Brad Sherman

I am sure that as a result of that meeting, the President will want to fully fund absolutely every tunnel between New Jersey and New York.

And don't hesitate to say that the President's budget requests are completely wrong and that we should be providing far more money especially for Ms. Steele's efforts.

If I share one thing with the President it is a real focus on the trade deficit numbers because those numbers translate into real jobs.

I hope that the President will appoint people to the board of directors of EXIM Bank that will carry out its duties.

As I understand it Ambassador Wells, we are talking about a 92 percent decline in our aid to Sri Lanka.

Is China a currency manipulator today?

I would hope you would use your power on FSOC to break up the 'too big to fail' banks.

I want to commend the chair and the ranking member for bringing to us nine well-crafted bipartisan bills.

The first bill, H. Res. 422, urges autonomy for Hong Kong that is consistent with the one country, two systems policy.

I support all four bills, namely the ones regarding Hong Kong, China, North Korea, and Taiwan.

China is not going to change its policy toward North Korea till we change our policy.

The easy way to meet our political objectives here in Washington is to say we can get China to change its policy without doing anything we don't feel like doing.

If instead of deploying the U.S. Navy to worry about these islets you want to deploy it to protect our ports from unfair Chinese imports, you may have a partner in that.

So we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight with China over little islets that we claim have strategic significance but really don't, and we are going to ignore the chance to spend a tiny, tiny fraction of that on the…

Maybe we should have walked away from Vietnam 4 years into the action rather than let it linger 10 years.

If indeed the American people are supportive of a military action and the Congress knows that--and the military and our executive branch knows they are going to have to come before the government again to have an approval, that if the…

We should not be limiting--if we have a goal and it is verified by Congress, we shouldn't put limits on a commitment to the goal.

Vague authorization--a blank check, if you will--is the opposite of democracy.

We don't need to pass a new AUMF to show the world we support our troops.

The fact is that at least in that circumstance the President, and others have as well, simply violated the War Powers Act.

Since then, every President has said that they don't recognize the binding power of the AUMF but they will often act consistent with it.

The advocates of unlimited executive power without the need for congressional authorization--I am willing to do that as soon as we elect a President who is wiser than Jefferson.

It vests in Congress not only the power to declare war but control over the money that funds military operations.

Our Founders wrestled with this issue over 200 years ago. They knew that by vesting--they could have vested all power in the executive branch, thereby achieving security, secrecy, and flexibility.

Because our goal, the political--if you want to be a good politician, you just slam the table and say we want a democratic North Korea and we will settle for nothing less.