Jerry McNerney

the problem with revising the laws, from my point of view, is that we hear extreme views from the Republican party of eliminating the EPA.

the Republicans have forced us into an absolute determination to block and obstruct all and any efforts to revise these laws.

there is no way we can do that because a fear that the progress we made will be lost in a deregulatory frenzy.

I think it's--I think good work's been done to benefit a lot of jobs, as Mr. Reicher said, and to improve the climate I hope, but you may be right.

So would you explain in clear terms, Mr. Reicher, the difference between a loan guarantee and a grant?

So are tax policies such as suggested by Mr. Edwards capable of distorting the economy maybe as much of some of these loan guarantees?

So that might help explain the two percent default rate?

I am worried about cronyism under the Trump Administration--I really am--and the potential for conflicts of interest.

the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, is an attack on the EPA.

We need to address this inequity.

I'm happy to be an original cosponsor of Mr. Norman's legislation.

I worked at the Sandia National Lab in Albuquerque for a number of years, and I saw the tremendous resource of innovative talent.

I'm going to oppose this purely partisan bill, H.R. 6468. Mr. Chairman, good legislation needs bipartisan input.

ARPA-E, the bill under discussion now, has been a real opportunity for energy innovation, which is badly needed.

I want to second the comments of my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren.

Small businesses are becoming a major target of cyber-attacks as we've heard.

California has been a leader in programs that reduce emissions for both stationary and mobile sources.

This is a win-win for consumers and the environment, and I own a Camry hybrid so I personally know the benefits of these vehicles.

It is great to have this joint hearing today to receive an update from the agencies and industry stakeholders regarding the CAFE standards.

American innovation has proven established industry wrong time and time again.

It might be good politics too.

It is clearly important to give Members the opportunity to review some of the thinking and reasoning that went into the laws that we do have today.

It is time to consider what changes, if any, are needed to meet the challenges of today.

I really appreciate the sort of bipartisan sheen that this hearing has so far.

Well, I thank the chairman for holding this important hearing on the Historical Perspective of the Federal Power Act.