Adam Smith

I would suggest better the 'how' is we want to train them and equip them so that they are better positioned to fight.

The amount of money we are requesting, or that we envision inside this request--the $500 million--is a pretty reasonable planning factor for what we would expect to do.

This has got to be fixed; it is really not good that it came to us in this form in the first place.

I am telling you, this is really, really poorly drafted in terms of narrowing it down to a specific set of purposes.

I have been around here long enough to know that that is far from a black and white issue.

Let me say right, if I could, your intent and your design are, I am sorry, irrelevant to this conversation.

I don't support sequestration. I would expand upon that to say I don't just oppose sequestration for the Department of Defense, but for all other discretionary spending, as well.

Contained in one of those funds is an authorization for a Department of Defense [DOD] effort to support friendly rebels in Syria.

Personally, I support the drawdown. I think the fewer troops we have there, the better, going forward for a variety of different reasons.

The purpose of the Overseas Contingency Operation from when it was first set up--the funds were to fund the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are supposed to exercise oversight. And every once in a while we are right. So we are going to keep exercising that oversight.

I am struck by the fact the people who are building the newest carrier, the Ford, accused of cost overrun...

One of the things that we really focus on is how can we make quicker decisions.

I think that over the years we pass a bill every year, and I am sure we have unintentionally put together some regulations...

The problem I think everyone here is very good at describing, too many requirements, too many people in charge.

We have to be smarter, we have to figure that out.

We have had a lot of very expensive mistakes in the area of acquisition reform.

I think this is a very, very important hearing.

We are going to have to be much smarter about it.

The choice here is, can we take a realistic step that is going to stop them, continue to stop them, from getting a nuclear weapon?

I am not optimistic that Iran will be willing to give up what they need to give up in order to get this deal.

Without question, Iran is a bad actor... Since 1979, they have been pretty much nothing but a bad actor on a lot of different issues.

If, in fact, the United States agrees to the kind of deal that the chairman just described, then I think it would be a grave and terrible mistake.

But I think that risk has been greatly exaggerated.

I think this committee needs to be careful about acting like we got nothing out of this. We brought home one of our soldiers.