Judd Gregg

You said essentially that you are controlling spending. Well, you are not.

Unless we stabilize the financial institutions of this country, we cannot recover.

Doesn't the present subsidy structure of ethanol, which perversely promotes corn, undermine the ability to aggressively pursue those other forms of biomass?

Will you be promoting additional lending authority--for example, $50 billion was taken out of the stimulus package--to assist in the construction of nuclear power plants?

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

I think this is critical to our ability to lessen our dependence on oil and to address the climate change issues which are so essential.

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?

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.

If you look at the recent stimulus bill that was passed, stripped from that bill was $50 billion of loan guarantees which would have helped us fund an expansion of nuclear power.

I am also concerned about climate change, and I think we should try to move away from carbon-based production of energy.

I think the fact that the administration has not taken that off the table probably undermines the ability to draw in people like Senator Alexander and myself.

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…