If we are going to limit dollars spent to technology advancement, I guess I could be receptive to that, some percentage. But the vast majority of the dollars--that is not going to take that many dollars compared to the money we are dealing with here, $6.7 trillion. If you want to take some percentage of that and use it for expansion of technology purely on the technology side, that may make sense. This bill goes way beyond that. It has all sorts of initiatives in here which are only at the margin of the issue of technology, in my opinion. Where the dollars really should go is to reduce the tax burden for the people who are going to have the higher energy prices.
Judd Gregg: “If we are going to limit dollars spent to technology advancement, I guess I could be receptive to that, some percentage.…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the allocation of funds in a technology advancement bill.
Share
More from Judd Gregg
My experience in these debates, the person who wins is the person who establishes himself with the American people toward the audience, this can be a huge audience, as being one reasonably likable.
The issue for nuclear is that, because it does these good things, like reduce carbon and have reliability and be part of the diversity mix, it gets no credit for this in the marketplace.
Meeting state and national carbon reduction goals will be compromised without existing nuclear power plants.
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.