You don't have the $52 billion that Representative Franks made you think you had.

if you really want to argue for more money for it, then you have to argue for less someplace else or, as I have advocated, for more revenue.

It is incumbent upon Congress to come up with some sort of plan to find savings and tax increases.

Personally, if I could do it, I would simply turn off sequestration.

the impacts of those cuts are deep and devastating and would fundamentally alter our commitments to the world and our commitments to our own national security.

if we want to say to the Defense Department, you know, tell us what you need to do and then we will get you the money, then we need to make choices in other parts of the budget, both on revenue and on spending.

Those who refuse to end sequestration have the responsibility of proposing a balanced package of revenue increases and spending cuts that do not harm our national security.

The single biggest takeaway from Strategic Choices Management Review is that Congress, by allowing sequestration to continue, is abdicating its constitutional responsibility to responsibly fund the military and to provide for the common…

the choices we have made in the last decade, you know, have been to, you know, dramatically cut taxes and dramatically increase spending.

I can't say that I look forward to the testimony. I don't. It is not going to be pleasant.

if Congress does not act, if we don't do something to shut off sequestration, we have a very bleak future in terms of our national security.