I think it is unequivocal that if the U.S. Government were to use a drone to take the life of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and that individual did not pose an imminent threat, that that would be a deprivation of life without due process.

If that individual is not posing an imminent and immediate threat of death or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that individual?

I would like to start with the topic you were just discussing, the topic of drones.

I am very glad to hear that it is the opinion of the Department of Justice that it would be unconstitutional to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual did not pose an imminent threat.

In my judgment, particularly given the threats we are seeing from North Korea, the potential threat we have from the Nation of Iran, reducing our commitment to missile defense at this point seems ill-advised.

As recent events have powerfully underscored, these are perilous times, whether we are speaking of the horrific terror attack in Boston this week or the escalating situation in North Korea.

I often use the phrase that at some point you have to stop worrying about the arrow and start worrying about the archer.

Has that been the experience you've been seeing in the market? That the impact has been coverage costs increasing and impacting, in particular, those struggling to climb the economic ladder?

I express the deepest sympathies that law enforcement was not able to prevent the horrific crimes you suffered.

Of all of the economic data that swirl about, the one I find most troubling is 0.8 percent, which is what our economic growth has been, each of the last 4 years.

I will say this is an incredibly important topic.

Well, and I would apologize to the Committee, but I have lost my voice entirely--perhaps from cheering too much at last night's State of the Union.