We can't just talk about the climate crisis like it's any other issue. We have to tell the story of how we got here and how we can get out. We have to give people a clear sense of what winning looks like.

The Supreme Court has ruled that ongoing litigation is not a reason to resist that answer.

I think it's important that we acknowledge here that we are getting open resistance that are citing illegitimate legal grounds.

Is targeting and changing policy to specifically target people with life-threatening diseases for deportation essentially killing them through deportation? Would you characterize that as cruel?

I'd like to apologize to you both for the behavior of some of the members of this committee.

Our job is ordered by the Constitution of the United States to conduct oversight on these conditions that will kill people.

this policy will murder her.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would like to thank my colleague Ayanna Pressley and Mr. DeSaulnier for your work also in organizing this hearing and a critically important issue at this time.

I would like to apologize to you on behalf of the United States of America for the dehumanizing policies that they are pursuing to--that are, frankly, targeting you and targeting many people in the United States.

I think it sounds fair. I think it'd be good for us to come together and at least provide some certainty for the lives of these folks.

This is a threat to even the rule of law when it comes to U.S. immigration policy.

The Supreme Court has ruled several times that ongoing litigation is not valid grounds for resisting an answer to congressional questions.