I think the main thing for me would be to have parity of resources between prosecution and defense.

The Department of Defense stands firmly behind this treaty. It strengthens strategic stability.

The treaty contains an important clause that will allow us to withdraw at any time in accordance with changing calculations pertaining to national and global security.

the overall effect of fully exposed negotiations, followed by a far more compelling Senate review, would be to weaken the treatymaking process and thereby damage the American diplomacy.

This is a good treaty. From the historical perspective, it is another step contributing to our decades-long process of responsible, safe, and secure nuclear arms reduction.

I do not know what else this administration can do outside of running a billboard in downtown Washington to say that missile defense is not included in this treaty.

The treaty provides long-needed verification standards which represent significant improvement over the old START Treaty.

The simplest explanation is the best. I think it is pretty clear they are doing this for domestic political consumption.

I believe that the New START Treaty is in the interests of the United States and is the right treaty for today.

All of the figures from those 3 days of hearings points to Wall Street which created and sold these toxic investments to their clients.

The hardest thing is not the decision to buy, it is the decision to sell.

Should it concern the people on this side of the dais that one of the major engines that has driven this country for so many years is the investment banking?

In hindsight--at the time, if you knew at the time what was going on, you would say this is as target-rich investment for fraud.

We are going to stay here as long as it takes to get this information before the public.

I personally have a hard time believing that folks as smart as you guys didn't see the housing market was having a bubble

Let me tell you why this is so important and why your oil analogy really doesn't work.

Because what is really at the heart of this is at what point did Goldman Sachs decide the housing market is going south and we want to get out of it?

This is the worst thing to happen to this country economically since the Great Depression.

It is like the old Watergate thing. What did you know and when did you know it?

Just so I get it clear, it is in your statements, I mean, but just to kind of concentrate on what it is, we know that thousands of RMBSes that were rated AAA in 2006-2007 are now rated as junk.

AAA does not mean thousands of securities that are rated AAA that 2 years later are junk.

thousands of RMBSes rated AAA in 2006 and 2007 are rated now as junk.

I don't think you are going to find one answer, but I think if you start doing triage like that, you might make for a much better system.

I would argue that at this moment and at these times, with respect to the complexity of the problems on national security and the economy, that if you have a simple majority, the President deserves his nominees.

I think that you have to consider whether the use, particularly the use of the filibuster on Executive Branch nominees is appropriate.