Adam Smith

What the Budget Control Act did is it put everything on the discretionary budget, you know, and it put all of the cuts, you know, not just on defense but on transportation, infrastructure, research.

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.

Sequestration is the classic, you know, 'boiling the frog in the water.'

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

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.

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

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 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.

All of that can be accomplished by holding them within the United States.

There is literally no benefit to keep Guantanamo Bay open.

I am just here to argue that we should close Guantanamo Bay.

Figuring out exactly what it means and what the best policies are to implement it effectively is critically important for this committee and for this Congress.

How do we do this in a way that does not make this look confrontational, but really makes it look like we are, you know, looking for partners throughout the region, including China?

What does that mean, particularly within the Department of Defense? What does that mean in terms of how we shift our assets?

Obviously, the Asia-Pacific region is of critical importance to the United States and growing importance economically, politically, a number of different countries that we have complex relationships there.

Dropping more bombs on the population isn't exactly going to help the refugee crisis.

None of what has been put on the table here strikes me as helpful.

It is not going to happen, you know. Assad has the support of Iran.

Targeted air strikes are not going to win, okay?

We would rather have the other outcome. We would rather Assad not be there.

I think civilian protection should be a critical element in any such decision.

I believe the U.S. just needs to be careful not to make it worse and not to leap before we look.

We do not have reliable partners in Syria that we can work with.