The question I was asking the Senator from Oklahoma, didn't the President, in the State of the Union, say we were going to save the surplus until the issue of Social Security had been addressed? Shouldn't we be saving the surplus for Social Security? Doesn't this proposal which has come up from the administration essentially undermine that goal of saving the surplus for Social Security?
Questioning the administration's proposal regarding the surplus and Social Security during a Senate debate.
Share
More from Judd Gregg
Meeting state and national carbon reduction goals will be compromised without existing nuclear power plants.
It makes no sense whatsoever, and it's apparently--certainly makes no sense for the same people to be urgently arguing to deal with climate change and then either quiet or urgently opposed to nuclear power.
In Hillary's case, it's a big issue, because of her -- because of the challenges that she has on the ethical side. In Trump's case, it's a big issue, because he's so erratic.
Our Nation's nuclear power plants are vital national assets that provide reliable, carbon-free electricity.