it does not produce a balanced budget.

So, to my colleagues, this is the reason I think it is accurate to say we have fundamentally a spending problem rather than a tax problem.

I am disappointed that we are constricted.

This budget request is one that, in a time where sequestration is affecting many programs, including our defense budget, the defense budget is getting cut significantly.

One thing I would like to emphasize is that it is not a definition of good policy or concern just to spend more money.

It is an absolute fact.

We all need to know there are two funding sources here: the base budget and overseas contingency operations.

I would totally disagree with that, and I think that economic studies are going to prove that is wrong.

It is pretty obvious when you look at it that is too rapid a reduction.

I know we can do better, and I hope we will on that.

I do believe you are being asked to take a disproportionate cut.

I am skeptical about proposals that give the Corps more authority and Congress less control over water resources.

I respect your chairmanship so much, and we produced the defense bill unanimously last year again.

the public proposal of the President that he would like to reduce by one-third our already substantially reduced nuclear arsenal raises a serious concern to me.

The President has indicated basically he wants more taxes and more spending and he will not find any other reductions in spending anywhere else to relieve the burdens on the military.

I do remain concerned about the impact on the Defense Department.

The reductions in de-alerting proposed under this illustrative plan could be carried out in unison with the United States and Russia through reciprocal presidential directives.

Senator Hagel was very anxious to tell us the report did not call for unilateral actions on behalf of the United States.

A less good approach would be to adopt this agenda unilaterally.

I think that is a testament to bipartisanship in the defense of America.

The President also has made it clear he believes in zero nuclear weapons. That is his policy for America. I think it's utterly unrealistic.

We would ask that that be presented to this Congress because we have treaties already that impact so much of this and Congress believes that any changes should also be made by treaty.

I congratulate you particularly because looking at the amount of money spent under the energy and water appropriations, harbor maintenance is about 1 percent.

I think this is out of the mainstream. It represents a rather erratic position.

If an ally doesn't think that we are going to be there for them, then will they not have a high incentive to build a nuclear arsenal themselves to defend themselves? That worries me.