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.

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.

I love that we're talking about advanced technologies.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 develop the innovative energy technologies.

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.

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

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

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.

The back up at the useless security screening onto the House floor was backed up preventing me from making the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 104.

We never get things done.

We need to allow the States to prioritize what is most important to them, regardless of the funding stream.

The federal government needs to decide what its role is.

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

I couldn't disagree more with the position. I think that it is a myopic view.

If you get a better return on investment, whether it is green, gray, whatever it is, States should be able to make the decision.