Jeff Sessions

I am disappointed that we are constricted.

They said it was inevitable if we do not change this unsustainable path. Would you agree with that?

We just had a $616 billion tax increase, averaging about $60 billion a year extra income, and we are having recovery from the recession, the slowest in a decade but some recovery, and that results in a lower deficit, as you have reported…

Thank you for your insightful report and comments. They are very important to us.

The budget of the United States is indisputably in terrible shape, and we remain on an unsustainable path.

However, the August 2011 debt ceiling increase resulted in the only real reduction in the growth of spending, $2.1 trillion, and it was a firm commitment and law to reduce spending by $2.1 trillion.

The administration has not indicated willingness to compromise, but as they have released with this budget, they slam the door on compromise.

We cannot continue on this course. Bowles and Simpson told us in this very room that this Nation has never faced a more predictable financial crisis.

Right, well, fundamentally, is it not true that the deficits continue to rise and rise steadily because they are increasing faster than economic growth?

And it also increases the risk, as Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson told us, of a fiscal crisis that might occur.

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

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

We should look for other areas within our Government to find some savings too.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

A growing concern on our side about moving this nomination so rapidly and a belief that there are further disclosures.

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