Dan Sullivan

One of the things that has been an enormous source of frustration which I think goes to the federalism issues...

I agree with my Ranking Member on the importance of the oceans. We have a lot of bipartisan agreement on these issues.

How would you like to be told that we are not going to guarantee that subsistence is going to be there for you because we are not going to actively manage for it?

I certainly would help my colleagues on the committee.

States must have more control over their fish and wildlife populations.

But if that were the case, would we not still want an increased budget and maybe have you weighted towards R&D?

Which is should our missile defense budgets be flat or really going down when there is no doubt that the threat is going up.

But you mentioned the low probability right now. But in your assessment that is unlikely to stay low.

Given importance, though, I think most Americans would recognize that a little bit of inconvenience in that regard is okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Wouldn't that buy time for the President, whoever that--if it's President Trump--you know, when this becomes the big news in 2 years, 'Oh, my goodness, he can range Chicago with a nuke.'

I would--I agree with, I think, what you were feeding back to me, is that that missile defense infrastructure that we have is not adequate.

I think this should be on the table with the new administration when they're looking at a national security strategy in dealing with both of those actors along this line.

I think our allies are all very motivated to see American leadership here.

Is that something we should be looking at doing on a regular basis?

What do you believe the Russians are up to with their dramatic buildup in the Arctic?

I think they welcome our freedom-of-navigation operations.

I do think that we have made clear the policy on freedom of navigation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, gentlemen. Great to see two marines at the table.

The CT mission is clearly a combat operation.

I think, when we do that, you have better policy, you have better support, ultimately, from the American people.

So there is no demonizing here. The problem is when a Federal agency doesn't follow the law, it is our responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.

SMCRA provides States--I just read it. 101(f), the primary government responsibility on developing, authorizing, issuing, and implementing regs belongs with the States.

Do you think that was fair?

You can't pass a law, so you break a law with a regulation. The States that are impacted are almost 100 percent against it, which you will get sued on this one, trust me.