Joe Cunningham: “we are asked to work in a bipartisan way. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has a bill on fusion; my friend…”

“we are asked to work in a bipartisan way. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has a bill on fusion; my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). The President spoke about Path 15 and the inability for us to get power transmission. All the positives that the Members on both sides of the aisle are working together with, if we do not have a way to get that power to our constituents, it is all for naught, whether it is ANWR, whether it is electric, whether it is whatever. That is why I think that this is a good amendment. My colleagues on my own side of the aisle sought not to support this amendment, but I would say that there are many, many bipartisan supporting activities. The exploration of ANWR, some are against it; some are for. The things that we want to do and look at: clean coal, some are for; some are against. We can take all of these positives that we are working on, and I think people would listen and say we are fighting each other on caps. I think caps historically are wrong and will be detrimental. But the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is exactly what the President spoke about in his own power projection plan. That is the reason I rise in support.”