Dianne Feinstein

I hope you will provide an explanation today of the budget tradeoffs you made and why the trend in cutting nonproliferation funding to pay for weapons activities does not concern you.

For the last 2 years, I have voiced concerns that modernizing the nuclear weapons stockpile should not come at the expense of nonproliferation activities.

This budget would cut programs that reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism while significantly increasing funding for nuclear weapons.

Candidly, I don't see hard choices being made in this budget request.

Too many threats remain to cut these funds so sharply.

I can't think of a nuclear security program with a better return on investment.

I have great respect for the Admiral and the ships that he is running today.

If the fiscal year 2015 budget request were enacted, the nuclear weapons budget would have increased by $1.9 billion, or 30 percent, since fiscal year 2010.

The program supplied 50 percent of the fuel for U.S. nuclear reactors.

NNSA has requested $11.658 billion for fiscal year 2015.

Can you please explain why this information was omitted from the NERC letter to Congress?

Is it correct that in written response to a letter from Senators Feinstein, Franken, Wyden, and Reid that NERC CEO Gerry Cauley failed to disclose that NERC standards projects for physical security and equipment monitoring were canceled…

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plays a significant role in California.

I am extremely concerned about this MOX facility, and I think Senator Graham shares those concerns.

I think we're all in agreement with your last commentary, and hopefully our bill will have a pilot project in it.

I'm really beginning to believe that our involvement in ITER is not practical, that we will not gain what we hoped to gain from it.

I don't understand how you can defend this budget on non-proliferation cuts.

This simply is unacceptable at the same time we're pouring money into the modernization of certain warheads.

I want to dispose of 34 tons of weapons plutonium and have the Russians do the same.

Thank you very much.

We're cutting non-proliferation, which, heaven knows, is necessary, to pick up all this dirty stuff.

I agree with you 100 percent. We have held these meetings. I think they have been helpful, but the problem continues on, and it seems to grow.

This is hard for me to understand, why we would cut programs that keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.

When Congress makes a 15-year commitment and changes the rules a third of the way through, it does not matter whether you think it is warranted or not, the message to the investment community will be that Congress changes its mind.

It is not a good proposal for a number of reasons.