Angus King

To the extent we can do that, that to me would be a very high priority.

We hope the Army does not go to 420,000, but it is probably going to somewhere in the neighborhood of 450,000.

We need to have our entire combat air forces, 80 percent of that has to be ready in 30 days.

If you take us to sequestration, we have already said that is going to be 175,000.

Risk equals young men and women's lives.

Full sequestration would take you to 420,000.

It was designed to be stupid and it succeeded brilliantly.

Are there morale issues in terms of multiple deployments, longer deployments? Is there a stress factor on your men and women?

For this year, we have met our recruiting goals.

I think if and when we do change the retirement system, we need to be very clear, right up front with the new cohorts coming in, as to what that retirement system is.

Congress has certainly had a major role in creating that situation, and I think we have to own up to that.

This is a zero-sum game that you're in, in terms of the way the budget caps work

It would help me to understand the context of this if, for the record, you guys could produce a graph.

Capital goes where it can earn a return and where there is a reasonable certainty of that return.

Nobody in this body, at least nobody that I know, and certainly not me, wants to gut regulation or wants to shortcut environmental review.

I think an inherently dangerous system for democracy, and it has become even more so in the last few years.

Permitting is generally too costly and the process is too lengthy.

Regulations have a cost, and not all regulations are created equal.

I have experienced--and I have also been a board member of large companies and small companies, particularly in the financial services field, so I have seen how regulation right now, I think, is far overburdening small community banks and…

I believe it is critical that we seek a better understanding of the regulatory process.

Clearly it is not healthy for democracy to have that amount of money sloshing around in the system.

Projects should be judged on their merits and not on who wins protracted legal battles.

We do not have the luxury of being able to impose regulations that are going to impose unnecessary costs on businesses in this country.

Over the years, regulations have helped keep our drinking water clean, they have ensured our food is more sanitary and labeled more accurately, and they have led to dramatic improvements in workplace health and safety.

Can we find a way to permit major projects at a cost that is not extraordinarily prohibitive?