What are you going to do to give the third site that Admiral Syring says that we need and that Commander Jacoby says that we need for shoot-look-shoot, which has been the doctrine while all these threats have been emerging?

No, no, no, wait. That is not sufficient. As you know, that was scheduled already under the Bush administration plan to be completed.

Now, Ms. Creedon, it would have been laughable if the Administration had come in 5 years ago with this plan and said it was going to be sufficient to protect the United States, and now, quite frankly, I believe it is just straight-up…

What a third site gives me, whether it is on the east coast or in an alternate location, would be increased battle space.

the Administration's missile defense policies are in absolute shambles.

North Korea has moved a missile to a launch pad that our intelligence community says could be an ICBM...

If you continue to not fund something you are in essence shutting it down.

The American public always decries the partisan tone that happens here on this House floor, and I'm always amazed when people come down to the House floor and rail on Republicans and Democrats and try to place blame. I'm always…

I think most of us on the subcommittee support the Army's need to modernize.

Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

There is an inherent responsibility I think on the Government's side.

We hear of, you know, FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] and plane delays, but when we get to the issue of national security, the effects are much more critical.

Once again, President Obama and his administration have offered up America's missile defense shield as a bargaining chip. Just the other week, Secretary of State John Kerry flew to China and offered to remove our recently added defenses in…

I want to caution against a rush to provide flexibility, because... it would not reduce the amount of cuts.

Part of the problem that we have in trying to set aside sequestration is that, you know, the Department of Defense was restrained really by the Administration from giving us information about the effects.

We had previously always had a national security strategy that required that we be able to be successful in two conflicts, being able to fight two wars.

I voted against this mess because I was afraid we would be right here, right where we are, in a stalemate without any solution.

Both of them state that at the sequestration numbers, that they would be unable to have confidence of success in one major conflict.

We could project. We could assume. We could try to imagine, but now that we are in the period of sequestration, you are actually putting pen to paper and able to give us an answer.

This is one of those. This is one where Congress has stepped in and said we need to make a mark here.

I voted against this mess because I was so concerned as to what the effects would be on our national security.

I want to congratulate Frank LoBiondo for his leadership both on the Transportation Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

that means if we are occupied, others, not just the United States being at risk, but others could have mischief threatening our other allies.

One thing that is very troubling is that we know that some portion of our fiscal year 2013 buy of F-35s will be cut.

We understand the inventory objective for the CV-22 fleet is 50 aircraft, but when the last CV-22 is delivered in 2016, the inventory will total 49 aircraft due to a class A mishap of one CV-22 in June of last year.