Quote

I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon. I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home. This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases... is an old-fashioned idea.

We have nine ships and in the next two years will have ten, eleven and twelve. So things are going very nicely and all because of that program that people thought was mindless and so forth.

The cooperation of navies from around the world promises high tactical value for the ships, aircraft, and divers involved; while demonstrating international resolve in defending maritime security against potential threats.

I am impressed with the belief that our naval force ought not to cost more in proportion than the British. In some things they may have the advantage, but we will be found to have equally great in others.

Together we are stronger, our voices louder, and the synergy of our actions more powerful. Together we can prevail on the Navy to put commonsense safeguards in place, like requiring its ships to avoid the most sensitive marine mammal habitats and to stop their training exercises during peak migrations.

The more ships have grown in size and consequence, the more their place in our imagination has shrunk.

In my opinion, any navy less than that which would give us the habitual command of our own coast and seas would be little short of useless.

On 9/11, 2001, the Navy stood at 316 ships. By 2008, after one of the great military buildups in American history, we were at 278 ships and had 49,000 fewer sailors.

We can be just as safe with a smaller, more efficient nuclear arsenal at less cost.

I have had no concerns in the past and have none moving forward regarding the Navy's ability to effectively address any potential natural or man-made threat to Naval Station Mayport and any military asset located there, including any future nuclear aircraft carrier.