That's preposterous.

I would be interested in the overall question of the sustainment costs and why they are so high because, as I say, Ellen Lord said they are unaffordable.

This is clearly, as your report indicates, a serious issue of national security, is it not?

You mean a product can be delivered to us that costs 100 million bucks, and if it fails, it is on us?

I would urge you to think creatively, because we are fielding a lot of capability... and yet, we are not adequately responding to someone who is attacking us.

It will increase migration patterns, conflict, famine, and the like, which is often how wars start.

And in the long run, it is certainly in the taxpayers' interests to have those two shipyards.

If the Iran agreement were abrogated, we would lose that visibility into the Iran nuclear enterprise, is that not correct?

I want to compliment you and the members of your--the community that you represent on the report that you have supplied to us.

That gives new meaning to the old rock song, 'Rust Never Sleeps.' It is unbelievable.

People are dying because we are not interdicting these ships.

The committee believes that the Navy should maintain the two proven shipbuilding sources of large surface combatants.

I would commend to both of you--Senator Cotton and I on the Airland Subcommittee had an informal roundtable with a group of Air Force pilots to talk about this issue without a lot of officers and press or anybody.

without a deterrent strategy we are simply sitting ducks.

this country lacks a coherent strategy of deterrence in the cyber realm.

There's no such thing as a silver bullet, maybe silver buckshot.

King says, 'Structure is policy.'

I hope one of your elements of your work will be red teaming so that you can demonstrate to utilities where they have problems.