So you think that you have new tools now that you didn't have before that would give us some level of confidence that we have something that works?

I'd like to have you look into the successes.

I would hope that you would keep in mind and evaluate these as they come in, because sometimes you'll get legitimate requests, sometimes they'll be politically inspired requests.

Yes. One of your biggest problems is going to be that you probably won't have the resources that you think are really necessary to get this done.

I'd love to stay up here, but I'm not going to hesitate to dive down and to ask the tough questions.

You've had a great career. You and I have fought together, for 3 years, what I called the Battle of Vieques.

There's been a consistency of the combatant commanders that that is a program where we can get a lot more for our money.

I think some of the questions asked of you might not be totally fair, in that you've been in PACOM.

This authorization committee has been very straightforward in coming up with funds for train and equip, but also for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP).

I was critical, back during the Clinton administration, when I expected that the North Koreans had a lot greater delivery capability for missiles.

You have always been a real strong supporter of that.

I think it's very important that you do take an assessment of what is in the other commands that can be transferred there.

Does this bother you?

I've often thought--I look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War, when things were predictable.

I disagree with you on this issue.

I don't agree with the Law of the Sea Treaty, and I think there are a lot of deficiencies.

I would do the same.

I do agree with the position that we really are stressed right now, in terms of resources, assets, and force strength.