Angus King

We should have--it's one of the few large institutions I know of that doesn't have an operating budget and a capital budget.

If you do this to us, you will pay a price?

I think it is, as we think about deterrence.

By definition, a contingency account is not a contingency account if you are spending it for base budget purposes.

Clearly that is where we are. All the testimony both in the Intelligence Committee and Armed Services has been from professionals. They have never seen anything quite like the instability and unpredictability of the world that we are in.

This is like General Robert E. Lee losing J.E.B. Stuart before the Battle of Gettysburg. As I remember, General Lee's comment was 'I am blind.' That is what we are talking about.

I think it would be a tragedy if we pull our forces out of there prematurely.

There is no low-hanging fruit. There is no easy solution to it.

It would be helpful to us, in terms of allocating resources to protect against this, to have some analysis.

It's going to be difficult. But, I'm very happy to have your testimony, this morning, which underlines for this committee and for the country how serious a threat this is to our National security.

I want to thank you both for your emphasis on the importance of the effect of sequestration on your commands and on your ability to carry out your responsibilities.

What people don't realize is, two-thirds of the Federal budget isn't subject to sequestration.

The key to stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, is to make their countries more attractive places to live.

I generally meet with CIA personnel around the world, and I have found them to be uniformly patriotic, intelligent, passionate about their work on behalf of this country.

To build the finest ship with the deadliest battery and to send it afloat with a raw crew, no matter how brave they are individually would be ensure disaster if a foe of average capacity were encountered.

We are really not adequately, I believe, focusing on our strategic interests in that region.

The Arctic is an important area of policy, and I know you have been looking at it.

Isn't it a net-zero immigration from Mexico at this point?

As I understand it, it's actually compromised--our failure to be a member of that treaty is actually compromising our ability, for example, to stake claims to where the Continental Shelf is.

I would like to see a little more detail about how you are going to tackle that.

If we aren't able to avoid the sequester, are American lives being put at risk?

The Russians are making huge moves in the Arctic with regard to new bases, with regard to new airfields, new Arctic command, claiming territory over huge swaths of the Arctic.

I wonder if we shouldn't be developing a theory of deterrence similar to nuclear deterrence in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

I think it is the next frontier of warfare.

The Arctic is emerging as an enormously important and strategic area.