Let me tell you, everywhere in the budget, every little piece of it, the people who advocate for that piece of it have an outstanding argument for why their piece of it isn't the problem.

the primary role of those forces is not anymore defending the Germans or Italians; it is simply a way that we can be forward-deployed in the areas where our troops are most likely to see combat in the future.

I share with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the concern that large, immediate, across-the-board cuts to the defense budget may well do damage to our national security.

I look forward to this discussion. I think it is the most important thing we are doing right now because it will form our national security policy in the years and decades to follow.

So if you don't deal with those other issues, as I have said repeatedly, you wind up being the person last in line at a buffet where the food is running out.

We don't collect enough revenue to cover our expenditures.

The U.S. military is the modern era's greatest champion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I share the view that large, immediate cuts to the defense budget would have substantially negative impacts to the ability of the U.S. military to carry out those missions we assign them.

I worry, just as Mr. Bartlett does, about my children and my grandchild right now and what they are going to wind up being the benefactors of that we do.

It is my belief that we are going to have to fix this problem from both ends--spending will have to come down, and we're going to have to fix the revenue problem.

Large, immediate cuts to the defense budget would have substantially negative impacts to the ability of the U.S. military.

Cuts to our Nation's defense, either by eliminating programs or laying off soldiers, comes with an economic cost.