Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.

The reason we have to maintain this large inventory is because we no longer have the ability to produce nuclear weapons in this country.

This treaty makes significant changes to the verification regime that was in place for nearly two decades under the original START Treaty.

On balance, would it be fair to say that the very modest concessions we made in the treaty are far outweighed by the need to retain the ability to do inspections and to maintain strategic stability through having a treaty?

Secretary Gates testified that it is not our policy to develop missile defenses to counter Russia's deterrent, because this would be cost-prohibitive and deeply destabilizing.

There's been some confusion, during the previous hearings on this treaty, about the relative importance of reducing the Russian and United States strategic arsenals.

So, to use your language, it preserves the balance that we had before.

I would like to use this hearing to get some clarity on what is really needed for us to maintain a credible deterrent.

Some of my colleagues on this committee who oppose this treaty do not seem to have taken this call for action to heart.

It's my understanding that nothing in this treaty prohibits us from building new warheads, if needed.

To adequately deal with North Korea's and Iran's nuclear aspirations, we need full cooperation of other nations, particularly Russia and China.

The treaty would reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal without constraining our ability to defend our Nation, while fostering the international cooperation needed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and materiels.

I'm concerned that calls for maintaining a large arsenal are based on a misunderstanding of the potential impact of any use of nuclear weapons.

This treaty stands to reduce the size of our arsenal and the Russian arsenal, making the world a safer place without constraining the ability to defend our Nation.

To me this underscores what I have long believed, that to best secure our Nation we must move beyond a cold-war mindset and focus on the threat that terrorists could gain access to nuclear weapons or materiels.

There has been a lot of discussion about the ways in which ratifying this treaty will enhance our national security.

Its ratification would also offer proof to the international community of the commitment of the United States to fulfilling our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

At the same time, we must ensure that the treaty is verifiable and does not compromise our ability to monitor nuclear weapons and materiels in Russia.