>> if you want more information on members of congress, order c-span's congressional directory, available online at c-span store.org. >> on "newsmakers" this week, we welcome louisiana republican graves.man garrett he serves as a member of the house natural resources committee and the select committee on the climate crisis related earlier this year. helping in studio with our questions, brian schatz, energy and environment reporter. us a sense with a backdrop on this vote on the debt what the republican strategy to lowering the federal debt is. what is the medium and long-term plan? >> this is certainly reaching crisis proportions. excess of $21t in

billion. proposals like medicare for all $30 add over trillion. this is crazy. one of the things we have to do, we have met with folks this week and last week talking about better ways of valuing the public benefit of different federal investments. everyone knows you can look back at the percentage of the budget attributable to mandatory spending programs, programs not subject to annual congressional that hastions, exceeded a far in excess of 70% of the overall budget. up from percentages as low in the upper teens, even the low 20 percentile range decades ago. we have to attack the mandatory spending side and make sure we apply criteria that looks at the value generated from these

investments, just like any private company would fo, just like a family home would fo. we should actually impose penalties on members of congress. it is our job to negotiate these bills and set the budget for the federal government. that, we unable to do should not be paid. it is our job. people in the private sector are pay-for-performance. at the federal level to put the appropriate pressure on congress to ensure it does its job. there are not enough penalties in place to force congress to handle the budget appropriately. on that point, i saw a headline earlier today on this debt dealing and budget caps deal. it was called the death of the tea party. what do you think of that? >> i think that is a bit dramatic. you have to recognize the environment under which you are negotiating in. we should not have gotten into a

position where we are up against the edge of the debt limit to begin looking at this and addressing this. there has been a spending problem for decades. this is not something we should wait for one of these moments to come and negotiate. there have to be proactive efforts. you have heard about starting from zero. justified programs. i talked about some of the things that open go has done looking at statistics. they paint clear pictures on where your problems are. we are clearly on an unsustainable trajectory. just like you do at home, like in a private company, you have to prioritize and value dollars, and stick to a budget. >> to continue with the headline grabbing news, crime and energy policy, you were on a baton rouge talk radio show yesterday. you said "stupidity was

committed by som,e crimes were committed by none, did the seven or so our" testimony from the special counsel change your thinking at all on the investigation? i want to also ask you about your thoughts on the priority among democrats to now give don don mcgahn to come testify. >> first of all, i think this entire mueller situation -- you are well aware, you can look at the investigations that have occurred through congressional committees, the inspector counsel.the special we have had investigation after investigation yielded thousands of pages of documents. at the end of the day, what is happening is americans are split. people are hearing what they want to hear. people support the president and say mueller said he's

exonerated, we are good, as did all of the other reports. if people chose to vote for another candidate, they are than the other path -- there on the other path. they say crime was committed and we have to move forward. this is one of those litmus test issues where people are hearing what they want to hear based upon that bias. we have done thousands of pages worth of investigative reports. it is time to move on. we need to focus on the things americans actually sent us here to do. we need to work on the budget, on an infrastructure package, helping to improve our energy options that are available. we need to make the right investments in our environment and the many things people sent us to do, rather than what we have seen happen for years now. >> moving to climate, give us a sense of what it is like on the climate committee in the house. what do you hope to achieve? how is it going?

what have you learned? whether through testimony or some presentation of a persuasive witness, has something changed your mind about climate change? >> i really enjoyed the opportunity to serve on the committee. it really has been interesting. i believe the committee was created largely to continue driving this political wedge. in reality, if you look at the issue, there are areas where we need to be working together and cooperating. speaker pelosi probably set this up to try and distinguished positions between republicans and democrats. you have seen much of a civil war occurring on the democrat side. you have the energy and commerce committee not wanting to see the jurisdiction. some of the folks on the climate committee have been trying to gain ground in sliding a little bit. certainly with some of the legislative tactics we saw earlier this year.

there are some examples of that. i think you have seen folks advocating for the green new for to state a turf claim. we are not really sure who we should be talking to and negotiating with. the thing., here's we finished the hearing a while ago and talked about adaptation. it doesn't matter if you are a republican or democrat, anythi ng. this effects all of us. we've spent trillions of dollars on disasters in th since the 1980's. we cannot afford to continue spending in this way. there is study after study that shows predisaster mitigation, making those investments on the front and is where you get the costs. noter one, the threat is going away, it will continue challenging us as a nation, our communities, that's what we need to focus our initial efforts on. you look at the fact that the

u.s. has reduced emissions more than the next 12 countries combined. the u.s. is actually the leader in global emissions reductions. you read the newspaper, you watch tv, that is not reported. rather than coming in and taking some of these aggressive, penalizing approaches that will our u.s. jobs, penalize economy, what we need to do is look at the strategies over the past several years that have yielded these benefits and double down on those, make investments in those areas that have yield. we then can export some of those solutions, like we're doing in louisiana. we are sharing low emissions natural gas to 35 countries around the world. 13% lower emissions than russian gas. those are solutions we can use to continue building upon our transition into renewable energy

sources, where this makes sense, giving americans more energysolutions. i can go on about the areas where i think we are unified, where we can be working together. are set up in order to create partisan divide when there is none in reality. >> if the committee was set up to drive a message and partisan divide, why did you want to be on it? >> i thought there was a much better narrative we needed to be discussing. to some degree, that climate agenda has been hijacked by some who are not appropriately applying conservative issues to this issue. we have an opportunity to make our nation more resilient from disasters. we have an opportunity to complement some things we have been able to do with the tax legislation, the regulatory agenda, and efforts currently on trade to level the american playing field. by coming in and tripling down on these issues that have increased energy efficiency, conservation, innovation, resulting in lower energy costs

that allow us to produce products and manufacturing in the u.s. at a more competitive price than other countries. in louisiana, lowest electricity rates in the nation. we can continue building upon some of these successes and allow us to build jobs, growth economy, and higher wages in the u.s. >> after you took the job as a member of the select committee, the guardian newspaper called you the rare republican who is actually worried about climate change. do you think that is fair? >> i don't know about rare republican, but i am very concerned being from louisiana. we have lost 2000 square miles of our coast. more importantly, having experienced disaster after disaster, no one should experience that. we can prepare our communities in this nation in a way much different than the past, where we come in and spend billions of dollars after a disaster taking up the pieces, rather than spending millions on the front end to make communities more

resilient. >> there's a growing number of conservative advocacy groups that are supporting a corporate tax in one form or another. we have seen a number of different proposals. francis rooney is coming out with a bill that would tear payroll taxes to complement a carbon tax. we have seen proposals from former congressman crivello to funnel revenue into infrastructure. we have also seen dividend build. is there any carbon tax proposal you can conceivably embrace as part of a larger package to pair down emissions? >> when you come in and take policy that is an abrupt shift is when your policies are not working. our policies are actually leading the world in emissions reductions.

rather than coming in and introducing these abrupt shifts in how we are handling climate and emissions in the u.s., i think the solution is very different. the solution is looking of the strategies that have viewed as being the global leader, and helping to build upon those successes, rather than coming in and penalizing the u.s. economy, transitioning jobs to other economies that result in higher global emissions, as we are seeing right now. the u.s. has reduced emissions to the turn of one billion tons, but china has increased their emissions by 4 billion tons. this is a global problem. that is not a solution, by having a net increase of 3 billion tons while we are reducing in the u.s.. >> if i can follow-up up on that, you have said for a long time, and i think you mentioned this today at the committee hearing, that there needs to be a global approach to curving greenhouse gas and carbon

dioxide emissions. the u.s. has decreased emissions since 2005 by 14%, despite a substantial -- i know that you oppose the paris accord. what does the strategy look like to you? >> it is a good question. we have to have an international or multilateral forum where we can have discussions about this. the problem with this is related to the pledges. you have countries like china being labeled as a developing nation while investing trillions of dollars in other countries, in many cases, against u.s. interest. being allowed to increase, not reduce, increase their emissions until 2030 doesn't make sense. that simply prolongs the challenges we are experiencing. we have to treat countries fairly. if you are going to allow china to increase emissions, and the

u.s. takes aggressive efforts to decrease, what will end up happening is you will have a transition of manufacturing to china where they have greater emissions, resulting in even greater global emissions. it does not make sense. you have to have this global forum and a fair deal. while i do support the u.s. withdrawing because of the inequity of the pledges, i do think it's important for the u.s. to continue on the trajectory as the global leader in emissions reductions. >> about 10 minutes left in our discussion. >> i want to mention an obscure treaty, the can probably treaty. would you support ratification in the senate of that treaty? >> i would. senator john kennedy from louisiana has been outspoken on this. >> can you explain what it would do? with globalas to do

emissions from products that had greater global warming potential. there are alternative products developed. the problem is you don't have widespread market availability for those. the idea is how do you continue a global agreement whereby you reduce products that have greater global warming potential in exchange for those that have lower global warming potential? it makes sense if you can identify the products when you have alternatives. in this case, the treaty would add the u.s. to committing to the reduction of those products. to ensure we have appropriate manufacturing availability in those products and don't undermine many benefits to american consumers. >> i should have been more upfront about that. it is a treaty that would phase out these super pollutants, very toxic chemicals found in

aerosols and refrigerants. >> it makes sense to identify the products with the greatest global warming potential, figure out strategies on how to reduce that. how do you make investments and strategies that provide the greatest benefits for lowest-cost? those strategies make sense. i do support the adoption of ratification of the treaty. >> i want to ask you about campaign-finance, which is kind of regularly in the limelight. republicansten say are unwilling to act on climate policy because they are beholding to fossil fuel benefactors. in 2020,r reelection you have accumulated $42,000 from fossil fuel companies. more than any other industry. i'm wondering what you make of

that argument? >> first of all, i think it is fascinating that folks are talking about campaign finance reform coming in and trying to place the burden of financing campaigns on taxpayers. earlier this year, legislation passed that was going to take a contribution from an individual and multiply it times six and bring in taxpayer funds to fund campaigns. that's what american wants, more tv commercials beating up one another. i think that is crazy, awful policy. in regards to the folks who have contributed, what you just told me is news to me. number two, the state of louisiana is the biggest single component of our economy, the energy economy. expect those are the folks contributing to us. i will also tell you we have people that are environmental advocates and others. we have a broad spectrum of

folks who have supported our campaigns in the past. when i first was running for congress, we had energy companies, we had industries and other employers supporting us. at the same time, six-figure investment from environmental defense fund. it's because we have been able to demonstrate the ability to work together with diverse parties to advance solutions that make sense. i very much appreciate the diversity of support we have been able to gain over the last several years. wherelma find an instance we have gone out and done things for campaign contributions. we do the policy that i think is right, continue doing that. our continued advocacy for clean energy solutions for identifying trajectories that allow us to continue being the global emissions leader would seem to perhaps be contrary with the narrative that you are trying to set right now. we are going to continue

advocating policies that make sense. policies that help maintain or improve the competitive edge of americans. that help to increase wages, an employment opportunities, and do the things right for the people. >> i don't want to try and set a narrative. this is a common argument by democrat. democratssay the receiving contributions from companies that are profiting from some of the clean energy options can similarly be influencing those folks? you don't really hear the narrative. i fully expect people that represent states, big energy states, transportation states, would end up being the leading industry employers contributing to their campaign if they represent the people. >> i want to ask you on your work on the select committee on the climate crisis, how often do you get to meet with minority leader mccarthy about that?

what guidance has he given you for your work on that committee? 2, how often do you talk to the white house about your work? >> i meet with mccarthy, republican leader mccarthy, at least weekly. tohas given us free reign advocate for the policies that are right. there has been no mandates to dictate us whatsoever. i do try and work closely with energy and commerce ranking member greg walden, as well as a number of other members of congress on our committee the have expressed interest in this topic. trying to move in a nonpartisan direction to advance more cost effective solutions for resiliency, energy options, cleaner environment, and it has been great. house, i to the white spent time working with senior administration officials from epa, department of energy, and others, to make sure we are working together, sharing information. as i do with democrats.

inclusive asng as we can to make sure we are on the right trajectory. >> a couple of minutes left. >> i would ask you about what's happening in your home state. undeniably, it's on the forefront of climate change, perhaps unlike any other state in the country. describe climate change, and is it the next essential threat from louisiana -- existential threat for louisiana? >> it is difficult, do we have a threat in louisiana? absolutely. if you look at the challenges we have, we have some of the fastest sinking rates in the nation. we are experiencing searise like the rest of the world. we are subject to hurricanes and other intense storms. we had an unnamed storm three years ago that don't rain. d --u dumped rain. rain that dumped seven to

eight inches of rain in one hour three weeks ago. the challenge when you look across the threats our state is exposed to, the greatest one is attributable to how the corps of engineers, our own federal government, has managed our weather system that resulted in the historic ongoing and future loss of coastal wetlands, which is our buffer from tropical storms in the gulf of mexico. and these collective risks are a high priority for louisiana. it is why when i worked there, we blew up components of five agencies, created a new streamlined coastal agency to be in charge of resilience. is why we lead some of the efforts in the u.s. congress, including some of the greatest advancements. last year under a republican congress, we improved resiliency toorts, dedicated more funds the corps of engineers, fema, the department of housing and urban development, and trying to

cut through the bureaucracy and red tape that has impeded progress in delivering on these resiliency progress. not just louisiana, but the rest of the country. >> what would your role be for properties that are flooded repeatedly? what guidance should there be about handing disaster money out? >> that is another low hanging fruit area. we certainly should not embrace repetitively exposing americans to flooding or disaster. it is an area where we needed to come in, it is more cost-effective to do buyouts, and other solutions that make sense. we have done some of the most extensive elevation relocation programs in the nation in louisiana. i was very happy to be a part of many of those, because we are bringing solutions to many people that have been repeatedly exposed to disaster, destruction of their physical property, and the security of their families.

week, you reintroduced legislation to reform dell mesa with congressman richmond, bipartisan bill. revenueshore energy funneled to louisiana. you stressed in the past it is a critical asset to coastal restoration. how do you get that bill across the finish line? >> if you look at the legislation, we commit every penny of that money to the gulf states that produce offshore that we aresuring improving the sustainability of the coastal communities, the coastal ecosystem. by demonstrating our commitment to not take this money and spend it on projects, but projects that congress has authorized in .aw for construction we are demonstrating our commitment to ensure these

dollars are spent on projects that will provide a return on investment to taxpayers, that improve the ecological productivity, the resilience or sustainability of our communities, and importantly, that reduce future disaster costs for all americans. that's why these investments save taxpayer dollars ultimately, rather than costing them. as we go through and educate other members of congress, we will continue to build support for this. a nearly identical bill passed the house resource committee unanimously last year. i think we can build on that by educating other members of congress about the importance of these investments and how it benefits the nation. >> congressman gary graves, republican of louisiana, thank you for being on "newsmakers." roundtable.to our continuing our discussion. onant to start with his view climate change.

you both cover this issue extensively. where does his view fall in the spectrum of how the republican party thinks of the issue of climate change? >> i think he will be somewhat towards the center. he spoke the language very well. he is deeply versed in policy issues across the board. i asked him a pretty in the dark question about the congali accord, and he knew what it was. just because he could not put his finger on what it meant and what it was regulating, that has stumped a lot of senators. toward the center, he is certainly one of the more well versed in the house. he doesn't talk much about the science. his younger voters, younger citizens, younger members, don't dispute the science. i think he is firmly in that camp. >> i would agree wholeheartedly with everything he just said. this is a guy who has a really impressive resume in the energy

area. he was a former staff member on capitol hill, he put together big energy bills, he has had intty important roles louisiana dealing with energy, coastal restoration. he is one of the point people dealing with hurricane katrina. i would agree again that he is emblematic of the kind of republican disposition right now on climate. acknowledging the human connection to climate change, but they are unwilling to embrace some of these really aggressive measures that most scientists are concluding will dramatically tear down emissions. talking about regulatory i think, carbon tax,

that bodes poorly for any type of consensus with any congress. the chairman of the energy and commerce committee just announced he was planning to unveil a bill that would zero out, or at least reach net zero and he wants2050, to do it by the end of the year and bring in republicans. without any republican willingness to embrace some type of regulatory mechanism or a tax, i'm not sure how that becomes bipartisan. >> that brings us to your question about the carbon tax. your thoughts on his reaction? it is a good question on how to get a member like graves to support a tax. if we bounced back to the pollone and house energy and commerce democrats plan to zero 2050,l u.s. emissions by

they have come out with this plan. it is something the republicans are not yet doing. they are not specific on what their plan is. it seems often they will plan to criticize the green new deal, which if you read the text, is a resolution democrats on both chambers have made clear it is more of an ambitious goal, a spiritual target to reach. the short of it is the democrats are in the planning stage. they don't yet have enough to put together a bipartisan aggressive climate bill. the republicans on the whole are not coming up with a lot to offer on their own. they are not yet at the table. >> i want to give you a chance totalk about his reaction your campaign finance question when it came to funding through fossil fuel companies. he said it was news to him when he talked about how many donations he had gotten. is a veryn finance

sensitive issue for all lawmakers. i don't think most lawmakers people go out -- often have to -- and i'm not familiar with his fundraising strategy, but this is something lawmakers have to do, they have to generate money so very election coffers -- for their reelection coffers. narrative of a bigger where a lot of the industries being regulated. thathey really stand to benefit or lose from policymaking or contributing contributions to campaigns. he is absolutely right that democrats get a lot of money from environmental groups. at the same time, the fossil fuel industries are economic behemoths. they really contribute in pretty

stunning fashion. >> brian covers energy and environmental issues, ben does the same procedure rollcall. thanks for joining us on "newsmakers." ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local or cable satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> congressman bob