I am worried that, as we enter the month of October and head toward Halloween, that really the subject of this hearing is a horror story for the American taxpayer.

The key thing, politically, is to realize that no one here today is talking about taking money away from South Carolina.

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.

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.

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

But any new RFP would delay the whole process--

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.

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