I appreciate all of your testimony.

I believe that if you can go from the facts, you can have a better discussion of what the policy discussions should be.

I just don't understand it.

we spend probably the majority of the time when we discuss foreign policy on this floor talking about the crises in places such as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan. If we talk about East Asia at all, we generally are discussing the economic…

I do not mean to interrupt you, but I really only have about 7 minutes here.

Presidents should not be able to avoid constitutional responsibilities merely because engaging the people's representatives is inconvenient or uncertain.

the use by a President of a very vague standard that he or she can unilaterally inject military force into situations around the world based on a vague standard of humanitarian assistance.

the War Powers Act does not apply in this situation because of their very narrow and, in my opinion, contorted legal definition of 'hostilities.'

My position is that the Security Council cannot authorize any military action, cannot mandate any military action.

I think it was his obligation in February to come to Congress and get that authorization.

Well, in general, because if you are engaged in a Vietnam type military operation, which I was, you have certain support elements that are providing indirect assistance to the people who are putting bullets on the battlefield.

Nobody up here wants him to remain, but the moral standard that we set on issues like this is the same one that we should expect.