foreign policy that will project american strength, not american uncertainty. not a policy that says we're going to invade first, use american power and try to remake countries around the world without being able to foresee the consequences but also not a policy like we're seeing with president obama today that says pull back, pull back pull back. sending that kind of message of uncertainty and disengagement from the world today. it is a neoisolationist policy and that is not the policy that protects the united states of america. there must be a new foreign policy in the country. [ applause ] [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, president obama does not believe in america, the america i believe. >> or the america you believe in.in a country that's a force for good in the world and makes a

difference in a positive way in the world. he does not believe that we can be a force for good in the world. the president gave a speemp in cairo. do you remember that speech in went to cairo and apologized for the united states to send a message of uncertainty right from the very beginning we were now going to be a different kind of country. he went to west point and spoke to those wonderful graduates ready to take degrees and commissions and go stand up for us as necessary across the world and said they were not going to have any difficulties because of america's policy of pulling back. as an army veteran, i was embarrassed by that speech. he goes to the prayer breakfast a few weeks ago and says at the prayer breakfast that isis are bad people but we have to remember that during the crusades, the christians were bad people too. now, ladies and gentlemen, when he gave that remark, i went into the press, and i said that that was the worst statement i've heard a president make in my

lifetime. [ cheers and applause ] here's why. it's a matter of sending a imagine into the world with the bad people who are using this so-called false crusader statement to recruit their people, and our president goes into the community and says, oh, no they were bad, christians were bad. we americans, you know we're sorry for these things. ladies and gentlemen, this is very bad. it's time for a new foreign policy, but our president will not do that because he does not believe in america. i believe in america. we have to have a foreign policy that believes in engagement in the world, one that shapes the world to ensure that the american people are safe to make sure that we use all of our elements of power, diplomatic culture, and the ability and the strength of the american people,

our economy, and first thing i told you about, as i said to you, it's about the economy, economy, and national security are the same thing. american power in the 20th century made the difference and will again. i believe our policy, ladies and gentlemen, has to be based on the premise of peace through strength in the united states of america. [ applause ] finally, we have to have an international policy and place in the world that understands what we're trying to do. what we're trying to do in my view is in addition to the safety and security of the american people. we have to be willing to say that we are going to project our values into the 21st zenkcentury. we are not going to let other cultures and countries dominate us with their thinking. america values are vital. what are the values? democracy and freedom.

the rule of law. the free enterprise system. the value of family. the freedom and tolerance of religion. the advancement of women. these are the values that america stands for. this is why together with security we conduct our forp policy to give us the mission for the 21st century that we must have. now, we're going to do q&a in a few minutes, but before i stop, one thing, as governor of virginia, you stand in great shoes. it's a great responsibility. as governor of virginia, i think about some of my predecessors like governor thomas overson, for example, before he became governor of virginia, he wrote the declaration of independence and said in there he said in there that we hold these truths

to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they're endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. when he wrote those things he did not just speak as an american, but for all humanity and remains so to this day. i think of another governor of virginia -- by the way jefferson was governor and the british tried to arrest and hang him as governor of virginia. he was a war governor too. patrick henry was another governor of virginia. in 1775, the war was already going on in boston. the virginians meant in st. john's church in richmond. at that time there was a discussion, what do we do? voices said we need to combine back up and reconcile back with king george iii, and patrick henry stood up saying no, i

know not what course others, but for me, give me liberty or give me death. that ought to resinate real well in new hampshire it seems to me. [ applause ] so, friends, the story of patrick henry means this. patrick henry believed in america. patrick henry believed in america before there was an america. i believe in america. you believe in america. now is time that we had a president that believes in america. thank you very much for the chance to be with you. [ applause ] >> we have questions microphones, just raise your hand. >> governor? >> warren? >> i don't really need a microphone. i'll ask you the question. >> you need the mic. [ laughter ] >> all right thank you very

much. how, as president, do you incentivize congress to have the courage and the fortitude to actually lower the business taxes which we all know would increase our opportunities and stimulate our economy. how do you do that? >> yeah you know i think we got to talk to the people in the united states about what's real leer. we're all getting this information that everything is just fine, but you know people out there, and i do too not having the opportunities they are having or need to have. we know people are working part time. do you know them? people that want full time jobs and can't find them so they work part time. we have to do that. what do you do with the congress? well, what you do with the congress is make it clear that the american people want better. i'll tell you another story too. another thing is you know, congressional people really love to spend money. i don't know if you noticed that, but they do. i stood up in front of a group of republicans and democrats just recently, and i said, you

know, many of you out there want to spend every dime, wouldn't you? and they nodded. said, yeah. i said, fine, let's get more dimes. we'll argue about whether we're going to use them on the debt or give them back to the american people or whether you want to spend it but you can't have a stagnant economy. it is not good for anybody. it's not good for your constituents. you need somebody to stand up on a national basis and explain the truth to people. explain to the american people that they are deliberately being kept in a slow growth economy that's depriving them of opportunities. i know what i'm talking about. when you increase the taxes on investment, you get less investment. people know that. members of congress know that too. the time has come to take it over their heads to the people, someone who can talk to the people about the opportunities they miss. i think it is a tragedy what is going on with young people. 48% of young people are working in jobs that do not require a

college degree. i said that to you. you know what a tragedy that is? every year america renews itself when people come out of college. we can't continue to stunt and stall young people who are not getting a fair start in life. this is the discussion we have to have with the people, and they'll take it to the congress people, but you got to hold congress's feet to the fire and make it clear that growth must be the mission of the united states. it's in the national security interest too. yes, ma'am? >> ladyiesladies, first, go ahead. >> oh go ahead. >> is this on? >> it's on. >> thank you, paul. a question with homeland security, and, certainly our infrastructure is becoming aged, and our -- especially our electrical grid, attacked in

california just a rogue attack. we've got drones, somebody could go over our system bring it down. what are your suggestions for improving our infrastructure from a national security perspective? >> well, very good. i chaired the national commission on homeland security at the united states. i was actually approached when i was governor. interestingly enough by the clinton administration. they came to me. i was the governor of virginia. they knew i had a background in terrorism issues and they asked me to chair what is a very official commission. you'll find that on the rand cooperation web page staff it, put in gilmore commission on the rand web page and reports come up. you can see that. what we need to do is to be willing to advance our infrastructure and make sure that it's safe and secure. that's what we have to do. and all of those reports explain exactly the kind of processes we have to go through to make our infrastructure safe and secure, but i think the real issue is a

deep understanding of the potential attack on us. they spend a couple thousand dollars and attack us and then because of the modern information systems that we see, we can spend a trillion dollars trying to respond to that kind of thing. bin laden said the goal was the destruction of the american economy, and that will certainly do it. we have to have an explanation for the american people of these kinds of dangers, keep ourselves as secure as possible, but have a frank discussion with the american people we are not going to surrender our freedoms because of these attacks. be steadfast be strong and stay americans. you'll find in the report letter i wrote that i basically said if the enemy makes us give up civil freedoms, that's the entire game. i'm not one to propose that in the official reports put an emphasis on the preservation of liberties at the same time we try to protect the infrastructure. i have to say, by the way, mike,

matt, if i could say -- and i'll ask, but article 1 section 8 of the constitution talks about internal improvements and infrastructure, a legitimate thing for the united states to do. mr. ambassador? >> thank you very much. thank you for your service to the country and thank you for coming up here and you're very well spoken notes. i would ask you two short questions. everyone in this room whomever they decide to vote for we have one goal. that's to take back the white house. what is the most important thing that you believe sir, that we need to do in order to take back the white house and, number two, to avoid losing the white house? >> oh. we republicans are more diverse than the democratic party. democrat party knows exactly

what they are trying to do. they don't -- they argue about who is going to run up front put the flag up and be the leader. their agenda is set, understood and they don't argue with each other. we do. we republicans are so diverse that there's a tendency to get across purposes with each other. now, i believe, if you look at the elements of the republican party, reflective of the people of the united states that we can bring people together behind a common message. that message must be growth of the american economy and peace through strength. we republicans ought to be able to agree with that. i believe that is in concord, ambassador ambassador, with the people's thinking across the united states. it's been a lot of discussion about how the potential candidate in '16 is a governor or past governor because they want to see somebody who actually run something, but i believe what i'm bringing to the table is a long history of thinking about the international relations in this country. the degree in foreign policy

from uva experience overseas, training as an speejs agent living among the german people. study of international law. visited 18 countries on three continue innocents as governor. in addition to that, i've been to afghanistan, pakistan israel croatia chaired the national commission for five years on homeland security after the three years in the 9/11 attack, i was the governor of virginia during the 9/11 attack and had to protect my state and reawaken the economy of my state, which took a terrible blow when they closed airports in virginia around the washington, d.c. area. this is the kind of experience that i think that we take to the people of the united states. listen we're not going to win the presidency because we look pretty. or because we've got some radical weird thing that one of our candidates decides to say or something that's out of step with the american people. we are win if we are persuasive that we care about regular

people out there who can't get a job and can't work and don't have decent wages. people out there who are recognizing the weakness that the united states' message is sending. i talked to you, ambassador moments ago about the president's weakness in the statements he's projecting, and the dangers that's creating as the russians fly planes against the states. the terrorist people who continue to bubble up out there and threaten our country. isis, which represents a barbaric way of life, completely out of sync what we stand for, those values i laid out to you. don't you remember the strength, the strength of purpose that a ronald reagan said when he said, mr. gor chov tear down this wall? if we have the strength to back it up, if we rebuild our

economy, which was the beacon of liberty in the 20th century and can be again in the 21st if we do these things, we can preserve the peace and more importantly preserve our values and liberties in the 21st century. [ applause ] next question? yes. >> governor do you believe that we can pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment and what effect do you think passing the budget would we be able to shrink federal government? >> you know, in virginia, we have a balanced budget amendment. we have to balance the budget. every governor every year submits a budget that's in balance. balance a budget by borrowing. you can balance a budget by

doing bonding. you can do that. we did that do. people do that. you buy a house you borrow money from a bank as well. i'm skeptical, frankly, of a balanced budget amendment. i think we probably ought to be in a position where we can get our legislators to make decisions about what's vital and not vital. if we have a sense of direction and you know what i'd rather do? grow the economy. i'd rather create some real excitement and wealth, and gov all, we have to stop the notion we see in america today that the opportunity to rise and to acquire wealth and to succeed is bad. that's what the opposition party is saying. [ applause ] ladies and gentlemen if you destroy either the incentives, the opportunity, or the will to become successful in this country, you destroy this country. that is what the opposition party preaches every day.

success is evil. we'll tax it. we'll penalize it. that's what they say every day. i say no. i say that we have to give young people an opportunity to be educated to succeed to have a chance to grow and have some excitement. all of us ought to be able to do that. we should see our wages going up. we have to pay taxes, so be it. you know frankly that's probably the better way to do this instead of trying to constrain the government through a budget amendment that's worked around by governmental officials. let's grow the economy and create more wealth and then demand the people that we send to the house and senate do something meaningful about cutting and controlling the spending in this country. i believe the country can work with proper presidential leadership, i believe the country can work. we have a -- i say we have a president that does not believe in america. i mean it because the america he believes in is not the america i believe in. or you believe in.

and we can restore that country again through leadership at the national level and in cooperation with members of the house and senate like kelly ai yod who does a great job for you here. we can do this. [ applause ] [ applause ] maybe that's not the answer you wanted, but it's the answer you got. >> last question. two minutes left. >> two minutes. >> thank you. okay, sir how do you feel about -- well, congress has the power to levy taxes. we all agree on that. but how do you feel about unelected unnamed epa bureaucrats having the power to levy taxes on the american public and businesses via fossil fuel regulatory taxes? [ applause ] >> yeah.

well, that's a softball question, okay? obviously. in this, we all concur. the epa is out of control. they have no concept of what they are doing to the extremeness of their ideas. they should not have the power to levy regulations on people that cause businesses to have to spend that kind of money because the message that we have to give, ladies and gentlemen from now on is that we are determined to grow the economy back again. the epa does not care about that. as a matter of fact, many people in the environmental protection agency do not want to see a growing economy. they think is creates dirt. right? [ laughter ] we must grow the economy. if the epa puts an unreasonable regulation, that is wrong, and i fought the congress very much. where are they? how come they're not passing regulation or drawing people back in line? you know well, if you have a president that believes in america and understands opportunities that the precious

country brought for generations and generations, then we can build the support among the american people who says we will not dirty the air or water, but not going to allow crazy bureaucrats unaccountable to the people to raise costs on american opportunity and business which creates less of it. that is the reality of what we must do. so i guess they are going to jerk me around now. i'd like to be here for another hour with you. would be great fun. can i? can i get one more? i can get one more in. yes, sir? don't tell him i'm doing this, okay? [ laughter ] >> you said this was the last one. this is the last one. >> i'm from new england college. as a college student who is aware that college debt makes up 1.2 trillion dollars of the national debt, i would like to know, as president of the united states, what you could do to lower the debt and keep it low? >> i appreciate that.

as the governor of the state of virginia, i appointed the boards of visitors of all 15 major public universities, public universities in virginia. when i came in, i was alarmed by the amount of debt that our young people, both in and out of state our college students had to load on. i try to understand what the problem was, and i tried to deal with the problem this way. i passed in my budget and passed a law that said we're going to lower tuition for the universities 20 %. we did. [ applause ] oh, lord, the college administrators hated that. they thathated it. we built in the budget a priority for higher education. find costs $5 million to lower tuition 20% we'll give you the $5 million. if you go put that in the budget, and because we made a commitment to higher education. but the passage of the cut was

send on to the mothers and fathers whose children were in the colleges. the cut was -- the benefit was to them. so that's what i believe we need to do. i think we have got -- let me say this i think that higher education in america is an impending crisis because nobody is controlling the expenses and expenditures going on on the campus. [ applause ] the rate -- [ applause ] when i was governor i cared so much about this, i interviewed every person i apointed to the board of visitorings personally in my office and said to them, remember something, when you go to the college as a board member, you do not represent the college. you represent the shareholders, and you are our director of that organization, and you represent the shareholders, and the shareholders are the people of virginia. well likewise.

likewise. i believe that at the national level we can make a commitment to higher education. not usurp the states, but we can use that bully pulpit to make it clear that this is a crisis to be addressed, this high expenditure without any type of oversight or accountability, the increase of administrateors and not teachers the expenses that are loaded on to students, increased debt is a national crisis. i believe it can be addressed from washington somewhat by leadership in working with the governors in order to address this problem nationwide. ladies and gentlemen, matt's going to jerk me off now for sure. i leave you with this. what am i telling you? there are serious fundamental problems to be faced in the country that are not being faced. in fact, we are misleading people. it is time to grow this economy and create genuine excitement and opportunity for the people of america, and you can do it with a specific plan like the

one i created and the international challenge is most serious. it must require a new foreign policy, and i'm telling you it can be done. it doesn't have to be radical. it certainly shouldn't be isolationist. we can put together a plan that prereceiver preserves america's position, making us a force for good in the world and preserve values for the 21st century. thank you very much for the chance to be with you here today. thank you, jennifer. >> very nice awesome. thank you. >> thank you. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span3 2, on 3, we show you the relevant hearings and public affairs event, and on weekends, c-span3 is home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including the civil wars 150th anniversary visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts touring

museums and sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history book shelf with the best known american history writers, the presidency looking at policies and legacies of the nation's commanders and chiefs lectures in histories with top college professors delving into the past, and real america featuring archive government and educational films from the 1930s through the 70s. created by the cable industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. the united states recently began a two-year chairmanship with the arms counsel focusing on climate change, pollution and maritime safety. the center for strategic and international studies hosted a discussion about arctic issues including remarks by alaska's senator. this is two hours.

>> good morning, everyone. welcome to the center for strategic international studies. i'm extremely proud that the arctic is in my formal title. we here at csis in our program have a tradition. we host a public conversation just a few days before an arctic council add mip steer yal, so we had in 20 is 11 the road to nuke, and in 2013 the road to croon. today, we have the road to the senator who says iglooit but we're off next week. i could think of no more perfect speaker to over reflections just eight days before the united

states assumes the arctic council chairmanship than a person who has been in the areas participating as part of the u.s. delegation to the arctic council add ministerial to speak with us, and, of course, that's the senator, chairwoman of the senate committee on energy and natural resources and serves as member of the senate health education labor and pensions committee as well as the senate indian affairs committee. so, senator, you could not be better placed to help give insights. i think of you as one of thee key u.s. thought leaders on the arctic, international leaders seek you out to hear your thoughts on u.s. policy towards the arctic. you fearlessly hold hearings when the u.s. government shuts down, keeping focus on the arctic. you encourage the administration to do more and applaud them when they do, yet you are very clear

in your analysis when you and criticism when you think the u.s. administration has not made the mark. clearly, you are tirelessly working with the colleagues to say why the arctic matters to them. we are delighted there's an arctic working group with you and senator king from maine providing that leadership. you often talk about the arctic opportunity, the economics scientific, environmental and national security opportunity. and, clearly next week the united states has an extraordinary opportunity to show leadership in the arctic. with your applause, will you please join me in welcoming the senator to the podium? [ applause ] >> thank you, heather. thank you. >> thank you and good morning

to you all. it's always a good morning when we can gather in places to discuss great opportunity. i have can think of no other place on planet earth where we have more opportunity than the arctic. as was mentioned and as we all know, those that are focused on the area of opportunity, next week, a week from today the united states will assume the chair of the arctic council for the next two years now, and this is truly an exciting opportunity for us. for those of us who have been pushing for some time now to really place the arctic in a space of greater national bribery. for those here at csis embraced that position, and i really thank you for the continued interest, the advocacy on the arctic issues. not only today, but in the years

leading up. the presence today those of you who joined us those who are joining by the internet, you're showing your interest, again in a topic that is really quite keen right now, and i probably don't need to impress upon you why the arctic matters to the united states. i would suggest to you that perhaps the biggest challenge that we face right now on arctic policy is not with other members of the arctic council including russia. it's not with the rest of the international community, which is taking a very interested focus on the far north. it's not with a permanent participant groups representing the indigenous people of the arctic who are truly impacteded more so than anyone else by the institutions of the arctic

nations. i would suggest to you that the biggest challenge for the united states is the united states itself. we face hurdles both at a public interest level and a government policy level. a fair question to ask is why should somebody from alabama or from arizona care about the arctic? i suppose there could be those that say well, why should alaska care about policies that relate to using corn for ethanol or the security of our southwest border. i would argue back that these are all national priorities, national impacts. well, we know we repeat it all the time. we're an arctic nation because of alaska. every state, every state in our union has some kind of a stake

in the arctic. whether it's from trade nearly 20% of the u.s. exports go to the seven other arctic nations. that's significant. we have the research activity, the national science foundation provided arctic research grant to entities based in 44 different states, plus the district of columbia. i remember having a conversation with my colleague from iowa some years ago, and it was kind of a trick question to him about arctic and arctic policy, and i was able to remind him that in one of his iowa state institutions that they host an arctic research program there. kind of ought him be surprise. that's important. they recognize their connection. there's also the national security matters, the arctic

touches, every corp.ner. the arctic touches every corner of our nation. we must remind everybody of this. from a security perspective, the arctic is centrally located for multiple areas of operation, from the asia pacific to north american, to europe to russia. our ability to reach each area, via the arctic significantly reduces response times with increased activity in the arctic at both the commercial and the military levels. our ability to project power and have rapid response capability in the region is of even greater importance. of course, from an economic standpoint, we talk about the shipping routes and the advantages of shorter shipping routes between europe and asia or the west coast with the potential to cut seemingly 12 to 15 days off of transit schedules, allowing for quicker delivery of goods, reduced

maritime emissions, overall lower costs to consumers for all americans. so, again, a benefit regardless of where you come from in the country. our natural resource potential, we talk about it a lot in alaska and recognize that the resource potential in the arctic is very, very high. usgs estimates roughly 412 billion barrels of oil and oil equivalent natural gas lies there in the arctic. the dredge hauls we see suggests high concentration of strategic metals like rare earth elements. our neighbors russia to the west canada to the east they continue with very, very purposeful national plans combined with state interests to develop arctic resources and really pushing to advance commerce in the north and their plans are helping to create

jobs, we're seeing economic growth in areas that have historically faced extraordinary challenges. even the nonarctic nations are embracing the opportunities that come with diminished polar sea ice, and i think this is one area that grabs the attention of folks here at home because they are looking at these nonarctic nations and saying, realm what interest does india have here? and they should be scratching their heads about that. they should be asking that question. because if there's an interest from nonarctic nations, then why here in this country are we not looking with greater interest? but when you think about the nonarctic nations, they're reaping the transit benefits. they are looking to possibly move forward with resource extraction or exploration and

development activities. and so when you think about the u.s. position, whether we engage or don't engage we need to appreciate that this level of activity is going to continue whether the united states engages or not. increased access in the arctic also means enhanced scientific opportunities to better understand the region, its environment, its ecosystem, and how the arctic might impact other areas of the nation and the world. we talk about maintaining the arctic as a zone of peace to allow for greater international cooperation and coordination in a harsh environment that requires specialized skill and equipment. areas that we can be collaborating and working together are important. so, really, regardless of where you live in this country or what your interests may be there's a nexus. there's a connection out there to the arctic that explains why

our arctic priorities should matter to the entire country. our challenge here is enabling this nonalaska portion of the arctic to recognize that nexus, so heather mentioned that senator king and i have joined together, we're book ending the country between alaska and maine, and we formed a senate arctic caucus not only to look at our national arctic policies and priorities, but really to place a greater focus on each individual state and how it's connected to the arctic. we think that this is something that other colleagues can take home and use to highlight our arctic opportunities with individuals and communities. so when we sent letters of invitation to the other members, it was not just let's focus on

arctic together. it was accompanied with a white paper that was put together by a great arctic intern, doing a shoutout to gail here who has done great work for us, but reminding senators from alabama, for instance, that 25% of alabama's total exports go to the seven other arctic nations. to my colleague john mccain, who joined the arctic caucus because he saw in his state of arizona 16% of the total exports go to seven other arctic nations, and so, again making that connection there so that the arctic is not so remote so far away. now, we all recognize the role that the add more assumed the

united states special representative for the arctic. i think that senator kerry selected an individual who is, obviously, very knowledgeable about the region and someone who can bring that knowledge to the rest of the country, but he can't do it alone. so how we can be working together to support not only his role, but ways to develop interest in and truly greater awareness in the arctic is something that i challenge each of us to do, scene one suggestion that i have this morning, and i'm going to encourage next week when we are in the area is to make the opportunity for greater visibility. basically take the aec on a road tour. now we know in this room the

arctic economic council forum is formed by the arctic counsel to bring business together with arctic communities to promote greater economic investment but i think it would be important for the aec to strict throughout the country, go to different -- the different states, go to the city chamber of commerces promote investment in arctic communities for economic development and at the same time, which you're doing, you're raising the collective knowledge awareness and interest in the arctic. so this suggestion about, you know bringing this to a higher level brings me to the second hurdle, the federal government's arctic policy goals and its agenda for the arctic council chairmanship in the next couple years. i would suggest that the effort

at this point in time by our government in terms of where we are in assuming this chairmanship position is incomplete. heather noted that i have been quick to applaud the administration when i think things move as they shoumtd, but i'm there to offer what i hope is constructive criticism when i think we have not yet done what we need to do in the arenas. i -- i would -- i would hope that if you get nothing else from my remarks this morning that you can take away and remember the people who live in the arctic. this must be a priority for us. as an arctic nation. now, for many who have never

seen the arctic, many nonarctic residents view this as a pristine untouched environment, i described it as something akin to a snow globe that sits on the shelf and it's pretty, contained, and it always looks the same and please don't touch it. don't shake it up, but the arctic is an area that's home to nearly 4 million people. humans have been living, working, hunting there for thousands of years harvesting the natural resources of the region. they've been developing the land. they live and work and raise their families there. just yesterday i had an opportunity to see a series of advertisements from the corporation that sits up in the north slope area, and stunning

commercials the one that is probably most powerful is a series of pictures, of a whaling captain who also happens to be the ceo of this native cooperation moving from shots of him out on the ice looking as traditional and ancient as any might, and in the next shot is him in his office looking just like those of you in suits tie and leather shoes, and it speaks to the reality of the people of the arctic today. so we must always remember the people. a focus on climate change its impact on the arctic and how to adapt to a changing environment

is absolutely warranted. i don't have concern with that, but it cannot be our sole and singular focus and held over or held against the people of the arctic. it should not be used as an excuse to prevent those who live in the arctic from developing the resources available to them in order to create a better standard of living. my objection and the objection of many who live in alaska is that this administration placed climate change policy goals above everything else including welfare of those who live in the arctic. a month ago we had a hearing before the senate energy and natural resources committee. it was a hearing specific to the arctic, the first one we had in the senate, and some members of

the committee commented on what they perceived to be the irony of alaska's strong support for oil and gas development while noting the impact the try impact climb change has on our state and people. they suggested that alaskans should be leaders in moving our country away from fossil fuels. one of the witnesses we had was charlotte, an eskimo, the wife of a whaling captain, she's got six kids, a grandmother of 25, and she lived in a period of roughly 30 years, i'll repeat that.

200 years worth of advancement in 30 years time. pretty remarkable. also very challenging. as a result of responsible resource development, more people on the north slope of alaska now have access to medical clinics that provide care for themselves, their loved ones. they have improved telecommunications, and search and rescue equipment for hunting parties that previously would have simply disappeared on the ice never to be heard from again. they have access to other modern amenityies that we certainly take for granted like a simple flush toilet, and so those who oppose resource development, it -- you've got to look at what the situation is or again, for those who lived, worked, and raised

families in this area for thousands of years. those who would oppose resource development would apparently prefer the eskimo to remain a semiknow seminomadic, living in sod homes, using whale oil for heat rather than the resources of the region to advance their quality of life. the mayor reminded us that it was just a few decades ago that there was no natural gas to heat the homes, where, truly, it was a time when you collected the driftwood that came down the river for heat for your home. there's some pretty powerful stories from some people who are still in leadership positions today who describe the reason they wanted to go to school in

the morning was not eager for the education necessarily but because the school was the only place where there was heat. when you're from barrel alaska you're going to go to school. there is no irony in the people of the arctic benefitting from the economic opportunities that are available in their region, but there is an irony in deliberate riing their futures while claiming somehow it's for their own good and somehow in their best interest. now, administration officials said that the united states arctic council agenda has found the sweet spot between national security and environmental goals, but what is missing i believe, from this equation are the views of those who actually live in the arctic like the mayor. what's missing are the economic development opportunities that would actually benefit those who

live and work and raise their families in the arctic. and a prime example of the disconnect that occurs when policy is driven from thousands of miles away here in washington, d.c., we saw it play out at an event last september, and this was entitled passing the arctic council, torch, also sponsored by csis, but every speaker who came from an arctic location whether it was from alaska or the yukon territory northwest territories, the inuit polar council they praised the canadian council development for the people of the north. all of them, all of them spoke about the need for economic opportunities as the priorities for those who live in the arctic. meanwhile, those who came from outside of the arctic, whether it be from government agencies or universities or elsewhere, they focused their remarks on the need to have a bold

aggressive agenda on climate change. and what we saw there was, i believe, an intent to use the arctic council as a bully pulpit to promote climate change policy goals as if economic activity in the arctic is driving climate change. the contrast was significant. at least for those of us from the arctic here. arctic policy is a difficult balance to achieve as the vision in the arctic varies depending on who you are dealing with but we must find a better place if the u.s. chairmanship of the arctic council is going to be viewed as a net positive here. the obama administration will be in charge as we assume chair of the arctic council next week. it will not be this

administration that then hands the gavel to finland in 2017. we will have a new administration. given what is coming up in these presidential elections we're going to see new administration, new cabinets and potentially different priorities for the arctic, but, really the only way to have a lasting arctic policy, a policy that goes beyond just the two year period that we have in front of us we have to inspire. we have to make it a policy that is supported across the aisle and supported across the nation. that's what will make it enduring. so i am challenging not only this administration, but i'm challenging people around the

country, let's view this opportunity to chair the arctic council, to lead on a vision for the arctic, that is endureing, and it's truly for the benefit of all in this country. those who recognize that we are an arctic nation, and those who are just beginning to discover the excitement and the opportunity that we hole as an arctic nation. with that, i thank you for the opportunity to be with you and i look forward to some questions in a bit. [ applause ] >> senator, thank you so much. that was a wonderful address, and, boy i love that national priorityization

prioritization, make it a national imperative. >> has to be. >> fantastic. i want to give you a warmup one or two questions on my mind, and as i look across the room, there's so much incredible arctic knowledge, expertise, i'll unleash the audience on you for the remaining minutes we have left with you. >> good. >> the question deals with u.s. preparedness for arctic development. this week i believe the coast guard made a statement that the united states is a bystander in the arctic. you and representative don young had really tough hearings with coast guard officials saying where is the plan? where is the readiness? there's been discussion of you in beginning legislation on an infrastructure, some infrastructure legislation. it's not just ice breakers that we affixuate on but it's water ports, assets, maritime domain

awareness. even if we the united states, decides not to develop, others are will have increased shipping, have increase the human activity. what's your sense of where the -- where we need to be in the budget? that's the hard part. how are we going to pay for this? >> well, i have expressed concerns and will continue to express concerns about our readiness. now, i don't fault the coast guard at all. the coast guard gets it. they know that we are lacking in deep water ports. they know that we have not sufficiently charted our arctic waters. they know that we need more navigational aids. they know that the communication gaps that exist up there must be addressed. and i think that they are internally, they are quite concerned because they know where their budget is. we talk about an ice breaker. if coast guards were to take that out of their budget.

they would have literally notion for anything else, so when we look at the infrastructure and the infrastructure needs in the arctic, this is not just the responsibility of the coast guard who is tasked with ensuring that the safety in our arctic areas but this is, again, a national priority. this needs to involve multiagencies. it needs to involve everybody within the department of defense. it needs to involve the agencies within the department of interior. it needs to involve homeland security, obviously, but, again, we have got to kind of get out of this little silo that the arctic is your responsibility. part of what we've been dealing with to this point in time is this mind set that anything that has to do with the arctic is an

alaska alaska alaskan earmark. it's not going to happen if it's viewed that way. alaska does not view it that way, and neither should anyone else in the country, and certainly not those in the administration. i have been pressing cabinet members when they come before the committees whether it's my appropriations subcommittees i'm on or energy or wherever, where in this budget are we demonstrating that there's a priority? because all of the -- all of the agencies have been tasked to come up with a strategic plan. they probably spent more money coming up with strategic plans that go sit on a shelf than coming together to collaborate in defining how to accomplish these things. we've known for years now that we were going to be assuming the chair next week. putting it together a strategic plan is one thing but making

sure that we have demonstrated that priority by placing it within the budget, initiatives within the budget. that's where you demonstrate your commitment. we have not seen that yet. >> so we hosted dr. john holdren here in january early february, to talk about the creation of the new -- the executive order that the white house released on creating this arctic executive steering committee which he chairs and i asked a very similar question show me the money, where is the budget? a lot of strategies, but there's not a small print. each agency has to you know use within its existing resources. >> take it from a pot that you're already struggling to address the needs within your department. so tell me who is beginning to say, okay, we're going to put all the other things all the other responsibilities we've had, and we're going to move the arctic up to the top. no. >> so you think this new steering group the deputy

cabinet level sub cabinet level, can that provide rigor to say you know what, omb, we're funding this. you're in a wait and see mode? >> i'm from missouri on this one. >> oh, show me, show me. definitely. >> don't tell alaska i'm from missouri. [ laughter ] >> let me move a little bit out to the geopolitical strategic environment. this week, we heard from ministers that characterized russia as the greatest threat to europe's skurs, particularly northern europe. at the same time, we had -- >> we heard that from some of our own mail tear leaders as well. >> absolutely. at the same time we had the senior state department official that's very engaged on the arctic saying russia is a partner. i am struggling with the concept of partner, yet i'm seeing extraordinarily aggressive actions missing civilian airliners, a lot of military

exercises in the arctic. i'm getting repeated calls. maybe you can help me how you answer this question by reporters saying is this a new cold war? what do we understand? i'm growing increasingly concerned. i'm concerned that the u.s. government is not focusing enough attention on this. what do you think? the foreign minister will not be at the ministerial. they are sending a natural resources environment minister. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac