This bill disregards critical things like permitting reforms that will be necessary to meet its own timeline for infrastructure construction.

So wouldn't that be a more environmentally sound approach, compared to alienating other countries by ravaging their countryside?

Now, that may seem doable, but within the same timeframe this particular legislation calls for the abandonment of all fossil fuel plants, coal and natural gas, by 2035 unless the utilities can miraculously find a solution to this elusive technology of carbon capture.

But like my peers on the Republican side, I am concerned that the one-size-fits-all mandates in the CLEAN Future Act far outpaces the current state of technology, leaving consumers to foot the bill for higher costs on everything from electricity prices in heating their homes to the appliances they will need to buy from the department store.

Wouldn't it make more sense to continue burning our abundant supply of fossil fuels using carbon capture?

Listen, Mr. Chairman, the Boston Consulting Group has concluded that, with just a modest increase in the electronic vehicles by 15 percent by 2030, our grid will require a 25 percent increase in generation capacity.

I am concerned with banning short-term, limited-duration plans. CBO has estimated that, if the regulations are rolled back on these plans, 500,000 Americans will lose healthcare coverage.

Before we authorize billions more on top, we need to first see how the funding from the $1.9 trillion law which has now been allocated--we need to see how it is being spent and where are the remaining gaps.

The majority has called us here to look at ways to shore up the Affordable Care Act, which became law 11 years ago and is still not working.

Democrats have chosen to address it by pumping more money into the Affordable Care Act and limiting State flexibility instead of addressing what is the real problem: the high cost of healthcare.

I just--I am wondering, are we ever going to be ready for something like that?