I want to emphasize that addressing climate change will require an all-of-government response.

As my colleague Marcy Kaptur spoke earlier about the effects of climate change and algal blooms in Lake Erie, we are seeing impacts across every great lake.

Undermining public disclosure of climate change research sets a dangerous precedent, which can endanger our national security, food security, and the livelihoods of Illinois farmers and farmers throughout the country.

I want to absolutely echo your point that we need to be goal- rather than path-focused.

I believe this committee must make sure funding for natural disasters is examined through the lens of climate change.

The science is clear: we are on an alarming path. Our climate is changing, presenting an existential threat to our environment, our national security, our health, and our economy.

I felt compelled to protect USDA research data by introducing an amendment to the fiscal 2020 Agriculture appropriations package that would prevent Federal agencies like USDA from removing existing public information about climate change.

I am proud to have supported H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, which is the first major climate legislation passed by the House in nearly a decade.

I came to Congress with a mandate from my constituents, and I am committed to ensuring that Congress upholds its responsibilities to communities like mine who are demanding meaningful, long-term solutions to climate change.

As a public health nurse, I fully recognize the adverse impact climate change will have on public health, particularly for the most vulnerable people in our society.

My bill protects the Centers for Disease Control's Climate and Health Program.

Undermining public discourse of climate change research sets a dangerous precedent which can endanger our national security, food security, and the livelihoods of Illinois farmers and farmers throughout our country.

Our colleagues over in the Intelligence Committee right now are defending the Constitution from the White House.

If my cell phone is any predictor, this is not the Committee hearing that most of the country is watching today.

We are asked to trust that people led by science deniers are going to make that decision right.

You cannot be happy that your leadership has put you in a position to defend an anti-scientific history.

It's fundamentally disingenuous to assert, as EPA has, that the rule will not be applied retroactively to existing regulations.

When we politicize the Constitution, we put our republic at jeopardy, and when we politicize science, we put our species in jeopardy.