What I am saying is we may need new authority, but if you expand this to the extent that you have, it is meaningless.

The President has authority to put boots-on-the-ground in Yemen or the Congo under this Act.

Congress is given not only the power to declare war but a wide range of associated powers.

It sure would give me a lot more comfort to feel like where he is sent, whether I agree with the policy or not, that he is being sent wherever in harm's way only if both Congress and the executive branch agree and have seriously thought…

I believe that fighting terrorism is an absolute paramount responsibility of this Government and this President or any President.

How do we breathe life into the principle of Congress having the power to declare war and the President having the power to prosecute it in this kind of new set of circumstances?

I would be joining Senator Inhofe as to who would be first in line to object to an abuse of this authority.

My concern is about open-ended authority to the executive to wage war and send our people into harm's way.

I want to know how to, as I said, breathe life into it.

If the nature of al Qaeda core on September 11, 2001, does emerge, then by all means return to Congress and request a narrowly tailored authorization to use force to address that.

I feel very strongly that every 12 years or so, it is time to engage and figure out whether you agree with the scope of the----

Senator McCain was absolutely right. It refers to the people who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11.

I just do not like the idea of reading a 12-year-old document so broadly that it renders the congressional authority and the importance of congressional authority for using military force abroad of no force and effect.

I have made a proposal with some co-authors about setting up an administrative process inside the executive branch that would notify Congress about what groups are actually our enemies.

I wish to associate myself with the comments of the senior senator from Maine. I too am proud to congratulate the Maine School of Science and Mathematics, MSSM, for its 13th-place showing in this year's U.S. News and World Report on high…

this discussion, this debate isn't about budgets. It is not about deficits. It is about governing. That is the fundamental question that is before this body. It is about governing. I rise surprised and disappointed. I expected to come here…

we need to hear about the effects particularly of the sequestration because it will not do to have a crisis that we are unable to respond to adequately

The Benghazi situation taught us that timeliness of response is important.

It strikes me that the overall impression from this hearing is that we are really in a situation, particularly with sequestration, where readiness and modernization are in competition with each other.

I have a feeling now that we are having a somewhat similar experience of it will never happen again.

So this is another area where we have to work together.

But that 306 number in 24 years is based upon no sequestration.

I was frankly surprised that the 306-ship goal would not be reached for 24 years.

What is going on in this institution with regard to the fiscal situation is inexcusable, and to me it is a fundamental issue of competence.

But is it safe to say that if sequestration continues into the indefinite foreseeable future, we will have a substantial impact on shipbuilding?