it is our duty to keep it safe, secure, and reliable.

there is an astonishing national consensus in both parties, among most all people, that the triad is important; in fact, it is vital to our national security

I hope that this Congress will not only fund that amount, but actually find the real dollars to support it and not borrow that money

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to wait till the classified session.

It is an amazing tradition of excellence the Naval Reactors has pursued over lo these many years.

But we all have to acknowledge that Russia is not exactly a willing partner these days to help us contain that massive hoard of fissile material.

It is rare in the modern Congress to have essentially a good news hearing, but I think this one of those hearings.

We rarely hear those in Washington, but we are always grateful when we do.

We should not overlook the central fact that the administration and the Republican majority in Congress are keeping the nuclear deterrent safe, secure, and reliable.

Are you confident of the contents of the drums that will be going to the site?

So, that is good news for the American people, that is good news for America, that is even good news for this Congress.

A prototype developed in a design competition should be a nuclear device, not a warhead.

Recommendation 4 might be seen by some critics as promoting an aggressive posture that would put the United States in a position to manufacture new nuclear weapons quickly and thus fuel a new global nuclear arms race.

To avoid the fundamental risk of losing a core capability that could be essential for responding to evolving national security threats, our committee realized that the NNSA complex needs a means of exercising, on a regular and ongoing…

The state of peer review at the weapons labs is healthy and robust, the state of design competition is not.

I think we would all like to welcome our colleagues from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty is of primary benefit to our allies, for example, in NATO and in Asia.

Sixty. Like six-zero?

It is very important that really the meat of this hearing be held in the classified session that will be upcoming.

Everyone knows that Mr. Putin doesn't conduct his business in public, and why give him an advantage by displaying our deliberations.

But, Congress being Congress, there is a lot of inertia, and there are some folks who may prefer what is now the worst and more expensive and slower option.

So why can't we just maintain current funding levels, maintain current employment levels, maintain current job levels, but get the technology right as we dispose of this plutonium?

Any project that has 25 percent rework? Like, oh, my gosh. Because that means you build it, then you have to tear it down 25 percent and redo it.

The real question of this hearing is, if we are forced, due to the fact that we are in love with the older, worse, more expensive technology--force American taxpayers to double or triple their commitment to South Carolina and the other…

There have been various people for a long time trying to do the right thing for the American taxpayer.