Regulations do play a major role in this. When you look at the amount of coal plants that are closing...

Staten Island, which is more than 70 percent of my District, is known for not having mass transit.

I think those are going to be options for the future.

That is not a real alternative. That is the Government just paying for something because we do not have the alternative yet.

I think this is a perfect example. Right now, the way it is, we are giving an incentive for people to get in their cars, single occupancy in cars, as opposed to using public transportation. That seems backwards to me.

Science has to catch up with it, but I think an 'all of the above' approach is what we should be doing as well as R&D.

I do believe nuclear is one of the answers to our energy needs.

I think people that are not as familiar with my specific district within New York City would think I would side with those that have massive mass transit.

For it to be a real alternative, in my humble opinion, an alternative means that it can provide the same service at an equal or less cost.

As long as it is sustainable and practical.

To some extent, yes, but again, it has to be practical, reasonable and sustainable, and within our means.