Angus King

I am concerned that we are making decisions and doing drawdowns and force reductions based upon old news.

We ought to be using contractors for everything but fighting.

I share my colleagues' concern that we are facing a new round of challenges around the world and we really have to revisit that decision.

I think that was a tremendous strategic mistake in retrospect, because the world has changed and now suddenly we are in competition with Russia again.

By not showing any level of resistance, then they're going to maintain their presence.

Therefore, getting rid of Assad should be a priority

I believe the Senator from Wisconsin wants to make a comment before I do. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Wisconsin.

Are there any savings to be had? And if so, we would like to quantify them because in fiscal year 2017 we are going to face about a $15 billion shortfall.

It seems to me a natural.

I voted for the JCPOA but it was based upon an understanding and expectation that it would be scrupulously enforced.

It is ironic in the extreme that we are the people that invented Facebook and Twitter and all of those things, and we are losing on that front.

In my view, there are two fronts to the war with ISIS. One is military. The other is ideas.

It is preposterous that we do not have more significant icebreaker capacity, particularly given what is happening in the Arctic.

My concern is that other nations are going through that process, making claims, and we are standing on the sidelines.

I think literally a structure that builds competition and contrarianism into the system might be salutary.

We are also fighting an idea. And I think if there is any gap in the--well, there are several gaps, but one of the serious gaps is the clash of ideas gap.

I love the idea of a red team in the Pentagon or perhaps in the National Security Council whose job it is to contest the conventional wisdom.

Is real policy not made in the White House these days?

Consensus is the enemy. You cannot adapt if you have a consensus-based process

If you have a large, cumbersome, slow structure, you will have cumbersome, slow, consensus-driven, and ultimately unsatisfactory policy or strategy

The tendency of any bureaucracy is, A, to say no and, B, to grow.

One of the problems, it seems to me, is that people that we elect President generally are politicians, and politicians generally don't think much about management.

The person who's in charge at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, it seems to me, has an enormous role to play, if they choose to play it.

If the oversight from the White House is more about policy and politics than it is about running the enterprise--I mean, there's a reason it's called 'the administration.'

Very quickly, I just wanted to mention that Senator Enzi and a number of us have a bill on biennial budgeting.