I think--of course it's a benefit in cleaning up, but I'm talking about the economy and the productivity of the Nation is not much enhanced by this effort.

It's difficult for me to imagine how it could be spent effectively in the short timeframe it's been suggested it would be spent.

The final bill, at a staggering $1.2 trillion, is the largest single expenditure in our Nation's history.

Could I interrupt?

But, do you agree--where did this $210- to $260-billion figure come from?

It has impact if we don't use Yucca, because--frankly, I share your view that the storage, in dry cask storage on site, is not a danger.

We've gone from having a plan to having no plan. That's what Senator McCain has complained about, and I think he's correct.

I consider the amount of money we're talking about unacceptable. $260 billion is unacceptable.

Let's just follow what Senator Graham suggested, that, as I understand it--I may be wrong, but, as I understand, the South Carolina agreement was that you get 90 percent of the waste removed...

$260 billion is a lot of money that could, I think, if we did this thing right, reduce that cost and save $100 billion.

So, it's going to be decades before you-- but, your ultimate plan was to transmit this waste to Yucca, correct?

There are a lot of ramifications for not proceeding with Yucca. It's not just commercial-reactor spent fuel, it's nuclear Cold War residue, fuels like this.

this $6 billion increase in funding was a stimulus package bill that DOE projects would create 13,000 jobs.

Are you looking creatively and are you demanding of every employee under you that they are thinking on how we can do this project in an effective way?

Nothing comes from nothing. The money spent should compete with other energy environmental concerns.

I certainly hope that we're not locked into some sort of agreement we made 30 years ago.

General Chiarelli, how does the Army assess risk when fielding new technology, specifically body armor?

General Chiarelli, how does the Army weigh the tradeoffs between the need for greater protection and the need for greater mobility?