Mark Udall

I want to thank all of you for your time, your expertise, your patriotism, and your hard work.

I would very much welcome that.

I am tempted, because Admiral Richardson is here, to get his opinion on small- and medium-sized reactors and their application in the civilian and domestic power arena.

Can you explain to the subcommittee whether the life extension of the B61-12 will enable you to retire the W83 gravity bomb or will be retired independently of the B61-12?

We will look at the culture, as you pointed out, and make the changes and mete out whatever punishment's necessary, and then move forward.

I know that for the large majority of the men and women who serve in this important area, that they had nothing to do with what happened and this doesn't reflect on them.

We have worked, through the subcommittee and members of the full committee, to ensure we continue to develop a strategy to replace the plutonium facility at Los Alamos.

If I might, let me stay on Hanford.

Okay, thank you for that update.

Thank you for that update.

I would like to acknowledge the important role that WIPP played in the cleanup of the Rocky Flats Nuclear Facility.

I'd follow up: When it comes to Idaho, have there been effects on the deployed nuclear fleet because of the delay in replacing the existing fuel handling facility in Idaho?

I think you did, thank you.

Your estimate's on the order of $8 billion for the LEP, and the informal DOD estimate was $10 billion.

Full funding in fiscal year 2015 would send a strong signal about the commitment to the critical work Naval Reactors is planning to perform.

I voted no. But, they were certainly at the heart of the reason many folks voted yes.

In my opinion, there's no shortage of activities to help stem the use of hostile use of nuclear material.

I think this site is estimated to cost as much as $10 billion, with an estimated $30 billion lifecycle cost.

In my opinion, there is a fundamental flaw in the way the budget for nonproliferation programs is coordinated in the executive branch.

The fundamental underlying cause of this erosion has been a lack of attention to nuclear-weapon issues by senior leadership.

If you're a scientist, you cannot stop such a thing. If you're a scientist, you believe that it is good to find out how the world works, that it is good to find out what the realities are, that it is good to turn over to mankind at large…

The subcommittee certainly likes to hear that.

We appreciate the leadership role of Congress in authorizing a sound path forward for U.S. nuclear deterrence.

I believe that we're reflecting, pretty much, the national interest.

The nuclear program, including the triad, is only about 5 percent of our budget, but that's not an excuse for not managing every dollar carefully.