Kit Bond

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to see that the President has taken a serious approach to missile defense by increasing his request by over $500 million.

Breaking our previous missile defense treaties with Poland and the Czech Republic not only undermines two of our NATO allies, but puts at risk our ability to protect our friends and allies in Europe and the Middle East.

I don't think we can afford to hedge our bets of what Russia, or, for that matter, Iran, China, North Korea, may or may not do.

I would change President Reagan's theory for dealing with Russia to 'Verify, but don't trust.'

They're listening to NGOs who make their living off of raising fear about GMOs.

I talked to Secretary Bahsu and he understands the importance of transgenic seeds.

We are concerned and oppose the force structure cuts to the Air National Guard C-130 fleet.

By investing in the Guard, we serve the national security interests of the country, ensure the protection of the homeland.

it's been a great honor to work with you, but it's been a real pleasure to work with my friend Pat Leahy.

I will only believe it when I see it.

That's just not in the interest of the American citizen.

The Navy is concerned about the F-35s being ready and available, and even whether they can fly off of carriers.

It's an honor and privilege to be here today.

We can't thank you, sir, enough, and your staff, for being there, for listening to us, and for providing that great leadership.

Thank you, General McKinley, for your very kind words.

If they alter significantly the way people do business back home, we want to make sure reform is done right.

If a community bank had a large portfolio of loans and wanted to offset part of that risk by going short or buying some form of put, who would be the appropriate person to regulate that?

If you are a major energy producer that has lots of contracts with a lot of--say, it is a coal or a natural gas company that has lots of contracts with lots of energy companies.

In the heartland I am from, we hear and understand that Wall Street provides critical financial support.

Do you think the Navy need only purchase F/A-18s on a year-by-year, case-by-case basis, or would it better to enter into a multiyear contract which would save hundreds of millions of dollars for American taxpayers?

I talked with a master chief petty officer who was very familiar with it, and he thought that the JSF will never operate off of a carrier.

As Stalin once said, 'quantity has a quality all of its own.'

I think the only requirement that Congress would put on you is substantial savings.

I believe an accurate cost accounting would show that the JSF not only has breached the initial threshold of Nunn-McCurdy, but will have gone past it.