believe that part of the problem is the way this is being sold to the public. I don't think we are emphasizing enough of the benefits that the greenlanders would get, specifically jobs.
▶ 1:41:07Mr. Marchese: I believe when people say 85% are against it, part of the perception is it is a landgrab and we are just going to impose our will upon them. Versus trying to soften the image by saying, guys, we are going to be giving you high-quality jobs. Mining jobs pay significantly more than average wages across the board.
▶ 1:41:34Mr. Marchese: I would be trying to emphasize the economic benefits to the populations. I don't believe that message has gotten through. But it is clear that without some form of U.S. intervention that greenland by itself can't make it. It is a $3.5 billion gdp. That is smaller than some of the mines in the world.
▶ 1:41:59Sen. Moreno: I will close with this. It strikes me that my colleagues in the democrat side and I had an entire almost six weeks term in the united states senate, so is the new guy on the block, it strikes me that the knee-jerk reaction of anything that president trump says has to be met with a complete irrational response that it is bad before ever even processing it is what
▶ 1:42:31Sen. Moreno: Prevents us from getting great things done. I think at the end of the day what we should do is recognize that we have a commander-in-chief who knows the difference between greenland and greenville and is capable of putting a deal together that is his actual forte.
▶ 1:42:46Sen. Moreno: If we can put a deal together with the united states of america can acquire greenland and the people of greenland are happy, it should be an absolutely bipartisan attitude and I hope that my colleagues will get there and I will yield my time and then recognize our senator from michigan who did not win the national football championship this year. >> thank you, senator moreno.
▶ 1:43:18Sen. Moreno: That is true, but the university of michigan is always excited to beat ohio state. That is really the only game that matters every year for michigan. Before getting to my questions, I want to share that I recently had the pleasure of speaking with the ambassador of denmark and ahead of representation from greenland to discuss our long history of military and economic cooperation.
▶ 1:43:44Sen. Moreno: Greenland and denmark are steadfast in their commitment to prioritizing collaboration with allies like the united states, whether that is through increased coordination related to critical minerals, partnering on scientific research, or navigating the security concerns that are very real in the arctic.
▶ 1:44:04Sen. Moreno: That is why I find it troubling that while our ally is aggressively and actively seeking increased partnership with the united states, we have president trump that insists on purchasing land that is let's be very clear not for sale. It is just simply not for sale. The president suggested the united states needs to own greenland to defend our national security is wrong.
▶ 1:44:30Sen. Moreno: In fact, threatening our nato allies really in this fashion undermines our shared mission to work together as allies to counter russia and chinese footholds in the arctic as well as around the world. Our strength is a country's economic and it is our friends and allies who are important for national security.
▶ 1:44:53Sen. Moreno: Despite his emphasis on the strategic importance of the arctic, president trump has threatened to upend our economy and our relationship with another arctic ally, the tariffs against canada. In recent events with the proposed tariffs, canada had already agreed to do the things donald trump threatened and then said I will release the tariffs even though we just got what canada has already done in terms of investing in border security,
▶ 1:45:25Sen. Moreno: Something I feel passionate about. I'm concerned we are seeing the same here, reckless foreign policy and economic policy ideas . Today we have to address another ill-advised trump administration move against an ally instead of focusing on improving our strategic coordination with those who do not share our values or goals. First for Dr.
▶ 1:45:53Sen. Moreno: Pincus, michigan knows the importance of maintaining our icebreaking fleet. Great lakes icebreakers extend the operating season in the great legs sports and the keep shipping lines open through a longer season than would otherwise happen.
▶ 1:46:12Sen. Moreno: As we have discussed today, the rapidly changing arctic landscape marked by melting ice and accessibility, so my question for you is giving the growing competition about our adversaries in the arctic, what challenges do you believe we need to overcome to increase our icebreaker fleet?
▶ 1:46:37Dr. Pincus: Thank you for that question, we have significant challenges with U.S. icebreaking. That is the weakness being exploited by our adversaries. I don't think that is a surprise. I will say that the challenges we face with regard to icebreakers are not unique to icebreakers. They plague U.S. shipbuilding as a whole.
▶ 1:47:08Dr. Pincus: An extensive stakeholder competition on these issues. We have heard that government is a bad partner to do business with. The industry in the U.S. and beyond faces a list of challenges, availability and stability of funding, shipbuilding, competition for skilled labor. Tilting an icebreaker is hard, it takes welding expertise. Government clients are risk avoidant and let the perfection be the enemy of progress.
▶ 1:47:38Dr. Pincus: What we have some major comparative advantages over china particularly in our strong network of alliances, we can leverage those more effect lead to a roof icebreaker construction. I would like the ice packed to cooperate with the of polar icebreakers. As having potential to leverage allied expertise and this may have carry on effects across shipbuilding.
▶ 1:48:02Sen. Peters: Right. Dr. mercer, I know arctic and antarctic research requires collaboration across government agencies and that this research is key to our understanding on how to operate in the region. In addition to the economic security of the coast guard's role in overseeing our icebreaker fleet, which we just talked about, could you discuss the role the coast guard plays in supporting nsf work?
▶ 1:48:32Dr. Mercer: Absolutely, we have a strong working relationship with the coast guard in the north and the south. In the north, nsf funds all the science capability as well as the technicians that operate the science capability on the healy. We fund a lot of research that happens aboard the healy.
▶ 1:48:55Dr. Mercer: When it was transiting from alaska over to greenland north of russia, we had active research last year.
▶ 1:49:03Sen. Peters: Thank you, thank you Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:49:06Chair Cruz: Thank you. Senator blackburn.
▶ 1:49:10Senator Blackburn: Thank you for being here. Mr. gray, many of us have seen what china has done in africa and in djibouti with the port that is there and in latin america. We have listens to xi jinping and the ccp leadership talk about the polar silk road and putting this as a part of their belt and rode initiative.
▶ 1:49:39Senator Blackburn: I would like for you to talk about why it is important that we strengthen this bond with greenland and pay more attention to this because of the impact of the ccp.
▶ 1:49:50Mr. Gray: Senator, it's a great question. This is the playbook the chinese communist party run. They do it all over the world. I have seen it personally in the south pacific, they do it in latin america, sub-saharan africa. They start by you can call it the belt and road initiative, whatever terminology they want to use.
▶ 1:50:17Mr. Gray: It is predatory lending, primarily use serious interest rates for what we often call white elephant projects, projects that often serve no economic projects.
▶ 1:50:29Sen. Blackburn: They don't last and then they are stuck with debt diplomacy.
▶ 1:50:32Mr. Gray: Once they have that, the chinese come in and use that for coercive political control over small developing states that can't push back and don't have the ability to counter the ccp's malign influence. What I'm so concerned about and why I think this topic is so critical is that something very similar we are beginning the bits and pieces of this in the high north, in the faroe islands, and greenland to some extent in recent years.
▶ 1:51:03Mr. Gray: We have seen it in iceland. This is beginning to happen, the chinese are signaling their intent to pursue this more actively. We know the playbook so we need to be prepared to push back proactively.
▶ 1:51:15Sen. Blackburn: Dr. pincus, I had seen" from biden's nsc council director brennan and he made a comment in 2022 at a wilson center event that the U.S. has accepted that china has a "vested interest in the arctic." I completely disagree with that.
▶ 1:51:47Sen. Blackburn: Just because they are calling themselves a near arctic neighbor does not give them a vested interest and I want you to talk about that type attitude that china is using this for their national security.
▶ 1:52:13Dr. Pincus: China has expressed its interests in the arctic with an arctic policy statement that came out in 2018. They mention a host of interests they have in the region. They talked about natural resources. They talked about scientific data. Those are their interests in the region.
▶ 1:52:45Dr. Pincus: In terms of their economic interests, china is a resource importing country. It is not surprising they would pursue these resources. Their pursuit of these resources are adverse to the interests of the united states.
▶ 1:53:00Sen. Blackburn: China focuses on dual use technologies and of course we don't know where the china economic development comes in and whether military begins. This is what they couch as dual use.
▶ 1:53:24Sen. Blackburn: I would like for you to give what you see as specific steps we can take against the ccp in this regard to stop them from using this as a research and test site.
▶ 1:53:44Mr. Gray: This is where my concerns about the current trajectory of the political relationship between denmark and greenland are so acute. We have to have a plan, the reason you outlined and for reasons of even more conventional military purposes, we have to have a plan for what comes next.
▶ 1:54:09Mr. Gray: If we don't know what the 56,000 people, what their political organization looks like post-copenhagen, what you are describing is going to become even more prevalent and we have seen this happen in places in the south pacific that are similarly sized. We have to have a plan for what comes next.
▶ 1:54:29Sen. Blackburn: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:54:32Chair Cruz: Thank you, I would like to recognize Mr. sullivan who will preside well I run down to the floor and vote. Thank you Mr. chairman thank you for holding this very hearing. The arctic issues are something that is the senator representing the only arctic state in the country, I care deeply about. I appreciate the chairman focusing on this.
▶ 1:55:07Chair Cruz: I want to first mention I think the idea of president looking to purchase greenland has already been mentioned by a number of the panelists. Other presidents have thought about this. I think it is a wonderful idea if we can pull it off. Truman and others did.
▶ 1:55:30Chair Cruz: I think it is important to also remember, this is an op-ed I wrote in the wall street journal, greenland is nice, to go up and get it. Remember our arctic state, alaska.
▶ 1:55:47Chair Cruz: Everything people talk about with regard to greenland, we have in spades already in america, it is called alaska every arctic location, strategic and critical minerals, oil and gas, cornerstone of america's missile-defense, the problem is as the panelists know, when democrats get in our, biden was the latest example, they want to turn alaska into a national park not recognizing our state for
▶ 1:56:17Chair Cruz: What it is which is a strategic crown jewel for america. The father of the U.S. air force in testimony before congress called alaska the most strategic place on the planet. It is. So, that is what we are focused on, don't forget alaska.
▶ 1:56:44Chair Cruz: Fortunately president trump has already made it very clear that he is not going to forget alaska. On day one, the president signed an executive order called unleashing alaska's extraordinary resource potential and I want to thank president trump for doing that.
▶ 1:57:11Chair Cruz: Strategic minerals, oil and gas, natural gas, getting the military involved, we just introduced my legislation called the iron dome act, which is all about missile-defense. Alaska is the cornerstone of our countries missile-defense and we can build that out even better. Appreciate what president trump is already doing on alaska.
▶ 1:57:39Chair Cruz: It is not as if our adversaries don't recognize the strategic importance of alaska or the arctic. This is what does make a lot of news in the lower 48. In the last three years, we have had an enormous amount of russian incursions into our airspace, america's airspace, alaska's.
▶ 1:58:02Chair Cruz: Naval incursions and just in the past year, this is another slide. This gives you all the russian chinese joint strategic bomber incursions. And very disturbingly joint naval task force.
▶ 1:58:34Chair Cruz: Our adversaries clearly understand? But of the one you had before. That is a wind up to a question I want to ask the panelists. Mr. gray, why don't we start from you.
▶ 1:58:52Chair Cruz: Given this, how important is america's arctic, I have been talking to secretary hegseth and others, to push back on what is clearly happening, we had a meeting on what we will be doing on the border, and a lot of discussions on the northern border. This is the northern border. Our adversaries are all over it.
▶ 1:59:21Chair Cruz: We need a lot more infrastructure, a lot more military a lot more missile-defense, a law or unleashing alaska's critical minerals. We couldn't have a better partner right now with president trump and the contrast between him and president biden who wanted to make my state a national park. He issued 70 executive orders singularly focused on alaska to shut us down. President trump has wiped that out.
▶ 1:59:48Chair Cruz: What is your sense on how we need to respond to this in america's arctic which is the potential that greenland could add to this because that is the other part of the arctic, not the alaska part of the arctic.
▶ 2:00:03Mr. Gray: It is incredibly important. I think we have to look at our hemisphere holistically and have and president trump began this process in his first term, this holistic arctic strategy that I was pleased to be involved in. From a military standpoint, we talked about icebreakers.
▶ 2:00:27Sen. Sullivan: Russia has 54 icebreakers, some of which are nuclear, we have two and one is broken. Do you think that is peace through strength when it comes to icebreakers? It isn't. Sorry to interrupt.
▶ 2:00:43Mr. Gray: Obviously the icebreakers are key particularly when we think about what the adversaries are doing, nuclear powered icebreakers growing their fleet. When we think about the limited c-130 capacity we have now for arctic takeoff and landings.
▶ 2:01:05Mr. Gray: When we think about the general attrition of arctic war fighting capabilities since the end of the cold war and the lack of investment in them, I know dod will likely have its own arctic strategy, we have to have arctic war fighting capacity and what your chart and what your state is dealing with is a perfect example of why.
▶ 2:01:28Sen. Sullivan: I'm going to turn to senator schmitt who cares about these issues and then I will have some follow-up questions there are no other senators coming back.
▶ 2:01:40Sen. Schmidt: For nearly 80 years, the united states has provided the security blanket that has kept nato allies safe. Yet when president trump raised valid concerns about greenland's security, nato talked about protecting greenland not against russia, not against china, but against the united states. That is totally absurd.
▶ 2:02:09Sen. Schmidt: The reality is that president trump's messaging is about defending, not just america, but also our nato allies against russian and chinese aggression. The reality is the real threat in the arctic is russia and china and it is growing. Russia has reactivated soviet airbases, expanded its nuclear ice breaker fleet and sent submarines into greenland's waters, one of which was only detected by chance.
▶ 2:02:42Sen. Schmidt: China, despite being 900 miles away calls itself a mere arctic state. It is using its polar silk road to expand its influence over greenland's infrastructure. Despite these mounting threats, denmark has failed to provide adequate security for greenland. The miles of coastline remain largely unmonitored and foreign vessels repeatedly enter its waters unchecked. The U.S.
▶ 2:03:12Sen. Schmidt: Cannot afford to sit back while others neglect these responsibilities. The arctic is a key frontier and global competition and greenland is central to U.S. security. Whether we acquire greenland, increase military presence, economic investment, or formalize security arrangements, we must ensure greenland's future aligns with U.S. interests. Not beijing's and not moscow's.
▶ 2:03:44Sen. Schmidt: Whether through increased military presence, economic investment or formalize security arrangements, we must act now to secure the arctic for ourselves and our allies. With that, I do want to ask Mr. gray, I mentioned the polar silk road. How would you compare that to the one belt, one road initiative?
▶ 2:04:09Mr. Gray: I think of it as just the arctic polar adjunct of belt and road. We know the playbook. This is what the chinese do to gain economic and coercive political influence. It is the same playbook with a different name.
▶ 2:04:29Sen. Sullivan: As we see in other places around the world, they can turn the grid on or off. All of a sudden you don't have flights anymore. This is incredibly dangerous in a place like greenland which is also part of the discussion about panama and the panama canal. Having china control both ports on either end of that canal is incredibly dangerous for us from military and economic perspective.
▶ 2:05:00Sen. Sullivan: Mr. marchese, did I pronounce that right?
▶ 2:05:04Mr. Marchese: Close enough.
▶ 2:05:06Sen. Sullivan: Sorry, I apologize. The potential economic value of that mineral wealth and in this broader discussion we have about supply chains and having them not be reliant on china, how valuable is that to the united states and the freedom loving world?
▶ 2:05:29Mr. Marchese: It is extremely valuable, but as I mentioned, it will take significant capital from the united states to get private industry. The united states should not be in the business of operating critical mineral resources. It should be the private sector, but it will take in my opinion significant incentives for the private sector.
▶ 2:05:55Mr. Marchese: The significance of the upfront money will be to the risk or help de-risk these projects. That is why few look at the math today, it is the uncertainty of what is really there.
▶ 2:06:16Sen. Sullivan: You started to outline that. If we were working with them, what steps would we take to move forward on that?
▶ 2:06:27Mr. Marchese: Senator, the first thing we have to do is identify what is there. We have literally scratched the surface of what is there. We don't know how much of it is there. How difficult it is, the level of difficulty it is to process these materials.
▶ 2:06:56Mr. Marchese: There are a lot of unanswered questions with the average private company is not in a position to take and the largest mining companies, they are risk-averse. These are not individuals that are accustomed to high risk investment. It takes a different mindset.
▶ 2:07:18Sen. Schmitt: One of the things that has been the hallmarks of president trump's foreign policy and what I believe in is identifying what are our core national interests? I think this era of adventurism is over. What are the core interests of the united states of america? I appreciate the conversation I'm hearing. Thank you. >> senator hickenlooper.
▶ 2:07:45Senator Hickenlooper: Thank you all for being here. Dr. pincus, several colorado institutions are conducting research to advance the department of defense's strategy. Launched into sensing technology, cybersecurity, the center for combat medicine and battlefield research. Looking at arctic casualty care.
▶ 2:08:18Senator Hickenlooper: How can we continue to foster partnerships between the deferred -- department of defense on these national security efforts to support the efforts in the arctic?
▶ 2:08:31Dr. Pincus: I appreciate you flagging the strong connection and support between the department of defense and our research and academic institutions which is played out in the polar and arctic regions. That has redound it to the benefit of the united states. We have world leading scientific capacities.
▶ 2:08:59Dr. Pincus: We have a technology based economy that comes out of decades of support for basic science and research and all of the text spinoffs that come out of that. You have listed a couple of examples of research that are likely to provide economic benefits as well as military advantages. That has always been important. Militaries must constantly innovate to dominate. The polar regions or places where that is especially true given their unique challenges.
▶ 2:09:29Sen. Hickenlooper: I appreciate that and I remember 30 some years ago some of the scientific research into the arctic was derided as being useless and the scope of history requires us to keep looking and being curious. I had a friend to as a geologist to cross country ski to cross greenland in 1985, it is pretty flat until you get to the coast. Mr. marchese, we talk about critical and rare earth minerals and greenland.
▶ 2:09:58Sen. Hickenlooper: However, as you have mentioned, they are mostly locked in the ice. The cold weather mining, you can't really do it too much in the winter it is so cold. One of our great advantages against china and russia has always been our allies, our network of alliances and partners, many of whom have extensive mining experience. Canada obviously has a lot of experience in cold mining.
▶ 2:10:31Sen. Hickenlooper: Japan, seafloor mining. How might the new critical mineral mining ventures in greenland benefit from shared expertise?
▶ 2:10:40Mr. Marchese: Good question, senator. Unfortunately, most of the downstream, which is the processing capabilities in the world are located in southeast asia and specifically china. China prohibits their researchers and professionals from doing this in other countries.
▶ 2:11:17Mr. Marchese: The expertise in africa, there is expertise in south america, it depends on the type of mining you are referring to. There is significant expertise around the world and base metals , copper, aluminum, things like that, no problem finding expertise anywhere. When you start getting into a critical mineral area, most in southeast asia, but specifically some in europe.
▶ 2:11:50Mr. Marchese: So, they in my opinion would have the expertise available.
▶ 2:11:55Sen. Hickenlooper: I understand what you are saying, it is complex, it is not easily accessible. Dr. mercer, arctic research in remote and austere environments to the national science foundation's requires close cooperation with our partners, our allies.
▶ 2:12:19Sen. Hickenlooper: These research efforts could be disrupted, the bipartisan chips act, creating an office of research, policy, and security responsible for identifying security risks. In your view, does the increasing presence of china and russia in the arctic region create any new research security risks that congress should be especially vigilant about?
▶ 2:12:44Dr. Mercer: Thank you for your question. The office of polar programs and nsf works in close partnerships with the chief research strategy and policy. Nsf is a member of the counterintelligence task force to work with the intelligence community and law enforcement partners on research security issues, something we take seriously.
▶ 2:13:12Dr. Mercer: But as far as the rest of your question, I would be happy to take that back to nsf and potentially arrange a conversation in a different setting.
▶ 2:13:20Sen. Hickenlooper: Perfect. I yield back to the chair. >> senator young. >> thank you, chairman, thank you, witnesses for being here. The headlines of recently been focused on acquisition of greenland under different scenarios, but what I find more plausible and therefore more
▶ 2:13:51Sen. Hickenlooper: Interesting is some sort of trade relationship that might be deepened. Greenland holds vast reserves, critical minerals and sits outside of china's supply chain dominance. I think a trade partnership with greenland could strengthen our mineral security in the fairly near term. Let me know if I'm wrong on that predicate.
▶ 2:14:17Sen. Hickenlooper: I also think that without investment in processing, we risk repeating some past mistakes we have made in terms of these trade relationships. A smarter approach might be to go beyond extraction and ensure that trade agreements support investment in refining, processing, and manufacturing to work together with our counterparties and build a resilient supply chain rather than shifting dependencies.
▶ 2:14:50Sen. Hickenlooper: We know that trade deals alone won't solve our problems, but they will certainly make great strides toward reducing our dependencies. Without addressing permitting delays and infrastructure gaps at home, even the best agreements could take years to deliver real results. So, Mr. marchese, Mr. marchese, I'm close.
▶ 2:15:22Sen. Hickenlooper: I'm sorry, sir. If a trade agreement were to be considered with greenland, what specific policy incentives should be included to ensure that rare earth elements aren't just extracted, but processed and refined in a way that strengthens U.S. supply chains?
▶ 2:15:40Mr. Marchese: I will disagree with you somewhat. I believe we risk making the same mistakes in greenland as we have in the united states, which is the federal government provides a lot of potential financial assistance for downstream processing. Process to your heart's content, we will help you. But finding sources which is upstream, zero money available.
▶ 2:16:11Mr. Marchese: In my opinion, significantly easier to get funding once you have the upstream part solved. Finding the mind, developing the mine is significantly more important than processing it. There are lots of people that would give you capital to process something, but you have to have the supply to begin with. In this country, we don't supply money for exploration and discovery.
▶ 2:16:39Mr. Marchese: In our alternate universe, we would love to have every other country deliver material so we can process it.
▶ 2:16:45Sen. Young: So I'm learning from you. You are familiar with some of the solutions that are offered here on the hill. This has been spearheaded by senator cornyn to work with our friends around the world and our U.S. geological survey's to identify where all the mineral reserves are and then to project into the future.
▶ 2:17:18Sen. Young: Demands for those minerals and processing capacity. As one would do when you are managing a project. Is that the sort of assistance that might help take some risk out of the markets and unlock more private capital?
▶ 2:17:32Mr. Marchese: Absolutely. It is called medical -- mineral characterization. You need to do that first to allow a private company in they will pay you handsomely to buy something once you develop. We are not at that point. We need typically the smaller companies are going to be coming in to do this type of exploration. That have the capitol to under take.
▶ 2:18:02Mr. Marchese: >> may that paired was something I was alluding to. I'm not suggesting I would be sufficient with collectively would that be constructive toward -- >> as long as we have upstream as well as downstream funding I think we are on the right track.
▶ 2:18:21Mr. Marchese: >> if I could ask one more question related to icebreaking, can you describe how our lack of multiple functional icebreakers affects our influence in the arctic region, just for my constituents? >> senator kim it limits our capacity to go where we need to go, when we need to go.
▶ 2:18:46Mr. Marchese: It limits deterrence, presence, our ability to have domain awareness of critical sea lanes and it seeds the pc ways to adversaries who are making those investments, china and russia, building the world's largest ice breaker fleets including nuclear icebreakers. >> and not just military. It doesn't justmilitary playing, it cedes the commercial? >> it does.
▶ 2:19:18Mr. Marchese: What I was on the chinese, particularly, I think the commercial is oftentimes a predicate for future military activity. They are intricately linked in the chinese context. Chairman, thank you.
▶ 2:19:37Sen. Klobuchar: Thank you for being here. I just want to point out that denmark and greenland have made clear that greenland is not for sale and I am hearing this on acquisition of greenland and problems it is causing with our allies, seems strange to me when we just got the report that the inflation is going up and I think we should be more focused
▶ 2:20:08Sen. Klobuchar: On those things but I am happy to dive in come become a state that has -- having a state that has a lot of snow and having been to greenland, would love to talk about this. As senator of alaska said in a joint statement with a member of the danish parliament, the future does not require us to redraw the borders on the map but to work harder than ever to cross them.
▶ 2:20:32Sen. Klobuchar: Do you agree that strengthening our alliances advanced to a strategic objectives in the region? >> thank you for that question. I would say that from a policy analytic perspective, the U.S. has clearly defined national interests in greenland and across the arctic. We have identified some challenges and some problems we are turning our attention to.
▶ 2:21:02Sen. Klobuchar: We have a range of policy options and I think it is the job of the president of the congress, policy makers to make those policy determinations, balancing relative priority, risk, cost.
▶ 2:21:19Sen. Klobuchar: With regard to greenland, we have a range of options and there is a spectrum in their and I think at the lower cost, sort of lower hurtle part of the spectrum, I would put diplomatic arrangements, defense agreements.
▶ 2:21:36Sen. Klobuchar: I'm concerned about freezing of federal grants that can scarcely harm, for instance, national science foundation puller programs, guides, critical research on arctic issues, for example the university of minnesota puller geospatial center has been working on digital mapping with support which will be really
▶ 2:22:06Sen. Klobuchar: Important at what is happening with russia and other countries that are not our friends, china that are heading there. What role can the university research community play in preparing U.S. for future civilian and military operations in the arctic region? >> thank you for that question.
▶ 2:22:31Sen. Klobuchar: America is the leader in our work that we support in the arctic, including that of university minnesota is really important to the U.S.. As I noted before, we are strong collaborators with other U.S. government agencies, including various department of defense services. As well as the government of greenland.
▶ 2:22:55Sen. Klobuchar: I think that those relationships between academia and the various government institutes on the further research in the arctic are important.
▶ 2:23:07Sen. Klobuchar: Dr. pincus, icebreakers, big deal for the great lakes and as you can imagine, last november canada, finland, U.S. icebreaker collaboration effort pack known as the ice pack. To build more icebreaker ships from essential tools to open trade routes. I talked to representatives of both countries outside the U.S., canada, finland about this.
▶ 2:23:35Sen. Klobuchar: How can we maximize our collaboration with candida and finland in the arctic. I know you share mike from building in the U.S.. What more can be done for domestic manufacturing? The first and finland, canada. The second is what can we do here besides more icebreakers in conjunction with him and maybe that is the answer?
▶ 2:24:00Sen. Klobuchar: >> the wilson center has been consulting extensively on the ice packed and icebreaker construction. There are a number of hurdles here. They include labor and workforce challenges. There is a shrinking talent pool and shipyards arewe do not havel and shipyards arewe do not havep -- shipbuilding strategy or plan to help align yards and chips for best fit.
▶ 2:24:30Sen. Klobuchar: Contracting practices are often adverse for business interests. For example, we also -- often use firm fixed on vessels and that places all the risk on the shipyard. Our specifications requirements are often permit perfection to be the enemy of the good stuff I think there are a lot of things we could do in lessons we can learn from our foreign counterparts in terms of their expertise. Speeding up our acquisition.
▶ 2:24:59Sen. Klobuchar: 1.I do want to make is thathulls. People and funding to run those holes. We see it is going to be years before he comes and operational capacity because of the refit it will need and the coast guard is under strain now with demand for its mission set. We are seeing challenges meeting all those demands. Strains placed on people and families. It is true for the navy as well.
▶ 2:25:29Sen. Klobuchar: The world wants the coast guard to be a lot of places and the navy to be a lot of places. Definitely we need hulls but also people.
▶ 2:25:39Sen. Klobuchar: How do you see the ice packed working with canada and finland? >> there is tremendous -- the implementation is going to be the real challenge. We have plans in place but there have been resources to support implementation of ice packed. Dhs and coast guard are working through some of those challenges.
▶ 2:26:02Sen. Klobuchar: It will be interesting to see if we can make some creative solutions around relax and trade restrictions, perhaps skilled labor that could help us build icebreakers faster. Perhaps relaxing some restrictions on tech sharing. I think there are a lot of ways for innovation that we have to pick our targets. Apply that range of analysis. What is the top priority, where we are willing to accept risk and face costs.
▶ 2:26:33Sen. Klobuchar: >> I'm going to wrap up with a few more questions for the panel. Going back to this chart, I went to get a sense of why do you think this has been a pretty dramatic increase from russia and china enjoyed -- unprecedented joint naval and strategic bomber taskforces into our airspace, our water. And related to that, Mr.
▶ 2:27:01Sen. Klobuchar: Gray, talk about presence. Can't have presence with that infrastructure. I think it is high time we start looking at more infrastructure, be able to address this. We are going to have a hearing with the commander on the armed services committee tomorrow.
▶ 2:27:25Sen. Klobuchar: I'm going to talk a lot about looking at potential faces, incredible navy base out here -- bases, incredible navy base out here. Huge refueling capacity right there. Russians, chinese, very strategic. Trying to get a strategic port built and in alaska.
▶ 2:27:53Sen. Klobuchar: Otherwise, we have very little infrastructure on which to launch military and economic, icebreaker capabilities. So maybe just a quick question for all of the panelists. Do we need more infrastructure in america's arctic? I'm not talking greenland. This hearing is about strategic interests in the arctic.
▶ 2:28:20Sen. Klobuchar: We are in arctic nations solely because of that great state, alaska. What is the sense of all of the panelists on infrastructure in the arctic to combat what is a very, very aggressive move by our adversaries. By the way, talking to the northcom commander, we had one of the busiest times ever in terms of aggressive incursions, joint chinese russian operations . He thinks this year is going to be even more. We have to be ready. For america.
▶ 2:28:51Sen. Klobuchar: Protecting america right now. What is the sense of infrastructure? >> I could not agree more, you have to have more infrastructure. Not just from a defensive present standpoint to protect our homeland, but also from a power projection standpoint. We have allowed our arctic infrastructure in addition to a lot of our general defense industrial infrastructure to atrophy.
▶ 2:29:19Sen. Klobuchar: I think this would be a huge way to boost our capacity, to deter in the arctic.
▶ 2:29:26Sen. Sullivan: Do you have a view? >> you are preaching to the converted. In my opinion we need significantly more infrastructure spent not only in alaska but in the united states. There's nothing wrong with fishing at your feet. We have everything we need here. It is greatly going to greenland but let's concentrate on what we can control, which is united states investment.
▶ 2:29:52Sen. Sullivan: Dr. mercer? >> thank you for the question. America is was the leader in scientific research and certainly true in the polar regions. We rely on heavily in order to be the leader in research on the coast guard icebreakers, lc 130 aircraft, c-17 aircraft, the space-based in greenland and as I noted in my opening testimony, we are in the process of
▶ 2:30:23Sen. Sullivan: Designing -- in the design process to recapitalize and modernize some station at the center of the greenland ice sheet.
▶ 2:30:30Sen. Sullivan: Dr. pincus? >> I agree that we are seeing increased adversary presence in the region because they perceive witness on their part.
▶ 2:30:42Sen. Sullivan: By the way, it is not on this chart. I have another one that shows, some of the witnesses said this, they are building up their infrastructure, particularly military but also energy, critical mineral infrastructure, in a huge way in the arctic and we are still kind of exuding weakness. >> I wouldn't we face multiple challenges in alaska. -- I would note we face multiple challenges in alaska.
▶ 2:31:13Sen. Sullivan: We have challenges with coastal erosion and some of the permafrost issues. There is money that needs to be put into current dod installations to harden them. The expansion of wildland fires and other novel challenges. Efficient spending decisions to get as much bang for our buck is important to meet the full range through economic and community concerns.
▶ 2:31:40Sen. Sullivan: I would put the coast guard at the top of the list because it has a broad mission set and its assets can be utilized for a lot of different purposes. Jodey assets can be applied to civil disasters as well. -- dod assets can be applied to civil disasters as well. And juggle competing demands whether it is from a mass of, a big coastal storm like some of the storms we have seen in western alaska, or military challenges. We have to do all of those at the same time.
▶ 2:32:10Sen. Sullivan: It is a real big problem.
▶ 2:32:10Sen. Sullivan: We are going to be working on this. Our budget reconciliation on the senate side is going to have a lot of resources for military post by the whatcom of the northern border and southern border and the coast guard. I think that will be welcome in a bipartisan way. I want to thank the witnesses. This has been a great hearing. The issue of the arctic is an important one.
▶ 2:32:37Sen. Sullivan: I appreciate the chairman putting it on early in his agenda. Submit additional questions before february 19. We respectfully request the witnesses try to get those back by wednesday, march 5 to respond to questions for the record. Thank you, great panel today. A lot of interest in a bipartisan way. On greenland, the arctic. We have a lot more work to do.
▶ 2:33:07Sen. Sullivan: This committee stands adjourned.