I am concerned by the prevalent argument that the United States can persuade the rest of the world to halt nuclear proliferation by reducing its own arsenal.

A robust U.S. nuclear deterrent, often referred to as the nuclear umbrella, provides a strong disincentive for other nations to develop WMD.

It has hit, but the budget that was introduced did not have that accounted for in it.

the threat of cyber attack has become the top security threat facing the Nation, overtaking the threat of terrorism.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I don't--I do not agree with any recommendation that would unilaterally take any action to further reduce our nuclear warheads and our capability.

Overlooking this fact and dogmatically pursuing the reduction of U.S. nuclear forces... will lead to a lack of confidence in U.S. nuclear security guarantees.

So while sequestration may impact each of your organizations, the impact I am concerned with is, what is going to happen with regard to those warfighters and the warfighting capabilities?

Well, it has hit.

As we prioritize our scarce defense resources, it is critical that we continue to invest in advanced research and potentially game-changing technologies.

We must sustain our investment in the next generation of technologies to maintain our technological superiority and stay ahead of these developing threats.

I appreciate the innovative structures our military employs to conduct cutting-edge research.

As you have stated previously, Admiral McRaven, there is no such thing as a local problem.

Some observers have criticized the United States because they think we are in too many places.

The American military is the most advanced and effective fighting force in the world.

If I could ask all of you this question.

Thus far, our defense-first policies have failed to deter hostile actors from attacking the United States in cyber space.

I worry that our strategy to confront these threats is struggling to keep pace.