John McCain

This, again, gives validity to my concern because, obviously, we may not have been inactive, but any observer knows that Bashar al-Assad is prevailing on the battlefield.

Do you believe the continued costs and risks of our inaction in Syria are now worse for our national security interests than the costs and risks associated with limited military action?

I must tell both the witnesses at the onset I am very concerned about the role you have played over the last 2 years, your view of your role as the chief advisors to the President on national security.

One of the things that is a little frustrating to some of us is we're sort of seeing a repeat of the Iraq scenario, in that we delay and delay and delay on these decisions.

Of course you are aware that the Russians continue their flow of weapons into Bashar Assad's forces; and even now, later reports that the Iranians are not only providing weapons, but they're training, actually training people in Iran and…

I think we all know, and I know you agree, that the situation has worsened over time, to the point where the jihadists are playing a greater and greater role in Syria, which obviously post-Assad, which will happen some day, is going to be…

I think that if we could assure that the weapons were going to the right people and that we would not have to face them in the future, that it would be helpful to removing the regime.

Both former Secretary of Defense Panetta and General Dempsey... supported supplying weapons to the rebels.

So we really aren't putting pilots at risk and there's not a requirement to take out the air defenses around Damascus.

Can Patriot missiles shoot down Scud missiles?

I hope you will follow in their footsteps, and I would remind you again on the issue of Syria.

The United States and our allies could identify and destroy quite a fair amount of Assad's operational aircraft on the ground using precision strike and standoff weaponry.

Over the long term, I'm greatly concerned that we'll squander our investment of our national blood and treasure in Afghanistan.

His proposal continues his unfortunate history of saddling the men and women of our military with disproportionate and illogical budget cuts.

I agree with our former Secretary of Defense it's devastating to our defense.

It's clear that the future operations we conduct in Africa and the Middle East will be from Europe and with Europe.

If this is what receding looks like, I'd hate to see what a threat looks like.

You cannot continue these kinds of incredible, total loss of the taxpayers' dollars without there being an understandable backlash on the part of the taxpayers of America, which I believe will harm our ability to defend this Nation.

If I sound frustrated, I say to the witnesses it is because I am.

Why can you not? Why can we not penalize companies for failure to live up to the obligations of their contracts?

Now, you are sitting here before this committee and you can tell us there will be no further cost overruns borne by the Federal Government?

So since 2001--and we are in 2013--we are beginning to work through the problem. Is that what I can tell my constituents, Mr. Secretary?

You cannot address the past?

I am sure you understand our frustration, which brings me to the F-35.

How do I, Mr. Fanning, go tell the taxpayers of America in my State that the Air Force just wasted $1 billion on a program that obviously was a miserable failure?