I think maybe the Japanese experience should share with us that keeping zombie banks and zombie institutions alive that really ought to go away and start over again can be a mistake also.

The sacred right of free speech is enshrined in our Republic from the beginning and one that becomes stronger when we protect it even for those who we disagree with.

surely you would not contend that we ought to run a poll to decide how that is done.

We've reduced the number of GBIs being produced dramatically, more than I think we should.

If you want to look for a place to save money, I suggest that $12 billion would be a good place to start and that you have plenty of money to modernize our nuclear arsenal.

I don't think it's critical to our national defense.

Life-extended B61 bombs must be introduced into the stockpile by 2017 to avoid gaps in capability.

Will not develop new nuclear warheads. LEPs will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs.

I just want to say, I learned something here, when I first came to the Senate, President Clinton had a lot of increases in the defense budget in the out-years.

How important is it that the NNSA be able to expeditiously proceed with a nuclear and nonnuclear LEP on the B61?

Will not conduct nuclear tests, and will seek ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Would you explain why that testing is necessary?

This is not going to be a pleasant process if you don't have us really good numbers that we can believe in.

I guess I see there is $5 billion for the first 5 years, but what kind of plan is there for the second?

We anticipate that identified funding levels for the out-years may not be sufficient to meet the post-NPR stockpile requirements.

Last year, I think, General Alston and Admiral Johnson, you testified about Air Force test flights...

I still continue to hope that Chief Justice Roberts has enough political savvy to avoid this backlash, but there is no doubt that the stakes could not be higher.

Well, no, I think that is why they asked for new argument, and they made it publicly clear...

We have seen narrow conservative majorities strike down economic regulations in the name of corporate rights before, and it always ends badly for the Court.

But Citizens United had an interest in winning the case, and they did raise the other issues...

Wasn't that the whole point of the first oral argument?

I certainly would not, Senator Sessions, and I do not think that the Obama administration would either.

Well, she said in her argument, later I guess, 'We haven't done that yet,' but indicated that there might be a possibility it could be done...

Surely you would agree that implicated those issues significantly.

Citizens United is disappointing, Senator Sessions, even to those critics like me who acknowledge that it is principled, because it was so unnecessary.