Garret Graves

This Committee's number one priority is safety.

What used to be a science project is now a thriving transportation industry that transports passengers and hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of cargo to, from, and within outer space.

I love that we're talking about advanced technologies.

It is our aim and our intention to lead in all of the above technologies.

We can't rest on our laurels in regard to the aviation future or being able to maintain the top position globally in regard to aviation.

These technologies are not just innovation for innovation's sake, they are going to drive real benefits and improvements in the lives of our constituents and the well-being of our communities.

It seems clear that in the next 10 years, aerospace is going to evolve: an ever-increasing number of drones, the introduction of electric vertical takeoff and landing, reintroduction of civil supersonic aircraft.

We cannot rest on our laurels in regard to the aviation future or being able to maintain the top position globally in regard to aviation.

I think we need to be very thoughtful as we move forward in losing this alignment between ratepayers and infrastructure.

I believe that Washington has one of the lowest rates in the Nation, in regard to water rates.

Even if we went 100 percent renewable, reputable scientists will admit, if the United States went to absolute zero-carbon emissions it would not stop climate change.

We are not going to be able to give the United States a secure energy future with renewables.

So, effectively, the strategy that you are talking about, though, effectively, it is taxing Americans, including the $4.6 billion that you referenced, to mitigate for what is happening in China and other countries.

But if everything you are doing is more than being offset by what is happening from China and India and other countries, and you are spending $5 billion and not improving things, how do we fix this?

We have got to make sure that we are pursuing this in a way that is going to result in jobs not just being created, but being retained here in the United States.

A recent analysis by the National Association of Manufacturers has indicated that is actually going to result in a million job losses in just the first 2 years.

We should not be celebrating global accords that result in the emissions actually going in the wrong direction.

The last thing we need to have the Federal Government doing is picking technological winners and losers.

Let's ensure that that demand is met by U.S. resources.

We have got to ensure that the technologies are cost competitive, that they are exportable, because only then will we actually see this global reduction.

We have got to develop the innovative energy technologies.

Job creation, creating jobs here in America, reducing emissions, charting a path of an America-based resource, clean energy future is something that we should all agree upon.

We never get things done.

The inconsistency, the repetitive mobilization and demobilization for projects related to infrastructure was incredibly expensive and frustrating.

The federal government needs to decide what its role is.