Are we protecting warlords in Afghanistan who are growing poppy or producing heroin?

What have you done to remedy this problem?

Last year, I asked you, at this hearing, about the robust nuclear earth penetrator, and you told me it was just a study.

I'd like to ask you a question about the heroin--or the opium poppy production in Afghanistan.

Is my time--last question, I'll be fast.

I believe it would be folly and far too costly to place too much of an emphasis on missile defense and to unilaterally develop and deploy NMD before we even know what defensive systems are feasible.

National Missile Defense is not and should not be seen as a one-size-fits-all substitute for an effective non-proliferation strategy.

I think we always have to apply the Geneva Convention, because, with our Nation, regardless of whether it is state or non-state, we have a certain moral imperative that we cannot escape.

My very strong view is that this nation should always observe the protocols of the Geneva Conventions.

I believe National Missile Defense is one of the key foreign policy and national security issues that we will face in the coming decades.

We need to spend our resources wisely to make sure that we can protect our nation from these threats.

There is no way we can lose this war militarily, and there is no way we can win it militarily.

On January 28, 2004, Senator Boxer and I wrote you concerning EPA's proposal to deregulate over 3 billion pounds of toxic hazardous waste from government oversight.

But you, Mr. Chairman, were the one who said, yes, let us do the hearing, and that counts for a lot.

There's a feeling that you know it all, the administration knows it all, and nobody else knows anything.

the doctrine of unilateral preemption is a flawed doctrine when faced with an asymmetric threat.

But it's as if it's a wall. It's as if everything comes one way and nothing ever sticks that comes back the other way.

that's $113 billion that none of us thought would be the cost.