Jeff Sessions

The New START treaty represents a commitment by the world's two largest powers to the goal of disarmament.

The President should provide guidance which all previous Presidents have done without the benefit of that analysis.

The President's goal is permeating DOD.

The goal should be, am I not correct, to ensure the defense and security of the United States of America?

Every President since Truman has advocated that as a goal.

I believe that it's beyond unrealistic. It really could be dangerous if it clouds our thinking.

I believe that was a failure of duty to defend the lawfully passed statutes of the United States.

With a presumption that it would go into civilian court. That was the policy that the committee you put together recommended--unwisely, I think.

I think it is leadership from the top.

We have just got to be careful that at this time when we desperately need cleaner natural gas, all-American natural gas, keeping our wealth at home, that we don't create a greater bureaucracy, duplicative regulations that make it more…

Too often, what we are seeing in Washington is the American people are suffering under high energy prices.

Maybe you would like to answer the question or Mr. Volz's comment that Pennsylvania is permitting pollutant discharges against the health and safety of the people into the water?

Natural gas absolutely can be an alternative to the liquid fuel we import, the gasoline.

I believe that is what natural gas is.

I think we have to watch that the regulations and the lawsuits don't become a death by a thousand cuts.

We are in a serious financial problem in America. I am worried about our economy.

I am also not happy at the way some resolution was passed here that seemed to have authorized force in some way that nobody I know of in the Senate was aware that it was in the resolution when it passed.

Secretary Gates, could you please provide documentation of the various actions that the Department of Defense made to notify and inform Congress...

So, the military capabilities that we intend to provide, after the next 2 days, would not include the close air support of A-10s and AC-130s.

Do you think that could have a discouraging effect on the rebel forces?

It's just odd that--all right. So, is there any reluctance, anywhere in this coalition, that we should not use the AC-130s or A-10s?

A good plan can be foiled by bad luck, but a plan that depends on good luck is a bad plan.

I love the Department of Justice. I believe in the rule of law.

If you stand firm, usually they will back down.

To say that Act is indefensible constitutionally cannot be justified.