The public back home really doesn’t care about these places. They really do care about our troops.

Now, there are band-aids here or there but really there is no alternative so it is not a question of if we had only done the Republican plan.

We are purely an investigative committee. And oftentimes that translates into pure political theater.

I think the public would be very interested in knowing what causes a $300 million delta like that.

How does NNSA evaluate the cost-benefit of public-private partnerships over the lifetime of the facility? What lifetime is assumed?

It is just one of those inevitable things.

I am almost wondering if it is budgeting malpractice in Congress if for any new project we do not set aside funding for future maintenance.

I think sometimes it is called a sinking fund or amortization.

To put this in a more understandable context for average citizens, we had a Treasury Secretary once who said that nobody in the history of the world has ever washed a rental car.

What is the cost and safety risk of deferring problems and maintenance, and what are you doing to incentivize addressing and funding routine maintenance before small problems become big problems?

We save $300 million by letting it be more polluted.

I hate to see one of America's most distinguished public servants pilloried before this committee.