Jim DeMint

It just tells you how irrational this spending culture has become that's driven by earmarks.

One of the first things we will do in the House and the Senate is ban earmarks.

I think if Americans know we're--that we're not just setting up rules--my concern is that your job is to keep people safe, not to keep them comfortable.

What do we need in Washington? Harry Reid calls Chris Coons his pet. Delaware doesn't need a Washington career politician's pet.

Would collective bargaining improve security--would it improve national security--at the FBI?

If you assume the reins at the TSA, can you commit to paying the TSO--the officers an honest wage?

Collective bargaining at the TSA remains a threat to aviation safety.

What will this do to improve security?

Collective bargaining will not only not improve security, it will have a direct negative impact on security.

We need to continually improve what we do at TSA.

You don't think you necessarily need a third party to tell you to do that.

I've got a letter from candidate Barack Obama to John Gage, promising to provide collective bargaining benefits.

if we see you yielding to political pressure, that would suggest to us that the priorities have changed.

I will trust your judgment until proven otherwise.

I think you know your colleagues at the FBI will laugh at you if you ever try to make the case that security forces need third-party negotiations.

Abandoning the current policy that prohibits collective bargaining by transportation security officers will significantly undermine TSA's ability to respond to threats, and protect the Nation.

I do not accept the premise that going into the future that the United States should accept a mutual assured destruction policy.

But it certainly enhances the democratic process.

I think if we told the American people that we are going to continue with the cold-war strategy with Russia of mutually assured destruction, that if they shoot at us, we will destroy them, they will destroy us, and that we will not attempt…

I am almost stunned that anyone in this Senate would accept as an impossibility that America...could never develop a missile defense system.

It's clear that, at any point that our missile defense threatens their ability to deliver offensive weapons, that they feel completely free to walk away from this treaty.

the reason for the disagreement is when the Russians speak of missile defense, they feel the START Treaty is a clear limitation of the United States ability to develop any strategic defense system against multiple missiles.

The disagreement here really compels me to ask for the negotiating record so that I can understand more clearly what has been discussed.

It seems like it is going to send a number of our allies that depend on our umbrella of protection into the mode of developing their own nuclear weapons.

The issue here is: There is a serious disagreement between what the Russians say and what we say that this treaty entails.