Jeff Sessions

I think it's a pretty tough negotiation, Mr. Chairman. I think they've done a pretty good job.

You've confronted the cost. My criticism to you and Mr. Stackley was you emphasized cost so much that maybe you weren't evaluating which ship had the greatest capabilities.

I think you could argue that there could be a minor extra cost because one ship is presumably slightly less expensive than the other.

If these shipyards are preparing to go forward, they're at a point where the delays do impact them.

The central difference between the previous plan for missile defense in Europe and the PAA is the substitution of SM-3 missiles.

I think that's a mistake and we'll want to pursue that as we go forward.

I firmly believe that we're cutting the number too close and I hope that it's not too late to reevaluate that now.

The United States will continue development and assessment of a two-stage GBI as a hedging strategy for defense of the Homeland.

I strongly believe we don't need to abandon our leadership in space; and second, there may be ways in which we can recognize this symbiotic relationship between NASA and DOD.

The more, I think, the American people see our men and women in uniform perform, the prouder they are of them.

Good leadership is important, it does make a difference, and you're providing that.

I strongly support that.

It seems to me that we may be desperate enough, we may have to take some chances with leaders we believe are pretty good local leaders, and see if we can't support them.

Isn't it true that we believe the best policy of our Government is to have a seamless relationship between government aid and our SOF and that we use all of those factors--political, financial, as well as military--to achieve maximum…

Ms. Tauscher's comments are disturbing because it would seem to indicate a new policy to restrict U.S. Aegis ship deployments into the Black Sea.

Senator Sessions. Admiral Stavridis, the Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe calls for fielding land-based SM-3 Block IB missiles in Europe starting in 2015.

I remain deeply, deeply troubled by the process that resulted in this dramatic alteration of the RFP for the KC-X tanker aircraft.

So you believe that?

Politics should not enter into this.

Secretary Mabus, if a provision can be made to enhance the performance of one ship in these areas, why did you determine that changes could not be made to descope the ships where they over perform to allow for cost competitiveness?

Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead, do you feel this is a mishandling of the draft RFP and could serve as a potential area of protest?

Secretary Mabus, does this then mean that LCS-1 meets the performance requirements as outlined by the Navy?

The community is up in arms over this decision.

This is not going to go away, and I just feel it's just so sad that we're in this.

There is now a perception, and I believe a correct one, that politics somehow influenced the changes that were made.