Although this has been a technical and calm hearing so far, I think a couple of bits of testimony are truly startling.

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?

I think the real news of this hearing is that most all the experts agree that there is a new and better and cheaper way to dispose of this plutonium.

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

I would particularly urge my chairman and my colleagues to keep this open session as short as possible.

Let me emphasize the word 'hear.' This is called a hearing. It is not a press conference.

I think we should approach this hearing as all others with a great deal of humility.

I think you went a little bit too far if you used the ULA ratio last year as the appropriate mix.

I am a budget hawk, and I hate to bring up the issue of sequestration, but that probably is, as Ms. McFarland pointed out, the most important issue we face.

So we could make it happen if we paid them to make it happen.

On the intellectual property issue, it is the greatest source of wealth on the planet, but we have increasing difficulty understanding ownership and relationships like that.

But any new RFP would delay the whole process--