I believe that we can rationally evaluate our national security strategy, our defense expenditures, and the current mission sets we ask the military to undertake and come up with a strategy that requires less funding.

What is this Administration's economic strategy for Afghanistan, which, under the law, it was required to present to this Congress before you were sworn in back in June. We are still waiting on it.

It is also important that we address the revenue side of our budget problem. We must consider raising additional revenue.

What is this doctrine that justifies a massive ground presence in Afghanistan? How do we measure success in that theater in particular?

It is critical that we have this money that we are spending, the billions of dollars invested back into our country.

I have been incredibly encouraged, more so than any HASC hearing I have attended thus far during my first term here because you discussed, in a very direct way, the need to assess risk, to accept risk, to articulate precisely which risks…

Large, immediate, across-the-board cuts to the defense budget, which would occur under sequestration, would do serious damage to our national security.

In order to avoid drastic cuts to our military and other important programs, revenue streams must be enhanced.

Large, immediate cuts to the defense budget would have substantially negative impacts on the ability of the U.S. military to carry out its missions.

Large, immediate, across-the-board cuts to the defense budget, which would occur under sequestration, would do serious damage to our national security.

If the 'super committee' fails to reach a deal, then cuts through sequestration will only impose deeper and more dangerous cuts to our military and non-entitlement spending.