I think that is a terrible mistake we made, but I also thought that the entire TARP program was wrong.

It seems pretty clear to me that the taxpayers will never get back their money.

Just like when will General Motors come out of bankruptcy. That's a question of timing.

For the taxpayers' sake, in GM, just to break even, the new General Motors will have to get up to a market capitalization of about $70 billion.

If we can capture the carbon pollution, coal will continue to be able to play a very large role in our electricity mix going forward.

Unless we can get China and India and Russia on the dotted line, as far as a global reduction in emissions we can get to zero emissions in the United States.

They thought that only the Secretary of the Treasury could really get it done. Not understanding, obviously how democracies work since it's a little different.

If the goal of cap and trade is to reduce emissions, do you support making nuclear a component of DOE's Clean Energy bill?

Every time I get into a discussion in the Finance Committee or this Committee on Energy on cap and trade I get the argument from a lot of people that the United States must lead.

Wild eyed agreement? That will be the day.

My problem is that the Department of Energy, in its renewable portfolio standards and some things doesn't mention nuclear or coal anywhere.