this is kind of an opportunity, let's face it, for those of us who care about modernization, this moment in time is an opportunity.

the only real reductions that are taking place are on our side.

the only real restrictions are coming on our side where we are actually reducing our capabilities per the treaty.

I think that the posture should be that we're going to pursue the recommendations of our military leadership.

I think it just reflects what has been a pervasive and is a systemic nervousness on their part.

What we can do is focus on modernization, which is not a part of this, and ensure that what we do have is reliable.

What I can guarantee you is that, for the next 2 years, through the 2012 election, this President is going to make it absolutely clear this will be full-funded to the degree that he's promised.

None of us can afford to allow our deterrent shield to deteriorate, and to have a lack of confidence about it.

It seems to me that what you're saying is, the treaty itself is not particularly important, that what is important is the dialogue that we have with Russia...

I think what they are saying is, though, if we develop any capabilities--any capabilities--as it relates to defense against Russia, they can get out of this treaty.

Should it, then, trouble us that, before we ever get started, that each of the countries has a very different opinion of what we've negotiated, as relates to missile defense?

I rise today to address the financial regulation proposal that is before us right now. I wish to talk about some of the conversations that are taking place about our status. No. 1, I think everybody in this body knows that people on both…