James M. Talent

Part of what you are doing and need to do is to strengthen the civilian elements of national influence.

I could not agree more with what Michele was saying about we need a whole-of-government approach to these competitions.

But it is really important because the impact of the next 8 to 10 years, particularly in that theater, if they are able--I don't have to tell you all--to operationalize hypersonics, we have trouble because our missile defenses go out the…

I am concerned that this is real and that they are, the latest developments are reflective of what is actually happening and that they may be well ahead of us.

I would just suggest I think success means protecting the American homeland, the territorial integrity of allies, the economy, from attacks.

I think success means protecting the American homeland, the territorial integrity of allies, the economy, from attacks.

I think the top-level political authority, which you all represent, what is it you want the outcome of this to be and why?

What we were hearing back is a greater and greater level of frustration that the system doesn't seem to understand what they're dealing with.

The warrior ethos is not a luxury, it is essential when you have a military.

More than ever, the U.S. military must fully engage the entirety of American society, not only to expand the military's access to talent, but to also reconnect the Nation to its military.

We fear our military lacks the capability to attract, use, and keep the unconventional, technical, and cutting-edge talents and skills that it needs to meet future threats and new realities.

The foundation of U.S. military power is the quality and morale of the men and women who have chosen to serve the Nation--in and out of uniform.

The military must also, going forward, engage the entirety of American society.

We can't take the strength and the quality of our servicemen and women for granted.

The foundation of America's military strength is the quality and morale of the men and women who have chosen to service.

If you don't have the countermeasures, you can have all the rest of it done--it is like an army without bullets.

BARDA has been underfunded. It is being funded at a fraction of what it needs.

I think, in terms of communication, one of the things I always believed is that people will pay more attention if there is something they can do.

We do a lousy job of orientation on National security issues in general for new Members coming into this body.

We ought to do for other biological agents what we have done for smallpox and, to some extent, for anthrax; and then continue to support FDA.

My understanding of the science--and I will certainly invite Dr. Cairns and the deputy commissioner to weigh in here--is that probably, of the three, the weaponizing it would be the most difficult but, nevertheless, within the capability…

Congress cannot pay too much attention to the fact that we live in an era of information technology which has, unfortunately, greatly increased the danger to the United States and the world of asymmetric weapons.

What we are seeing here is, when we have, as in New York, unified authority which sets priorities, we have good use of dollars.

The threat of a bio-attack is, in my judgment, one of the greatest and gravest.