I think we could be much more productive than this endless repeal and replace zombie that keeps coming out of the grave.

It suggests that tax is more important than people's health.

Has the uninsured rate in Indiana come down fairly significantly because of that and also because of Obamacare subsidies?

There's going to be an action taken that would reduce the number of people in this country by potentially 13 million who have health insurance.

The reason I say that this bill is becoming a healthcare bill instead of a tax bill is because from what we understand, the individual income tax relief, which will help about two out of every three middle class families, is temporary.

If you reduce the uninsured rate, you're going to have healthier communities.

However, the absence of which creates an opportunity for some jurisdictions to craft lenient or nonexistent regulation, leading to the emergence of so-called `regulatory havens,' the encouragement of both scientific flight and medical…

I have a strong belief that under administrations of both parties, and under Congresses of both parties' leadership, there has been a significant kind of creeping abdication of power in the war, peace, and diplomacy space from Congress to…

I introduced a bill with Senator Collins and others this week dealing with trying to buildup a workforce that would be capable of providing care to those with Alzheimer's.

we felt that no congressional imprimatur was very unwise, and we pulled that back.

This country has long, really forever, been the leader in science in the world and I do not think we want to cede that to anybody else.

I rise to talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program. We all know that healthcare is the most important thing in any person's life and in their family's life, and there is probably no healthcare issue that is more intense than a…

I rise to speak on a topic I have often spoken about on the floor. We have been at continuous war since September 14, 2001, when Congress passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force to go after the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks…

The U.S. military is currently taking direct action against the following individuals and groups under the authority of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): al-Qaeda; the Taliban; certain other terrorist or insurgent…

the Founding Fathers had a really good idea. They said, look, the first branch of government, the legislative branch should decide when we are going to war.

it is time for Congress to have a public debate and vote about an authorization for U.S. military action against non-state terrorist groups.

The question of this hearing is whether we can be in an endless war with no congressional vote against newly-formed terrorist groups all over the world forever.

I do not think we can kill more than we create in the process, so ultimately there is going to have to be another way that involves some diplomacy, some discussion.

I think it is a forever war, and I worry about deeply about handing the power over to presidents to do this without the feel--the need to come to Congress at all.

I have a hard time understanding the opposition to the resolution as anything other than we do not want congressional oversight.

We are more than a feedback loop. This is a constitutional power, and we should not be putting troops into harm's way.

The President, just like President Obama, believes he has the legal authority he needs under the 2001 AUMF to fight ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, and I agree.

It is important for Congress to better exercise its oversight over the use of force now.

I think there needs to be more public discussion and light on these activities because I do not think the American people want the United States conducting a global endless shadow war under the radar, covert, and beyond scrutiny.

an important message of resolve to the American public and our troops that we stand behind them in their mission.