Test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test. Test test test test. What you would need is definitively need an icebreaker to navigate that piece of geography. What you dont see on this map because it would clutter it is beyond that 100 coverage inside of that blue line, there are areas where you get 60 sea ice coverage, 30, 40, which you would probably also want an icebreaker or definitely need an ice hardened clad ship to navigate. The purple line, on the edges of the map because the arctic is entirely icecovered in the winter and the maximum ice is in march. The minimum is in september. What you see there is you need an icebreaker to navigate any of that in the march time frame. It provides a rough seasonality in the arctic. So how has that changed over the last 50, 40, 30 years, whatever it is . Is it bigger, smaller, the same . What are we looking at . The navy uses a figure of a per decade loss of 3 of maximum ice per year and 13 of minimum ice per year. So theres is it that measure it is measurable and quantifiable and goes to those time frames. Historically, you have relatively precise measurements, but looking forward youre thinking 3 loss in mass and 13 minimum . Is that what youre telling me . Yes, sir. And that tracks whats happened up to this point . Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Kiemel, mentioned difficulty in measuring impact of Climate Change on all other issues, all aspects of migrations, all those things. You mentioned it was a relatively complicated model with a variety of variables. Any stance of how much more complicated that is than the underlying Climate Science modeling that goes on . Which is more difficult to model . The impact or whether its going to happen or not . The Climate Change. Model. From the perspective, were not doing the scientific modeling which one . Im sorry . Youre not doing scientific modeling were not doing it on Climate Change. Were using whats been done by other scientists to inform our judgments. So i really cant speak to that. He has a better sense of that. Its not the im trying to get a sense of how complicated it is. I believe the modeling for Climate Change is relatively complicated. Is extremely complicated. Its still science, which means that some of our colleagues say this science is subtle. Which to me makes a bit of an odd statement. I dont think any science is settled in that regard. Trying to figure out in that regard a lot of conversation about not a lot of conversation about the modeling youre doing. Im trying to get a sense of which is more complicated and more speculation than the other. And i would definitely agree with you, your previous point, too, that the other factors are very complicated and very difficult to model as well. To define precisely what percent of an impact Climate Change has had on one National Security problem or another is difficult. We look at the overall trends im trying to compare the two major modeling projects. Climate change and the affect it has on affect it has on everything else. Wouldnt know how to code much of it into a computer. Were talking about societal variables and other biophysical conditions and political conditions. Theyre all in a be group of conditions. Its difficult to model those things beyond the framework. I yield back. Ms. Sule. Can we talk about how the ic assesses the approaching increase disease incidences that we see and whether or not were prepared for the affect of diseases being weaponized in a way that would affect our National Security thats for anyone who would like to talk about it. Ill take a swing at it. The Intelligence Community has many highly qualified experts to talk about Infectious Diseases and global health. But i think this topic is a good illustration of how why National Security has broadened over the years. I think few would dispute Infectious Diseases and pandemic potential are National Security concerns. I see the topic of Climate Change going that same direction. Really, we could spend an entire hearing on this topic. Its a giant topic. A direct answer to your question would be tough. Let me answer your question about whether were ready. Arguably, were not ready for a lot of these factors. Even without Climate Change effects. Just due to the element of surprise of infectious in the rapid onset of potential pandemics. Just looking at climate hazards and Climate Change hazards, some groups of people are especially susceptible to climate sense of health hazards, periods of extreme heat, for example. Young children be, populations already experiencing social marginalization and we could talk about a number of direct risks from flooding. In terms of like global organizations like the world health organization, our participation or participation in the paris accords, how are those types of things helping, affecting our ability to be prepared for these global risks that exist because of Climate Change . Im not certain i have an answer to that since that strays into policy restrictive language. Maybe peter, you can one of the point the broader points about dealing with macro issues like Climate Change is its not all about the potential threats to National Security. Its also about opportunities to find solutions to them as well. I think the chairman mentioned earlier rivers and disputes over the flow of rivers water disputes have historically been major bones of contention between states like india and pakistan. Exactly. Thats what im trying to figure out. We cant solve this alone. That this is a global issue. And a global threat. To the extent that we as International Actors play a part of that, i would think that its about, you know, us working with our allies as well in getting prepared for be these threats. Yes. States working together to find solutions has been one of the reasons why water conflicts havent really caused wars. Theyve actually led to actual engagement between countries that wouldnt naturally engage with each other. There are possibilities for at that as well. The other question i had, i wanted to dig a little deeper on the geo what did you call it . Geoengineering. If you could tell us a little bit about that more. How does one engineer weather . The effects of that as a global threat. So were not talking about changing the weather, were talking about changing the climate. Longterm average of the weather over a long period of time. So one technique that has been discussed is taking jumbo jets that are filled with Something Like sulfur dioxide, which is a known coolant of radiation and to inject that into the stratosphere which is the layer of the atmosphere thats above the tropp sphere in which we live. With the there are some computer models that are trying to assess. Sovereign states are that have i know its theoretical. But it also could be practical. How will we in the ic trying to prepare ourselves against uses of advanced technologies like this . The Intelligence Community is trying to understand the Global Developments in geoengineering and trying to determine the risk factors and so the ic itself isnt doing anything in the geoengineering space. In terms of malice its frightening that you could change climate that way. And one can see the possibilities of weaponizing Something Like that. We should see how were mitigating i think it would be hard to think of ways to weapon eyes a geoengineering method because of its global reach. If youre talking about changing the weather in a more regional system, you know, thats a different set of topics and i have high doubts about that from a scientific standpoint. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I know my time is over. Very interesting and thank you so much for having this public hearing. Thank you very much. My son just told me that sulfur dioxide was part of his standardized test. Theyre teechk about this in our high schools which is good. Mr. Stewart . Thank you, chairman. To all of you for your presentation today. Im going to try to be brief because were coming up on i want to give everyone a chance. I commend you for sincerely appreciate your comments in discussing something that is really an emotional issue. I was talking with one of the staff earlier, said this is like talking religion. Hard to make converts. Its like talking politics. Theres a lot of emotion to t and people seem to stakeout their position and i think fairly defensive of that generally. I think you have presented a fair evaluation of the risks while noting some of the uncertainties. Mr. Kiemel in our opening comments, you talked about variables in model. Very difficult to model. A more aggressive description may be possible. You recognize that climb change is Human Behavior in the future is trying to predict 40, 50, 100 years in the future is difficult to do. Yet, at the same time, you have said that these are the things that are worrying us and things that were dealing with now and that we have to consider. I agree with you on that. Im curious, im going to sidebar for a minute before i get to my question. Do you think that some of the predictions or the warnings or some of the dire emotional claims that weve heard over the last half generation or so, for example and weve been told that we have 12 years to fix this or its the end of mankind, do you think that helps a conversation or make it more complicated and more emotional than perhaps we should be in this . Just a Quick Response fif you would. Any of you. Im trying to think about from the National Security implications of Climate Change what the how the conversation about Climate Change itself impacts us. I think we tried to separate ourselves from the politics on any given issue. Believe me, any issue related to National Security has multinl sid am multiple sides to it. We see that with policy debates within the administration that go on, let alone across parties. So every National Security implication issue has, has a Debate Associated with it. Let me simplify this. When you hear warnings or emotional claims that turn out not to be true, does that help the conversation or not help it when were trying to be unemotional or analytical about this. Thats where we tried to put on our clear lenses and look at and separate it from the emotional warnings. Argument about the science itself. Again, i think youve done a fine job of doing that today. Im going to ask this question. I have no idea how youre going to answer it. Im really curious how youre going to answer it. Im assuming that all of you have at least a ts security clearance, is that right . You deal in a wide range of National Security issues, is that fair . I mean, you are experts on certain things. But you also have exposure and in the course of your work see other threats as well, is that true . Peter, for you as well . Yes. If you tried to prioritize this, would you put this issue that were dealing with today somewhere in the top two or three of the most urgent problems that we have to deal with over the next, say, five years . I would be hesitant to talk about the in an unclassified setting how we rank the competing threats. I will say that when we did the unclassified version of the annual threat assessment this year, we intentionally say we dont put these threats in here in rank order. We we include the full range of threats. And we included in that threat assessment a discussion of this particular issue. We do include it amongst the top issues. Jeff or rod, do you have a response to that . Yeah. I think one of the difficulties is the time scale of potential danger that every year or every week it would be hard to say Climate Change affects its a whole range of other events. If you integrate over time, 20, 30, 40 years, id be hardpressed to that its not in the top i would say that its not in the top of the russians National Security priorities. They in some respects welcome Climate Change. As do some other nations as well, i suppose. I said i would be brief. Turns out i wasnt. I apologize. I yield back. Mr. Quigley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Kiemel, you said something akin to nations dont enter conflicts over water, Something Like that. Historically, that has been a part of the solution to bilateral problems between states than a course of cause of conflict. Sixday war is an exception . That was certainly a factor in that war of many. But dont you see many examples like that where desperate countries do things in effort to secure their own situation and create conflicts . Because if theyre that desperate and theres ageold conflicts as you discussed earlier, this exacerbates the situation and becomes the spark to dry kindling. I think this is why were looking at this as a National Security issue as an intelligence topic. Because, while this has been largely the case here to fore, our concern is as droughts become more common, we are going to see rising disputes over water driven by water as natural disasters by flooding, become more common. Were going to were seeing this. Its particularly evident that water as an internal conflict. As i mentioned in my statement for the record, molly is an example. Just last month in nigeria there were northern and southern california. Precisely. Theres a lot of internal conflict over water. In these places like in west africa and eastern nigeria for example, you have water and drought as an issue intermixed with historic rivalries and ethnic rivalries and you have water as a contributor to an intensifying factor in those kinds of conflict. That provides opportunities for extremist groups, for terrorist organizations to take advantage of those conflicts to advance their interests as well. Thank you. If we have just for a few moments. Sir, you were talking about the changes in the russians northern fleet. You seem to minimize the abilities and changes that that will do. The changing ice patterns. Mr. Pompeo warned in just this last month of the dangers of russian and chinese activities in the arctic due to these changes. Could you say if there are threats, military what does it do for them pbesides make thm more navigable. Is it easier to defend . From a defense issues, not just protecting ourselves but a threat to the u. S. And our allies, why does this change the ball game, if it does . I think in most respects the arctic has been a closed off from a defense perspective for years. Now it appears that the ice there is melting. Thats going to open up from a russian perspective a threat vector to them. Theyre going to but theyve been fairly modest in their modernization. Theyre going to develop capabilities across the islands, primarily for monitoring is it simply it makes it easier for them to defend their interests there or how is it a greater threat to the u. S. And its allies . More laymans term. Its less a threat to the United States directly than it would be to our allies. Of the eight arctic states, theyre mostly nato, sweden and finland the exceptions but close allies. Conflicts that involve russia and our allies in the region involve us. I think that would be the threat. Again, is the main threat that they can move their ship being easier and its easier for them to be aggressive . I dont think thats the threat. Their shipping is very small and minuscule and i dont think it eases their ability to be aggressive. The fact that norms in the arctic are now a question of governance and sort of establishing that governance opens the potentiality for conflict. To date, arctic nations have shown a good bit of restraint in being able to resolve the issues bilateral bilaterally. Thank you. Dr. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. On one side of the issue we recognize that in handling all this, u. S. Cant do it alone. If the u. S. Is acting alone to make change and do things right with technology, et cetera, et cetera, in some ways its kind of like being a nonsmoking section on a plane. If were the only ones who are doing it. Were going to have to deal with this in a lot of ways and deal with the changes. I appreciated mr. Quigleys question about what are other nations doing to their advantage, are they taking opportunity or protecting themselves in some ways. You know, we also look at situations for some. Farming becomes more difficult in this situation. For others, it may become more viable in other parts of the world. I think you mentioned something about new markets of fishing lanes and things like that, that may open up as a result. These are things to keep an eye on, too. The point im trying to make, for some there may be good things and others not good things, right . Lets go to Infectious Diseases and things like that for a second and epidemics due to Climate Change. I understand a change in water status and temperature and migration of certainly animals may lead to diseases. Animals or insects. Mainly to diseases that need to be dealt with. I wonder if you can give me examples that we should be concerned about. Not necessarily the u. S. But around the world. Ill get to why i want to be concerned about how its affecting other parts of the world. I had two points on this issue. One issue is Warming Trends in combination with more rainfall and flooding. Its potential to increase the frequency of waterborne diseases. I mentioned that. I didnt know if there were any particular that you were seeing or need to be predicting or to be ready for. I understand that. I said i understand waterborne and temperature. Malaria, things like that. Depending upon the situation. Heres where im going. Without going into examples, theres always an opportunity. You know, part of intelligence is also being part of nation building in a lot of ways. I think the continent of africa was very grateful to the efforts made by president george w. Bush in bringing treatments for aids to africa. So if we see these things that we cant stop from happening necessarily, can we be on top of it and use it to our advantage to do some nation building to be able to help from the medical side . You see a doctor in front of my name. You see where im going here. Are there opportunities there for some things that we maybe cant stop to be the ones to be there to be of assistance as we try to nation build . Absolutely. Were not alone as a nation in seeing opportunities do that. The chinese are also seizing opportunities to bring medical personnel into, for example, africa and say were from the chinese government, were here to help. Also want their minerals at the same time. I would rather be on the right side of this. But i think the one of the major papers just wrote something about the see see flies. Higher producing european dairy cows that will have much higher rate of dairy production. Bring to them. Alleviating Food Shortages because we were able to help them develop defenses against the flies by changing the threat to them. I hope we continue town that lane. As things occur, we may not be able to stop or control. Lets be part of the solution. Build good relationships in that way. I yield back. Thank you. I lost a friend last year to west nile virus who contracted it in los angeles. Who would imagine you would contract west nile virus in los angeles. Mr. Hack. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Panel Members for being here very much and i especially want to thank the chair for holding what i think is a very important hearing. It seems to me were at the point where action yowe matic that there are im not sure theres a great purpose served by reiterating them. But the economic stress, the impact to the land. The arctic lanes, food insecurity, migration patterns, country destabilization. Sea rise. Et cetera, et cetera. Its been documented in report after report. Heres my question. I want to start with you in the middle, sir. Within the intelligence communi community, whose job specifically is it . To ask the questions what are the implications to our intelligence gathering to the ic of Climate Change. How is it that we should adapt to it. Whose job is it specifically to do that. Across the Intelligence Community, there are various groups who have the responsibility for looking at this as one of the Strategic Issues that look at it. Within the National Intelligence council, our Strategic Futures Group has done a lot of work on this. Its part of the annual program of analysis that the chair of the ni krfrmt puts together to say what are we going to be doing on this issue. Among the list of other things. Theres no central point. It is within a broader framework. Its like some of the things like broader technological change and the way its going to impact us, it affects us from a functional issue perspective but it also affects each of the regional groups. So what the nic has done and other ic agencies have done is say when we look at the cross cutting issues, how do we make sure we arent creating gaps and seams in that. The way that we do that is by ensuring that there is that when we put together a program of analysis that were asking all of the right questions. That sounds like theres no place where the buck stops, frankly. What i didnt hear you say, for example, that theres anybody specifically responsible for integrating climatological expertise with country specific expertise so that we understand specifically whats happening in a region as a consequence of Climate Change that is of a National Security implication that does impinge upon our ability as an ic to operate effectively. I think this is a gap, frankly, in our ability to adapt. I think this is a gap in our ability to respond to this, frankly. I think something needs to be done about it. Im going to introduce the climate Security Intelligence act when we go over on the floor in just about an hour. Its going to establish a climate Security Intelligence center at odni. I think the buck needs to stop somewhere. I think we need to be able to see, frankly, a sign on a door that says this is where this activity has to be taken up. We believe its enough of a priority that there is a focal point to it. So that we can in fact, adequately respond to this challenge that we have. That is a major. Im not going to rank order it in terms of all the other challenges. But theres no question that Climate Change is an existential issue for the global community. So that is part of why i was so very glad that the chair called this meeting. I want to express my appreciation to him for calling the hearing but helping work with us in the development of this legislation and joining me as an original cosponsor. I want to invite any of the other members of the committee who believe it is time to elevate this issue to join me in cosponsorship of this legislation because somebody needs to be responsible for asking these questions, integrating the answers so that, again, that our national ic apparatus can be as effective as is possible in dealing with t ive got 19 seconds left to ask a longer question. Not unrelated is in order stream 2. If any of you have particular expertise id like you to respond to what kind of threat, if any, the successful completion of nord stream 2 pose to our National Security . Nord stream 2, the pipeline in the baltic, sir . Yes. I think largely, it prevents it allows russia to manipulate gas in europe without affecting the Eastern European transit routes. Previously weaponize fossil fuel. Essentially, sir. You could punish poland, ukraine and warsaw bloc countries without punishing germany in particular imt. Way over time. Thank you very much. Ms. Stephan i. Thank you, chairman schiff. Recently the Defense Department released a report stating that there are vulnerabilities to 79 installations worldwide over the due to Climate Change. Can you comment whether you feel ic facilities are at risk due to Climate Change . I think we talk about them in a classified setting. We could take them as a question for the record if youd like. In terms of our partners, what are they doing to address potential challenges with our intel capabilities when it comes to Climate Change . Would you mind repeating the question, please . Sorry. Other countries that we work with to gather intelligence, our partners, what are they doing to address the intel capabilities, challenges stemming from Climate Change. I am reluctant to say. Thats not an area that i have looked at closely. Again, i would appreciate the opportunity to take that as a question for the record as well. Does anyone have an answer to that question . Seems like a fairly straightforward question as to what other nations are doing, particularly intel partners when it comes to addressing Climate Change. Im sorry, i just dont know. No answer to that question. I would look forward to getting that for the record. I think thats a pretty critical question to have an understanding who our closest allies are, how theyre addressing threats related to Climate Change. Just to clarify, were you talking about our partners intelligence. Our five eye. Any best practices. The intelligence agencies of the correct. No answer. Thats disappointing at this hearing we dont have an answer to that. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman. One of you on the panel mentioned earlier the longterm effect of migration and around the world theres 70 million displaced from their homes. Much of that because of civil war, famine and so forth. But i want to ask you about migration and Climate Change. Can you explain for us how the ic assesses the intersection of migration and climate impacts specifically with regard to central and south america in the coming years. Well, certainly climaterelated hazards are contributing to global migration. I think thats in Central America in particular, thats in combination with other factors like economic problems, low levels of governance and corruption and certainly high levels of violence and crime. That are driving migration from Central America. This is one of those areas where things like drought in Central America are worsening economic conditions. Whether thats a global as a result of Global Warming or whether thats a result of just a series of weather drought has been a factor in some of these countries. That gets to the point that the solution to these problems is its difficult to solve one problem without taking a holistic approach to solving all of them. This is certainly a factor in Central America. But its part of a range of factors. Just to jump in, i think we have some amount of anxiety and Intelligence Community to draw really heavy causal link to environmental conditions in general to certain specific migration patterns. We looked to the Academic Community to really suss out that from their standpoint. But oftentimes, we will make general assessments. Im not aware of an Intelligence Community assessment on that particular issue. All right. I wanted to followup on a question about the Arctic Council. What kind of types of climate disruptions or other factors might threaten the efficacy to resolve disputes or other claims. For dispute settlement in the Arctic Council, it operates on a consensusbased approach. So everyone has to agree. Its a charter to not be a security form, too. But its all bilaterally for actual problem solving. For what the Arctic Council has done in and of itself, it has been ecological response, search and rescue initiatives. Almost solely. Things that everybody can agree on that oil spills are bad and that we want to help people in distress. Disputes are settled buy rilatei primarily. The i would say the problem has been the sort of general decline in russian reels with the west. Its caused russia to withhold its consensus in the last five and six years. All right. I yield back. Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. You know, the role youre playing by bringing to our attention the effects of Climate Change, obviously, is very important, particularly given the political debate about its existence. But it seems to me that the two major Security Issues have to do with population displacement in migration in the stress that places on the receiving countries and then secondly, the internal dislocation that occurs when theres not enough food and leads to acceleration in destabilizing lack of governance. Weve seen with what happened with the migrations in europe and we even see it here in this country with pressure from the triangle countries, people coming up here to escape violence and also economic insecurity, that it creates enormous pressure even on countries that are very mature with governance systems. Can you just ill ask you, mr. Kiemel to comment on just what happens in the dynamic that happens that is of concern to the Security Intelligence folks where the increasing the increasing lack of food, particularly in african countries, what that does and what the effect is on more mature countries where theres a perception among people who are suffering there that theres a refuge. It really is, as i earlier said, difficult to separate out the climate dimensions from all of the other dimensions. So really, you have to look at it as sort of an intensifier of the dimensions that many other problems, internal problems countries are facing that prompt the violent outbreaks between people and groups and prompt the migration. But to the extent that we see extreme weather events such as floods or heat waves or severe tropical storms that are becoming more frequent, thats adding more stress and leading to an increased number, potentially of displaced people. And that effect then is felt disproportionately in certain regions and other countries and adds to stress in those countries. Weve seen, for example, the migration from syria not necessarily climaterelated, obviously, but migration itself causes stress in neighboring countries. Turkey and jordan, for example. Even across into europe. Thank you. The National Academy of sciences report in 2011 said for every degree celsius that the Global Thermostat rises there will be a 5 to 15 decrease in overall cron crop production. Thats significant with the population expected to be about 10 billion by 2050. There was a question, i think, the chairman asked early on about isis and al qaeda. It seems to me and im looking for your response to this that the big advantage for groups like that is instability in the inability of a local government to be able to provide stability to an Economic Opportunity for its citizens. Can you just comment, mr. Ring hawes en on how that dynamic is an accelerant for extremist groups . Sir, i would say just briefry in the maritime realm, as ocean water increased in temperature, its driven fisheries north and thats created instability in food security. Its going to change industry and potentially affect subsistence level fishing in some native communities. But im not qualified to speak on extremist groups, sir. Sir, i can jump in on that. Terrorist groups. I refer back to my statement for the record on this. Terrorist groups have exploited natural disasters and water and Food Shortages in countries including iraq, including nigeria, pakistan, somalia. They use this for the problems the intense problems in governance for example or economic problems. They use it to boost support and their support among populations. To the extent that these food and water shortages spark local conflicts, that also creates potential for the terrorist groups to move in and gain recruits or a safehaven. Essentially stability is bad for terrorism, instability is good. Right. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you all for your participation today. Excuse me. Dr. Schoonover, as the global as the globe heats up, scientists assess that long frozen microbes buried in the permafrost will be exposed. Potentially carrying diseases to which no living human was natural resistance. In a recent kpanl am in siberia in 2016, a 12yearold boy died and 20 other people sickened with anthrax after a 75yearold reindeer carcass thawed during a heat wave and infected local water supplies. What could prehistoric germs place on local Health Systems and how could that impact our military readiness. Thats a really good question. Its actually a really good illustration of a class of National Security problems that i think of in terms of climate linked surprise. If you had assessed ahead of time what the risk from thawing and caribou from the permafrost would be presents itself. It makes sense. I dont really know what the level of exposure is and i would look to the scientific assessment on the prevalence of that. One of the things that it is sometimes hard to do is separate anecdote from trend. But emergent diseases or reemergent diseases from previously from frozen permafrost for example provided, i think, if it were recent enough, if it goes back too far, it might not have the degree of infectability on human beings. Im speculating there. But i do believe that its probably some emergent risk for humans and animals depend on. Any other comments . This is for any of you on the panel . Is it conceivable that a war between vietnam and china could erupt in the South China Sea if the location of fish moved due to Climate Change . I think its we would expect there to be tension as a result of moving fisheries. Many countries globally, not just in the high north, depend on fish as an important part of their diet and so water temperatures have warmed and stocks are moving be north, were seen types of fish further north than theyve been seen. Be be be be the biomass across be at noeme alaska increased offer five years. Fish will move to where theyre comfortable. Thats going to create industry problems and problems between nations. I would be hesitant to speculate on a specific conflict as a result. The conflict certainly will be in the offing as the waters warm and the fish population moves and food becomes scarcer, correct . Certainly. I think in my mind what i would expect is a country whose fish stocks were in their exclusive economic zone, now those fish stocks moved to someone elses. You could find conflict as their fishermen move to get the same species of fish that their populations prefer. That would create a conflict not necessarily in the example you provided between vietnam and china, but vietnam and some country further north, for example. May i jump in . Certainly. This is an illustration of what i was referring to in my Opening Statement about redistribution of animal and plants in the oceans and land. Those effects are almost certain to create new tensions across maritime domains. One of the other really important pressures is the overexploitation of fisheries. There are fewer fish and more fishery vessels out on the ocean and so sometimes its hard to remove the climate signal. We kind of bundle a lot of these stressors together. But in terms of, like, weather, a hot conflict will emerge between two particular countries, its hard to assess. But i would imagine that the risk of tensions would be there. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Carson . Thank you, chairman. With respect to weapons proliferation in the context of Global Climate legitimacy challenges in the wake of Climate Change in addition to posting adequate levels of weapons that could inturn lead to a proliferation scenario. Who should we keep our eye on in this regard . The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the proliferation of conventional arms is a very real near term threat. And the drivers for that, i think, are more sort of near term in nature. When we get at the National Security implications of Climate Change, were talking more strategic threats over time. So im hesitant to say that climate the going to be a major driver of that. But just as i mentioned earlier where Climate Change is driving internal conflict and internal conflict leads to challenges to governance, id say you have to think about that then where there are potential for groups who would like to do things that are bad, like terrorists or proliferators of mass destruction to do bad things. And the list of places that have both real high climate challenges and real high levels of things that we have to worry about like north korea or iran are you know, the overlap between those isnt really great. Id try and separate out the Climate Change from the broader challenge that we face. Would india and pakistan be a part of that conversation as well . Yes, i would say. Again, just trying to avoid some kind of causal link that Climate Change will produce instability and therefore some kind of concern in terms of weapons of mass destruction, but i would say that india and pakistan are Nuclear Capable countries that are also in the views of some highly fragile states with large populations and high climate exposure areas. What the outcome of that exposure you know, theres a lot of randomness and theres a lot of human choice, but i think the committee should be aware there is a known source of tension between india and pakistan over water. The degree to which Climate Change affects that tension through the river system, i think is a point of concern and its something that the Intelligence Community has often cited in our annual threat assessments as a place to watch. Any additional statements . All right. Thank you, chairman. I yield back. I know we have another of our Committee Members on the way but we should be able to wrap up before votes. Mr. Hiems. Good morning and thank you for being here. I wanted to follow up on something that has not come out perhaps as much as it could this morning, which is stakeaways this committee might have particularly as we think about budget and structure and architecture been the i. C. , this is obviously a threat over a long period of time across a lot of geography. I suspect that 10 or 20 years ago the i. C. Was not thinking much about it. What should we as overseers, as authorizers be thinking in terms of both opportunities we might take within the budget but also perhaps under addressed threats, other things we should be thinking about when we think about structure and funding for the i. C. . As we discussed with representative heck, this is an issue where there is broad coverage in the i. C. , but a centralized focus for it is difficult to point to. Have you by chance had an opportunity to review mr. Hecks bill . Im sorry. If were going to talk anything related to the budget, i think we should probably take it as a question for the record. I do want to point out that the i. C. s assessment of these issues does go back a couple of decades at least. As the chairman pointed out at the beginning, we were doing things on this issue already. We were doing assessments already on this issue in the 90s. We produced a National Intelligence assessment on this in 2008. So one of my prior positions at the National Intelligence council was the director of viemt and Natural Resources where i josefa saw the long res Climate Change. Just speaking from a nonbudgetary analytic standpoint thats a great question. My service to the government started in 2009, well after it was in place. But i was quite familiar with the program and the scientist. Whether that program should be reinitiated that may be a question for other people in the Intelligence Community. What i would say is that ideally we could to some degree have those capabilities within the u. S. Government without necessarily having to go outside to the Academic Community which is through the program. Thats kind of what i was talking about before with the silos. Ideally, our preferred sources are u. S. Government sources. We would prefer not to wait until some compendium of findings are published. We would prefer to go right to what we consider the most trusted scientists in the world. Theyre sitting in our own government. Again, theres nothing really preventing this, but its not highly enabled. One of the benefits as i understand it of madea is we might have classified imagery of the earth that could help inform climate scientists about changes that are very graphic. So that would be one benefit, i assume, of not doing it all inhouse sharing of information. But it sounds like theres also a need to have better sharing within the government and cultivate the experience thats already there. Yeah. And i can let my cowitnesses jump in here but one of the things just from the Intelligence Community analytic standpoint, the questions that we get from policy makers, we dont usually get to wait for more information to come in. Our assessment is due in three days or three hours. And increasingly the questions that are posed to the Intelligence Community particularly on Climate Change often require some technical capacity. We often dont have that internally to the Intelligence Community on evolving concerns. So it would be beneficial to turn to the proper experts in the government who have the timely information that may not have been produced in an academic paper or some kind of other consensus reporting that may come out a year later or two years later. The academic, the assessment, the packaging of information is on a different timeline than the Intelligence Communitys analytic framework. Thank you. Any other witnesses want to comment . Any of my colleagues want to ask any last questions . I would say, sir, from a Navy Intelligence perspective, the National Center which is part of right across the street from the Navy Intelligence, where most of its man power is. Its an Interagency Organization led by the navy in partnership with noaa and the coast guard. Thats where we go for our information. The question earlier about authorization and those things in respect to mr. Hecks bill, the drivers of maritime Climate Change to National Security are going to be economic, so having Economic Analysis and thought baked into that, i think, would be important because thats going to be the proceeding indicator of military issues. Thank you. Any further questions from my colleagues . All right. I want to thank the witnesses for the testimony today and we are adjourned. The House Intelligence Committee begins a series of hearings next week on the mueller report. Former white House Counsel john dean will testify on capitol hill along with former u. S. Attorneys and legal experts on some of the Lessons Learned from such investigations. We will have live coverage here on cspan 3 starting at 2 00 p. M. Eastern. You can also watch online at cspan. Org. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests in china where thousands of students met in a Pro Democracy Movement in summer of 1989. In may of that year the government ended the sitins with assault rifles and tanks. Watch tonight starting at 8 00 eastern here on cspan 3. The complete guide to congress is now available. Contact and bioinformation about every senator and representative, plus information about congressional committees, state governors and the cabinet. The 2019 congressional directory is a handy spiral bound guide. Order your copy from the cspan online store for 18. 95