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

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.

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.

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

if the White House is going to push a policy like this, they have got to fricking push the policy, all right?

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.

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

this is more for the White House: Sell it. Because if you don't, there ain't no way we are going to pass it.

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.