Jim Langevin

Our S&T investments over the last decade have been instrumental in delivering the capabilities our forces need to defeat such enemies and protect them from rudimentary yet effective weapons like improvised explosive devices.

Emerging technologies born of past and current investments, like directed energy and other high-energy weapons, have the potential to deliver paradigm-shifting capabilities to our warfighters.

As budgets grow smaller we recognize the necessity of continuing a robust investment in S&T.

Maintaining the United States technological edge is a priority for the House Armed Services Committee and, most especially, for this subcommittee.

The U.S. faces threats from state and non-state actors that seek to develop, proliferate, acquire or use WMD.

Although our conventional forces have seen increases in dwell time over the last few years as combat operations in the Middle East change in character, special operations forces continue to experience a very high operational tempo.

I thank both of my colleagues for their supportive comments in support of this amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered…

The law-making branch of government, were going to stand behind their efforts to defeat ISIL.

I think there is certainly no greater responsibility that any of us have here on this committee or in government when the decisions come up as to when or whether or not to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way and to get it…

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Stackley, Admiral, General, thank you all for your testimony and all that you do to protect our Nation.

I conceptually support JIE, especially if it provides the ability to better defend the network against outside and insider threats.

IT consumes a massive portion of our defense investment, and cyber continues to be a very high priority for the Department, as well it should be.

Thank you all for appearing before the subcommittee today and all the work that you do to help our warfighters and the Pentagon be efficient and effective in the IT realm.

A comprehensive strategy, I think, has to have that component of political reforms and everything else, or else it is just spitting into the wind.

If we are going to have any success in dealing with ISIL and with extremism in the Middle East, we have to make sure that our allies are on the same page as we are.

I think that we have--we did a very good job, I think, of assembling a coalition and stopping the immediate crisis.

I share that concern. And I have heard directly from industry that, given the significant drawdown in R&D, that they are struggling to survive in many fields.

Given the what appear to be significant violations of the INF Treaty, should the U.S. withdraw from INF?

So, in your assessment, does arms control support national security? And if so, how?

But do we have a right balance in terms of investing enough in payload capacity and enabling these future missions? What do you think?

The U.S. may now have lost Syria.

Our confidence to date in Prime Minister Abadi is based on the early signals of his commitment to building an inclusive government.

I'm confident we'd all agree that a military solution alone will not quell the rise of radical Islamic extremism in the Middle East.

My constituents are really adamant that they don't want a big U.S. footprint involved in this with forces on the ground.

I did it with mixed emotions, and I know it is not a perfect plan, but I think we need to start somewhere.