John McCain

That's enough. That's enough.

Let us be clear. The only thing sustaining the C-17 program in the face of a military requirement that is and will likely remain satisfied is the predominance of the military-industrial complex.

The administration appreciates that the Committee supports the President's budget request regarding the C-17 program and that it did not authorize procurement of additional C-17s.

I do not think it does. Neither does the Secretary of Defense. Neither does the President.

So we are talking about the $8 to $9 billion, a billion dollars a year, and then the costs of retiring and not keeping perfectly good assets.

Instead of borrowing $800 or $900 billion from the Chinese, if they were borrowing money from us, if we had such a robust Treasury, that would be one thing.

Secretary Gates has also made it clear that he will strongly recommend the President veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of this program.

The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law.

This lack of human interaction, at least with other soldiers, that they have when they leave the Service within 5 to 7 days after a 12-month deployment, I think, is a real issue here.

Our service men and women and their families deserve nothing less.

The Services must increase focus on transforming the culture of leadership, and must train more leaders to understand that emotional and physical health are critical factors in military readiness.

Americans expect that high quality health and mental health care, matched by compassionate involvement of military leaders, can and will make a difference that is capable of saving lives that would be lost to suicide.

Thank you for your initiative, Senator Inhofe.

If we offered assurances on missile defense, why didn't we demand similar assurances on tactical nuclear weapons?

Some people argue that we must ratify this treaty if we ever want to engage with the Russians on reducing tactical nuclear weapons.

So you would object to this committee and members of the Senate from reviewing the full review of the negotiating record.

I think most observers agree that the verification requirements of this treaty are less stringent than START I.

The New START treaty will enhance U.S. national security by stabilizing the strategic balance between the U.S. and the Russian Federation at lower levels of nuclear forces.

They are working, in 2010, on complying with treaties that were concluded many, many years ago.

So the answer is no?

Let me state unequivocally today on the record before this committee, as I have stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that there were no--and I repeat--no secret deals made in connection with the New START treaty, not on…

We must ask why did the administration agree to this language after saying they would do no such thing?

The cost alone for modernizing both the nuclear weapons complex and the triad are substantial.

The Russians are known for their secrecy, denial, and deception in operating their strategic forces.

Now is the time to face up to the realities. More funding will be needed in the first few years.