After World War II, our Armed Forces shrank from 12 million men in 1945 to 1.4 million in 1950.

if we face a trillion dollars in cuts, if we face the loss of 30 percent of our defense budget over the next decade, we are not going to have the capacity to back up our commitments.

I think it is very important that we do that, that we make it clear the impact that these cuts will have on our ability to protect this Nation.

So if you don't deal with those other issues, as I have said repeatedly, you wind up being the person last in line at a buffet where the food is running out.

After World War I, our Armed Forces shrank from 2.9 million men to 250,000 in 1928.

the primary role of those forces is not anymore defending the Germans or Italians; it is simply a way that we can be forward-deployed in the areas where our troops are most likely to see combat in the future.

Let me tell you, everywhere in the budget, every little piece of it, the people who advocate for that piece of it have an outstanding argument for why their piece of it isn't the problem.

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

I share with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the concern that large, immediate, across-the-board cuts to the defense budget may well do damage to our national security.

The U.S. military is the modern era's greatest champion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We have to begin to confront that inconsistency if we, as policymakers, are going to have the political space to make the choices that need to be made.