Judd Gregg

Those two numbers lead inevitably to disaster and cannot be tolerated for an extended period of time.

Our Nation's economic future will remain at risk until we confront the long-term fiscal challenge before us.

I do think the Government has to step into this mortgage issue much more aggressively than we have.

It seems to me we are cutting off our nose to spite our face when we abandon nuclear or limit what is a genuine renewed interest in the use of nuclear.

We need stimulus badly, but we need it in the right places.

So I want to hear specifically from the Secretary on the administration's position on nuclear. Are you for it or are you against it?

The practical implications of that are staggering for our children.

The problem with what we are doing right now is injecting capital from the taxpayer into institutions.

The problem is that that effort to try to stabilize the economy has been used as a straw dog for the purposes of expanding the size of the government in the out years exponentially.

I think we have to figure out where the Government can be most constructive in addressing the core problems.

I look at the constituencies who have been active in the Democratic Party, and many of them actively oppose nuclear power.

To initiate a reconciliation effort in the area where you are basically creating a brand-new, massive exercise in an attempt to address global warming, with a carbon tax and cap-and-trade... would be, I believe, to depart from the purposes…