Dianne Feinstein

Candidly, I don't know whether this facility can produce or not.

That's $1.5 billion essentially wasted.

Okay. We've got $1.5 billion worth of facilities here, right? These two facilities? Over the last 10 years, $800 million has been spent on design of the new facility.

It's kind of like a shadow, and I think we need to flesh it out.

If it can't operate, why fund it? If it doesn't operate well, why fund it when, as I understand it, there are other methods of handling the problem?

That's on the Savannah River side.

And the Navy is accepting of this transfer?

Okay, but for my purposes, what you're telling us is that for the next 20 years, the 10 to 20 percent figure is enough, 10 to 20 pits is enough.

Well, I've asked GAO to take a look at this.

Right. Thank you very much. It's a good idea, Senator. And I'd be very pleased to participate.

I don't know why any nation would want to go nuclear.

$700 million over 13 years.

In the Senate, there was a considerable debate about whether to go ahead with this facility or not.

We made an offer to the House. The House turned it down.

This is a big issue and obviously is going to be in the House, too.

You are saying there is a likelihood we will achieve ignition by the end of the year?

Well, if the original estimate was September, and it's now March, that's a substantial period of time.

So you're saying that based on this new acceptable dose conversion factor that you can now process more plutonium. Therefore, the new facility is not necessary. Is that what you're saying?

I want to speak about the termination or delay of two projects after spending a $1.5 billion on them.

But what effect will this have on the W76 in the Navy?

Then what is it, on a scale of 1 to 10?

Because it seems to me, before we fund something, we ought to know where things are.

But the question is, has it made a difference?

Yes, the plutonium pits.

And you're $800 million into it.