John McCain

I do not fully endorse this budget request. Indeed, I am seriously concerned about how we arrived at this point.

The administration's approach thus far has been too defined by short-term domestic political considerations. The administration has not led.

I fear that this defense budget and the broader plan to cut $487 billion from DOD over 10 years only continues this dangerous and regrettable pattern.

It seems as though many of the President's most significant decisions about our national defense have been fundamentally disconnected from conditions on the ground.

If it is as catastrophic as you state, then why don't we sit down?

Unfortunately, this defense budget continues the administration's habit of putting short-term political considerations over our long-term national security interests.

We owe it to our servicemembers and their families to address any change in their compensation and benefits in a manner that acknowledges the commitment that we made to them when they volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces.

No, sir, I have not seen that.

We cannot support any legislation that requires us to waive our rights to claim damages to our water system and water quality 'from time immemorial, past, present, future, and forever.'

The left has never favored missile defense.

I am also concerned that the policy of the Defense Department of the United States... is that we are moving to a world without nuclear weapons.

We are at a time of great danger, as I see it.

The President makes us assurances that we are going to implant a new system.

Both bills have information sharing. Only the bill that Senator Collins and I have introduced has a provision for DHS to work with the private sector.

DOD is spending 90 percent of its time playing defense against cyberattacks and 10 percent playing offense.

We insisted on that and it came up as a part of the New START debate.

I think there is a terrible trap here. This is not just a question of regulation of business.

So the major threat comes from overseas. What would be the logic then in making the lead organization the DHS?

I believe we need both of those authorities in government, that is, information sharing and a system for protecting and better defending privately-owned, covered critical infrastructure.

That is a curious logic, General, in fact, most curious.

Shame on us if we look at this as business regulation. This is homeland security.

Current U.S. cyber defenses are weak and the bills on Capitol Hill are insufficient.

I think the responsibility for defending the Nation against attack lies within CYBERCOM.

So then what is the logic in providing the overall authority to the DHS?

Industry, according to industry, does not need additional regulations. They need the ability to share information which is our proposal rather than additional new government regulation implemented by probably the most inefficient…