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

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.

Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services

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

If you have to take these $52-billion cuts every year going outward, no flexibility in the world is really going to fundamentally change the dire scenarios.

How much military risk are you willing to take to preserve your tax cut?

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…

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.

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.