Adam Smith

I think you have given an excellent summary of the challenges facing the Marine Corps and the Navy.

Over the last few years, our military has put together a significant string of foreign policy successes.

This budget is also fully consistent with the funding levels set by the Budget Control Act passed by Congress.

I believe the fiscal year 2013 defense budget meets that goal.

I would just like, as you are still trying to figure out what exactly to do in Okinawa, if you could consider perhaps more marines going to Guam and also not just rotational but on a permanent basis.

The overall budget that the President submitted contained $3 trillion in 10-year savings.

You never forget that it is also in our national security interest to have a strong economy and a fiscally responsible Government.

We need a new strategy to confront the threats that we did, and in a difficult budget environment.

These cuts are from what was projected to be needed to be spent a year or two ago.

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services.

I don't think there is a proper understanding in this body, or even nationally, the devastating impact that has on the ability of the Government.

It is devastating when this body is unable to pass the normal appropriations and authorizing bills in some sort of regular order.

This is an interruption, not an end.

I greatly admire that decision, even as I am very personally disappointed by it.

She worked tirelessly, as we all know on, gosh just about every conceivable issue that was before us.

Gabby will be very much missed from this Congress and particularly from this committee.

I am also going to reserve until it is time to close. We are down to our last speaker.

Yes. That was a huge priority for me in the conference committee. We worked hard to make sure that that happened, and we absolutely protect those rights.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), ranking member on the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) {time} 1500

I cannot imagine an argument that says that the specter of sequestration coming down at us reduces our workload.

Forcing us to shed key talent from our ranks represents a penny-wise/pound-foolish strategy, as we would lose the ability to properly monitor certain areas of Pentagon spending, some of which account for billions in taxpayer dollars.

It is also important that we address the revenue side of our budget problem. We must consider raising additional revenue.

I believe that we can rationally evaluate our national security strategy, our defense expenditures, and the current mission sets we ask the military to undertake and come up with a strategy that requires less funding.

How can we make sure the military is a good steward of the taxpayers' dollar, without increasing the risk to our Armed Forces?