John Cornyn

I support this so-called retrofit package as a step to qualitatively improve Taiwan's air force.

Taiwan remains the most acute sovereignty issue for China and the main driver for military modernization programs.

Taiwan needs both the upgraded F-16A/Bs and the new F-16C/D purchase to fulfill its 'self-defense needs in qualitative and quantitative terms.'

I'm concerned as I see China continuing to grow its military, Taiwan's military capability continues to recede in comparison.

Secretary Panetta, are you willing to get personally involved to ensure the Military Services comply with the MOVE Act and the motor voter law on every military installation, as required?

It is my hope that future Secretaries of Defense will share that impressive level of commitment on this important issue.

The significance of this announcement seems to have been undermined by the cuts that were announced simultaneously.

I am concerned that the Military Services have dragged their feet on fully implementing this requirement.

What impact will a Brotherhood-led government have on the longstanding relationship between the U.S. military and the Egyptian military?

Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey, do you agree that such aggression is unacceptable and does serious damage to U.S.-China relations?

What is your assessment of the risk the United States assumes by making such drastic cuts to our defense spending?

The concept of reversibility--including the vectors on which we place our industrial base, our people, our Active/Reserve components balance, our posture, and our partnership emphasis--is a key part of our decision calculus.

These deep and broad defense cuts will impact every aspect of our Nation's defense capability.

The new strategy must "protect key investments in the technologically advanced capabilities most needed for the future . . . [and] no longer size Active Forces to conduct large and protracted stability operations while retaining the…

I know nobody believes us, but I'd know if we were.

Given that we are still fighting a land war in Afghanistan, coupled with our historical inability to predict the next conflict, on what do you base the conclusion that we will rely more heavily on air and sea capabilities in the future?

We don't know what sort of unexpected challenges and threats our country will face in the future, is my point.

This is the number one responsibility the Federal Government has--a lot of other things that we do, we could put off or do without.

There are very real, not long-term but near-term, potentialities that could embroil not only the United States, but the Middle East and our allies, in a full-fledged war.

We continue to assure the Russians that they are not our adversary and that we are not building this system in response to their strategic nuclear forces.

It is difficult to assess the actions others may take in response to situations which have yet to occur.

Cheating at any force level is cause for concern--in part because it indicates intent.

I am also particularly concerned regarding President Obama's recent unfortunate admission to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he is waiting until after the election, when he can exercise more flexibility to deal with issues relating…

I agree with the importance the NPR places on Russia joining us in any effort to move to lower nuclear force levels.

It's important for Congress to understand just how much our nuclear deterrent costs.