Joe Lieberman

I think it is not right to do it without authorization changes.

Let us talk about the shift from terrorism to all hazards in the homeland security grants and what the rationale for it is.

I focused in my opening statement on the increase in budgetary request for cybersecurity, and you touched on that some in your statement, and I am supportive of it.

I want to commend President Obama and Secretary Napolitano for presenting us with what I believe is a responsible budget request.

Budgets have to carefully balance our Nation's needs with what we can afford.

It is obviously imperative that the Federal Government get its spending under control.

Congress has surely failed more times than not in reorganizing government in a major way.

Do you believe that there is any risk that this stated 5-year delay to the CMRR Facility will become lengthier or turn into a permanent cancellation?

I believe that the principles behind Secretary Gates' efforts are applicable to other Federal agencies.

Mr. D'Agostino, is any headquarters funding directly supporting Weapons Activities, and if so, how much and what does it support?

I noticed a 66 percent increase in the fiscal year 2013 NNSA request for headquarters funding over the fiscal year 2012 appropriations.

Do you believe the 50 to 80 pit requirement is valid?

How would you address the pit production shortfall in that event?

As long as that is the case, the United States must maintain a credible deterrent capability.

I believe we need to consider steps in the fiscal year 2013 authorization process to mitigate the risks posed to our national security by these budget cuts.

Our nuclear deterrent remains one of the most crucial aspects of our national defense.

I hope we can accelerate the conversation because I agree with you that we cannot just hope and pray for a miraculous, what might be called, 'political awakening'.

I do not believe that either one of the results of those expressions at the voting booth has gotten the government where the people want it to be.

People are really angry at the Federal Government, and we know why.

I do not think that anything in this package takes away anybody's First Amendment rights.

If it was that serious for that occasion, it is that serious now for the entire government.

What would such a ban have meant in June 1950 when Senator Margaret Chase Smith... spoke out against Senator Joseph McCarthy?

Campaign for your Republican colleagues. Go into States with open seats. But do not campaign against your Democratic colleagues.

The fact is that, as everybody knows, the public's estimation of Congress is at historic lows, and there is ample reason why that is so.

Somebody said to me this proposal is like a legislative scream--it is. And it is a scream--whether Members of Congress agree with it or not--that has to be heard and responded to.