Angus King

Approximately 600 million people in Africa have no electricity.

To argue that somehow the Federal Government impeded this technology, when in fact, it facilitated it, is just not accurate in terms of the historic record.

I think it is one of the great failures of the Federal Government for 60 years that we have not found a way to deal with this.

The historic record is absolutely clear that loan guarantees, research and support from the Department of Energy in the 60s and 70s was essential to the development of the hydro fracking technology.

If I were king, there are some things I would do legislatively that we have tried to do without a whole lot of success.

I hope you would correct that. I will be following up.

It strikes me that that is not fair to the taxpayers of the country who have to make up the difference.

I feel it is a treaty obligation and should not be treated as just another National Park that happens to be very far to our East.

I think that is an important point for this Congress to understand that there is a real problem in national security with leaving the sequester in place.

I do not believe you are ever going to be able to protect yourself fully by defensive cyber technology.

There is a fantasy around here that we are fixing the sequester by dealing with it in the Defense budget...

I would point out that if we have greater distribution of distributed energy, that is customers making their own energy and interacting with the grid, that in itself would be a national security plus.

The next Pearl Harbor is going to be cyber.

If we win a town in Syria and lose 10,000 kids in France or Belgium or Florida or Ohio, that's not victory.

If we can work with other parties, particularly Russia, to move Assad off the stage, then you've got an Arab army, a Muslim army, in Syria.

We can't wait years for Assad to leave and we turn the guns of the opposition and the Syrian army on ISIL.

We've got to find a strategy that allows us to move Assad aside in some way, working with the Russians, if necessary, or the Iranians, if necessary, because he's the irritant that's keeping this thing stirred up.

We're not going to defeat ISIS with just airpower. Everybody knows that.

A strategy that ignores Assad... I just think in--I'm--I think we now need to recognize that that's not a logical strategy.

I consider this extremely grave, a grave issue, because if we don't have reliable intelligence, as policymakers, and if the President doesn't have reliable intelligence, we can't make good policy.

I want to submit for the record an extraordinary speech by Robert Gates in 1992, when he was head of the CIA, on the danger of the politicization of intelligence.

I really think you need to rethink a strategy about a safe zone, a no-fly zone, some protection from Assad's barrel bombs.

Assad and ISIS are evil twins. ISIS largely came into existence in reaction to Assad.

It makes the ISIS look invincible and more powerful, and that's--helps in their recruiting, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Which only exacerbates the sectarian conflict, which makes ISIS look good to the Sunni chiefs in Anbar.