Garret Graves

It has been repealed. They are studying it. They have been studying it now since 2017.

Our problem was we had no tools to say what these impacts looked like and then go, well, what should we be building to?

In 2012, as we were getting ready to go to New Jersey for the infamous non-hug with Governor Christie with President Obama...

I also caution that it needs to be means-tested because we have a lot of people who don't live on the coast...

It doesn't make sense. It doesn't. And, obviously, not thoughtful policy has been progressed by this House within the last few months.

You have got to integrate an offense and a defense strategy into the Flood Insurance Program.

We need to make sure that we are being thoughtful and that all the policies of this Congress are continuing to move.

We all agree that our coastal communities are more vulnerable.

This is an area where we should all be working together. This isn't a fight over who is right, who is wrong.

How are we going to move in a direction of resiliency when we made so much progress last year with the Disaster Recovery Reform Act?

I supported the intention of it, but I think it was the right move to withdraw and think a little bit more about how to properly do it.

We have got to get good at resilient living.

No matter what we do with emissions, we are going to continue to see our seas rise and our coastal communities being more vulnerable.

I couldn't agree more. Last Congress we passed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act where, for the first time, we actually established a resiliency definition and standard within FEMA for how we rebuild and try to provide ample funds to do so.

Unfortunately if you don't give time-sensitive funding to these projects, many of them will just slip by the wayside.

At the end of the day, we all want the same thing--strong, resilient and affordable infrastructure that can protect residents and businesses as well as the environment and economy--while making sound fiscal decisions.

It doesn't make sense and it is contrary to what this committee has been doing.

We have a $100 billion backlog.

The US should move quickly to get 'first mover advantage' and scale the adoption of stacks of soil health practices.

Congress should not attempt to reorganize a system from scratch.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Agriculture is a very important opportunity, very important natural resource managers that have the opportunity, as I indicated, to be significant participants in our efforts to sequester greenhouse gases.

I am going to assume that you all wouldn't have ridden on an airplane if you believed that something was wrong.

How do we know that this new process is actually going to have the integrity to where you don't just feel it is right?

Thank you very much. I yield back.