Garret Graves

We should never stop striving to further and further improve safety. I want to be clear on that.

Let's compare this to alternatives. I was just looking up--I pulled up an article. Just for the city of New York--just for the city of New York--according to the Fire Department of New York, in 2023, lithium-ion batteries caused 267 fires…

Why should taxpayers, in a Nation that's drowning in debt, trust your Agency with more taxpayer dollars?

And it seems like it would be irresponsible for us to keep increasing funding for these programs that aren't doing what they were intended to do.

I will agree with you, climate is a risk, it is a threat. It is not the only one.

If you come in and you use bad metrics that don't consider all of the risk, you are going to result in bad outcomes.

Louisiana has lost 2,000 square miles of our coast. It's like wiping the State of Rhode Island off the map.

So, you are not answering my question, and I think we both understand the answer is, no, these are not in the Stafford Act.

I appreciate your answer. It is not answering the question, though.

Can you tell me where in the Stafford Act those three objectives are?

But I guess it's really difficult for me to understand how to reconcile the two things, that we are the most impacted State and sea rise is going to destroy our State.

I hear administration officials coming down to Louisiana and talking about sea rise and our risk all the time.

I couldn't be more supportive of mitigation and resiliency efforts when they make sense.

I would strongly urge you to think about the problem you are causing for the next administration and the one after.

You are creating an energy crisis for the future, not just for right now as a result of future supply.

I feel like this is a direct result of this Administration's actions that are causing these higher, unaffordable prices for American families.

What message do you have to the American family that can't afford to make ends meet, and many of the policies that are coming out of the Department of the Interior are actually contributing to that as a result of higher gasoline and…

It is completely unrealistic what you are saying.

It is remarkable to watch folks doubling and tripling down on policies that harm our environment, our economic conditions of families, and our energy and national security.

As the United States has led the world in reducing emissions, for every 1 ton we have reduced China has increased by 5.

It is disgusting, what they are doing. Jimmy Carter, over 100 times more energy production than under this Administration.

There is an increase projected to be a global increase in oil and gas demand.

By the way, the largest increase in energy sources in Bangladesh--in fact, not even close--is gas.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I am sorry, but you don't.

What you should actually be doing if you care about the environment, you should be asking that U.S. energy be exported.