 We are talking about the United States role as an Arctic nation at a time and in a place where most people just don't get it. They don't recognize our role, they don't see that, they don't feel it. It's just not top of their mind. Unless you're from Alaska, most people in this country just do not envision themselves as being part of an Arctic nation, but because of Alaska, we are one. And as in Alaska, I'm pretty proud of that fact. Our state motto, the license plate that we all drive, still has the refrain north to the future. And when we became a state a little over 50 years ago, that was a motto, that was a slogan that we really strove for. And it's just as good today as it was when we became a state some 50 years ago. We have so much resource potential in Alaska, particularly in our Arctic regions. We've got some 24 billion barrels of oil, more than 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas within the Chukchi and the Beaufort Seas alone. And this is all according to the government estimates that are out there. But much of that promise lies just out of reach on federal lands or in federal waters. I believe that we should be able to develop these resources for the good of the people of Alaska, for the good of the nation as a whole, and yes, even for the good of the environment. Responsible oil and gas development and exploration in the Arctic should be allowed to advance. Now I think that we can all agree that having access to a secure supply of energy is crucial to our nation's economy. I personally believe that we should be promoting policies and working aggressively to promote those policies that ensure that our energy supplies are both abundant, affordable, domestic, and diverse. This is the all of the above approach to energy security. We all talk about it, but this all of the above approach includes investing in our energy technologies of tomorrow and the responsible development of the traditional resources that we depend on today. As far as the environment goes, I would argue that oil and gas production here in the United States is among the best in the world. We know that we're held to environmental standards that are tough. They're stringent. So you have to ask the question, wouldn't it be better? Isn't it better to take responsibility for our own energy needs as a nation with all of the environmental protections that that entails instead of relying on foreign nations to produce our energy? I think that the United States needs to be the leader in offshore energy development. Look at the situation just over to the east, where Russia is drilling right off of our maritime boundary there in the Chukchi. On potentially the same oil reserves as the US side, we need to be. The United States needs to be the one who is setting the standard and working with the Russians to make sure that they're following our lead when it comes to the environmental standards and the safeguards. When we talk about the potential for producing more oil and gas here at home, I think it's fair to say that the Arctic truly is that last great frontier. We've got approximately 22% of the estimated oil and gas resources left in the world that are believed to be within the Arctic, much of it off the northern coast of Alaska. Now, there is a tendency to suggest that it might not be safe. It might not be economical to explore and to produce oil and gas in the Arctic. But the fact of the matter is, it's already happening. The technology and the engineering behind some of the existing and proposed activities is advancing rapidly. And while we in Alaska are struggling at this point in time to jumpstart our own offshore development, our neighbors on all sides of us, on all sides are engaging in quite an effort to capitalize on the region's untapped potential with significant investments within the region. Six of the eight member nations of the Arctic Council are exploring or developing their energy resources off of their coasts as we speak. Russia, they've recognized that their natural resource future lies in the Arctic. They're investing heavily in the region. It was very significant when after 40 years of negotiating, Norway and Russia signed a historic new treaty on maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean. And well, there had been a long history of cooperation on straddling fish stocks. The new treaty also addresses energy development across the new boundary and creates a joint operating agreement. This treaty also provides an excellent example for us of the type of international cooperation that we recognize is possible within the Arctic. The Russians are investing in the port of Murmansk as the base for the Arctic marine infrastructure. Some of the critical investments will be public private partnerships that include foreign capital. They're also contemplating upgrading their nuclear ice breaker fleet while continuing to build ice strength and commercial ships to carry minerals, hydrocarbons, passengers, and cargo through the ice covered northern waters. But here in the United States, it's a little bit different story. We've got the Coast Guard, the Navy, we've got the Army Corps of Engineers. They're continuing to study the potential infrastructure needs within Alaska, but we're not moving forward with any significant new investments or, I think, the strategies that are necessary to do so. With the scheduled decommissioning of the Polar Sea, the Coast Guard will only maintain one heavy ice breaker in its fleet, which is not expected to return to service until 2013. Now, we recognize that we're lagging behind here in this country. I do think that there is widespread agreement that the U.S. policy has recognized the strategic importance of the Arctic to the national and the economic security of the country. But we're doing very little to increase our capability to implement our policies. Beyond Russia, the other Arctic nations are also investing in infrastructure for energy development and maritime commerce. Much of the investment is coming from international companies in partnership with Arctic states. I think it's important to recognize that in Alaska, just a couple of weeks ago, a very worthwhile conference was held, the Arctic Imperative Conference that gathered people from not only Alaska but around the country and internationally to come together to look at where these gaps are, to focus on the infrastructure side. Given the lack of infrastructure within the Alaskan Arctic, it is crucial that we figure out how we promote this kind of investment. One of the big differences that we're seeing here in the United States is the lack of regulatory certainty here. It is absolutely inhibiting our investment within this sector. Well, oil companies have invested billions of dollars in offshore leases where yet to drill and exploratory well. So whether it's the regulatory hurdles, whether it's litigation, it does appear that until there is certainty, until we have some certainty in the regulatory environment, both state and federal, as well as the public private investment, Arctic infrastructure is going to be very challenging here within the United States. And while our neighbors are moving ahead with development in their own Arctic regions, we are seeing an increase in cooperation among the Arctic nations, and this is good. David mentioned that I had attended the seventh ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Newt Greenland. I attended with Secretary Clinton. Secretary Salazar also was with us. And I was pleased at the Arctic Council's decision to form a new task force to negotiate international agreements for oil spill response and preparedness. The decision to start these negotiations, I think, is evidence of the strong commitment to proactively address budding issues in the region and to create international protocols to prevent and respond to offshore oil spills within the region that are becoming increasingly accessible to exploration. The spirit of cooperation that I think we see amongst Arctic nations should be reassuring to all those in the United States that are interested in protecting the marine environment, as well as securing our energy future. And as we begin the process of developing our Arctic energy resources, I think we all know we can't make any mistakes here. There can be no mistakes along the way. We've got one chance to get it right. An accident such as the spill that shut down the Gulf of Mexico last year could be the end of offshore Arctic energy production. Now, that sounds pretty serious. But I think we know that it is serious. And we must get it right. That's why it's crucial that our policies provide for strong environmental protection and oversight while promoting responsible development. That combination will require oversight that is predictable and provides energy companies with a clear regulatory path, something that they currently do not have. A rubber stamp regulatory process doesn't serve our twin goals of protection and production, but neither does the uncertainty that we've seen under the current process. We know that we've got tremendous, tremendous resources up north. We've got potential billions of barrels of oil equivalent in offshore Alaska, not to mention the billions of oil reserves in Anwar and in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. We talk a lot about sustainable development, but a clear statement to guide activities, to guide investment, and to prioritize federal resources I think is crucial in moving forward with development within these areas. We are lacking a coherent national energy policy that identifies our resources and our strategies to develop them. The State of Alaska has set a very ambitious goal of increasing production to a million barrels a day throughout our trans-Alaska oil pipeline. And I commend the State for this. And I hope that the federal government will also have the vision to develop such a policy. This is something that we should all be moving forward with. And while I have expressed frustration, sometimes great frustration, with the progress that we're making on energy development in the North, I am growing more confident that through the input of the Arctic community at large and leaders such as those of you that are gathered here in this room this morning, we are making the case for the strategic importance of the Arctic to the United States, for our energy security, for our national and homeland security, and for the incredible economic benefits that the region can bring to this country. I want to thank you all for being part of that Arctic community and for helping me to carry the message to the rest of this Arctic nation. I think I probably have time for maybe one question. We've got a hearing this morning in energy on geothermal potential. So as much as I want to talk about oil and gas in the Arctic, I think we also recognize that in a state like Alaska where we've got a little bit of everything, geothermal is also good. We've also got a solar bill before the committee this morning. People don't think about Alaska as being a solar producing state. Come to Kotzebue, we'll show you. What can I answer here quickly this morning? Thank you for your attention. You're all quiet. We got you warmed up. Here we go. I can guess it's about law to see. I know your answer is on that, and I'm happy with them, but I won't force you through that. I had a chance to go up to MIT and talk to some of the engineering people there. And they have cut back their ocean engineering department, folded it into mechanical engineering. But as I look at issues in Alaska and even in the far eastern part of Russia, it seems to me that we do need an improved training and education program to build people who know the special issues of Arctic engineering, of habitation, of health care in the Arctic. A whole host of problems that are more than just send somebody up there and learn on their own. Have you seen the roots of a more coordinated effort to build that educational infrastructure so that we really can develop in a sustainable way our Arctic resources and even help Russia be sustainable in theirs? Well, it's an excellent question as we're looking to build that capacity. You're sitting right next to the former Chancellor of the University of Alaska system in Anchorage, Fran Olmer, who will be one of your speakers later on and is the chair of the Arctic Research Commission now. But that is something that within our university systems, particularly up in Fairbanks, the effort to build out those Arctic areas of expertise, whether it's Arctic engineering or others. But our reality is we are not, in my opinion, Alaska is not yet that center of excellence, if you will, for training of those that we will need to lead the Arctic forward, whether it's in the research end, whether it's in how we enhance our infrastructure. I think that we have much, much, much that remains to be done. I will tell you in this day of pretty severe and substantial budget cuts and how we are dealing with the issues that await us on Capitol Hill in determining how we move forward with spending and budget. I'm worried about what will happen to the research side of many aspects of our budget. This is going to be key to us, whether it's in how we develop our energy resources, whether it's how we respond to a changing climate with infrastructure needs and issues. We are best able to do that if we have the research, if we have the data that we need to back us. And my fear is that these research dollars will be reduced and we will see the negative repercussions on this. This is something that I'm trying to bring up with the administration folks to make sure that they understand that when we're looking to areas that we cut, that investments in research are not going to be helpful to us. So help me with that initiative. If there's nothing else, I'll let you go on to your next speaker, but I appreciate the opportunity to once again be with you and stay cool down here.