view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. >> buckeye badband support c-span as a television provider giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up at 1130 eastern, a look at recommendations for ways of the cdc can respond to outbreaks, such as the covid-19 pandemic. at 3 p.m., fcc chairman jessica will talk about the importance of u.s. leadership in implementing 5g technology. senator bernie sanders will talk

about the state of america's working class. that is live at 7 p.m. eastern at c-span also live on our free video app and online at c-span.org. are launching a series taking a look at what republicans call the commitment to america. aspects of policymaking, now that republicans are in charge of the house. jael holzman with axios joins us. what was the general policy when it came to energy? guest: republicans are in favor of an energy structure that has more room for renewable energies

wind, nuclear. at this time, they are looking to decouple our country from china and the industrial supply chain. host: when it came from the specifics of commitment to america, you talke about building energy from friendly sources and environmental protection committee to make construction easier? guest: as a legislative tactic, senator showed mansion struck a deal to pass the inflation reduction act.

republicans have political goals in this and democrats are split on this issue. you have democrats who want to build more renewable energy sources but environmentalists focus democrats who would like a system that deals with the energy transition to include marginalized voices, and for them to have input in these processes more. republicans want to approve these processes faster because they are happy at a slower rate. when it comes to policy, republicans would like to do is streamline the national environmental policy act and make it easier for government agencies to issue permits but it

could split democrats. host: who are the ones with the incoming house of republicans when it comes to making these policy decisions? guest: i would watch the chairman of the natural resources committee. bruce westerman, i was sitting in his office and in front of me he showed me a graph that included oil production getting higher and higher every year despite rhetoric from countries and a lot of important policy to produce renewable energy. his point that he made to me was that just because we are transitioning away from fossil fuels does not mean that we should produce less. bruce westerman will be at chief ortiz on this. the committee will oversee those

permitting issues on display. host: our guests will be joining us as we launch this series taking a look at aspects of the commitment to america. if you have questions you can call (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans and (202) 748-8002 independents. if you wanted texas that's at (202) 748-8003. if you want to text us that is at (202) 748-8003. [video clip] >> we must address how long it takes in the cost associated with committees. the good news, the last congress towards the end of the congress we had democrats in the senate, democrats on the house to, calling for permitting reforms.

the effort led by mansion in schumer and others, we need to address the permitting and america. they were more focused on getting wind and solar suppose. i have concerns that we make sure we maintain local input in these permitting decisions and who will be bearing the costs. the first step is to recognize that we need to address the permitting and the usa. it is a barrier to doing things. we can do better. when i was leading on reform legislation we can get better outcomes at a lower cost without

lowering any of the environmental standards. we have some of the cleanest air and water in the world because of that. we want to maintain that. host: that is the house republican leader of the energy committee. can you talk about what it takes to get a permit and how they would like to see that length of time be? guest: my favorite example of permitting problems is the mining industry. the mining industry which is integral dealing with climate change. it requires enormous amounts of new mining. we know that because of estimates at this point, we need to permit more mining here or in other countries in order to

decouple from other countries like china. how faster we permitting now? it can take anywhere from two years, 10 years, 20 years. however, it's a misnomer to say that it is solely our environmental laws. many experts say that we need to stop up the bureau of land management. that's an irony with republicans raising issues over government funding. if we doubled the size of the staff at the bureau of land management and had them permitting lithium mines in nevada.

it would certainly be faster than it is today. at the same time, the changes that would happen around the margins, things like around the statute of limitations and timelines on decisions. that may create some legal vulnerability. similar to how the trump administration added paid limits and that lead to arguments in court. it's important to focus on how we consider these policies going forward. host: when it comes to permitting consists of biden administration have issues with storing up timelines? guest: not at all, they set up a regime to focus on permitting faster. we will see fruits of that labor, the biden administration

is also considering potential new environmental regulations. i think there is a bit of tension there over time. it's important to note that the biden administration is supportive of passing administration that makes approval for wind and solar projects to move faster. this is still an open discussion that we will be having in congress. the political dynamics of not change. host: jael holzman with axios with those. let's hear from alan. taking a look at republican strategists. alan is in indiana on the democrats line. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. this is my favorite show. i love the wall street journal. i had two questions i wanted to ask.

in 2020 the price of gas a dollar 80 per gallon and as we were concerned with covid and george floyd, i read in new times -- new york times article that there was a price war between russia and the opec+ countries. russia had ramped up production and that brought down the price of oil and gas. it was like $20 a barrel at one time. the article said that donald trump made phone calls to russia and saudi arabia and got them to agree to end the price war but the coproduction by 10% across-the-board to reach the

price of oil. is that true? did that really happen? it was in the new york times. guest: i don't know the constants of that story. the access of the resources needed for energy generation is top of mind. i think supply change and access to oil and gas to make batteries and the like is top of mind. especially in light of the war in ukraine and geopolitical maneuvers on that russian aggression in that region. i understand why that story might concern you. host: we talked about china, the prohibiting the department of

energy to sell to companies under control of china. what was the point of this? guest: the messaging behind it was to combat the ways in which as a world power china represents a strong hand. funnily enough earlier that week there was a bipartisan bill introduced by democrats that would have targeted other adversaries like iran and north korea. it's interesting that the later bill was not the house republicans choice. it would not surprise me if the

discussion between the house and the senate turns to what about these other countries? host: this is jael holzman from axios. during the obama administration, they brought up the support against energy companies. guest: i have a story that ran a few minutes ago, we have a newsletter about energy climate proposals. getting the most important information and covering things you talk about behind closed doors. this is a good example. there was an oversight in december when frank luke sent a

letter the chief company is in texas that get some revenue from chinese corporations. when you look at micro bass and other firms that are being funded by the buying and administration oversight targets they are bringing jobs to republican strongholds. my crevasse is building a facility in oklahoma. he has been supportive of the building of the factories and they are concerned about the involvement of the ccp and american companies. there were 200 samples, a

refinery in north dakota and there was a company called group 14 that is bringing jobs to dan neuhaus. they were supportive of the companies even though they are working with a large firm that is partially owned by a chinese state backed company. i also found that group 14, a company with marginal chinese ties said that despite that, his office pushed back and reported that was not accurate and that he has never heard of group 14. the search for solyndra, that represented a climate investment

going wrong. the energy transition and the firms that undergirded have learned a lot since then as well as the energy department. how do you manage risks? there is a lot of concern about what factors the biden administration is looking at. as they give moneys to these companies. as a binding give so much money and benefits to rural communities as part of its -- marjorie taylor greene had a coproduction company in her district. host: that's one of those topics republicans will talk about. hunter biden is in the news but

one if his thing was his connection to a mine. what would they see in that connection? guest: the sale of one of the world's largest cobalt mind. they are used in high-powered dvds. it's a key part in the fast car ev that does well on the market. hunter biden, according to the new york times. i have not verified the entirety of their reporting. he was involved in a firm that played a minor role in the exchange of a mine from a u.s. company from difficult financial conditions to a chinese company. that reporting was coupled with another new story published by the new york times about u.s.

officials potentially raising concerns about the sales from u.s. company to a chinese company. republicans have taken those two stories and put them together. i am not familiar of any examples where the united states interfered in a foreign business interaction. if republicans go in that direction, would they like the u.s. to play a greater role allows assets to be sold to chinese company, especially those that are strategic for us. i have not confirmed the veracity of the new york times reporting. perhaps the u.s. should have interceded but i wonder if we should be involved in business

actions overseas. caller: good morning, first time caller. being in minnesota with these electric vehicles. 40 below, you may begin at 40 miles on a full charge. i don't know if it's feasible for them to run up here. guest: the issue you raised is one that i would expect republicans to start talking about. what i have been finding in my conversation so far with republican lawmakers, their offices and staff in the way the political ecosystem is moving. it's harder and harder for anyone to deny the existence of climate change. it's easier to point out that the technology is not actually clean energy or it could be

about convenience in using fossil fuels. whether it be difficult to find a charging station. it would not surprise me to hear more and more complaints like these about the new alternatives from fossil fuel-based technologies. it is worth noting that experts say we need to move away from those things in order to stop the ever growing climate change threat. host: we have a few are asking about the leases. what's the percentage of leases on public lands versus those on private land? guest: i don't have the statistics on hand to quickly say -- generally speaking, i would say that the resource of

the future which is the hard rock minerals that will be in increasing demand, they are located on federal lands. it will forever be a conversation, do we continue to have the current status of federal land with energy production? do we mine minerals for the energy transition? do we continue to allow the same rate of fossil fuel use? host: for the divided and administration allow leasing with lands, it would upset the environmental protection wing of the party? from baltimore, good morning. caller: i am a real estate developer in for a permit to get

any sort of approval small numbers of folks are using the process just to kill things rather than to provide input and mitigate risk. i think that has to be part of a process change to press forward and accept some local concerns. guest: there is a concern with nimbys. when it comes to folks holding things up, there will always be people who are opposed to any kind of growth. there are even folks who want to do you grow. at the same time, i would also say that argument has been used to pillory communities that are disproportionately impacted by certain kinds of commercial development.

it's a thorny issue when you're trying to maintain a regulatory environment. host: there is a viewer who makes the statement, doesn't that type of energy policy mean maintaining the status quo? guest: people who advocate for it say if you streamlined the process to make approval for projects faster, it's like watching flowers bloom. in a hypothetical scenario where we let all the dogs out maybe we will see more and more renewable energy in the kind of mining and processing needed, manufacturing

plants being built faster. in a world where oil prices get higher it would enable new fossil fuel infrastructure, new drilling, new fracking that environmentalist and many on the left would argue would turn the tide away from the world where there is more renewable energies. host: this is jael holzman from axios. she is talking about energy policy. if you want to call and ask her questions (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for

independents. lynn, you are on with our guest, good morning. caller: i saw a program where it shows that the ocean is growing worse and whales are being beach, is not a good thing to do in the name of climate change? guest: this is perhaps the single greatest issue they could say politics at this moment. his clean energy actually clean? as a reporter, i like to say often i don't like to use or phrase clean energy. i have interviewed many activists that say using that term papers over the way people interact with those energies.

we hear the oil industry saying this stuff is it really clean. the offshore impact, whales are impacted and they are a species that are more injured the way that climate change has impacted the temperature of our oceans. if we build out an ecosystem that puts out fewer transmission. bridging that balance is something the biden administration is trying to figure out. the science committee is looking at potentially looking at the oceanic administration.

it could be interesting to see how the politics around managing our oceans changes as the conflicts between building and emissions free energy and species management come to the fore. host: how serious might we see nuclear energy or hydro energy? guest: those are bipartisan agreements. i don't see any major legislation in the congress given the republican house. where we could find

let's say for instance, the uptake of technology to maintain ev's industry. i live in central alabama.

>> we live this morning at the center for strategic and international study for conversation of the role of the cdc, centers for disease control and a pandemic. and it ways to respond to outbreaks to the future future. it should be underway in just a minute on c-span.

>> following this event later afternoon, jessica rosenworcel will talk about u.s. leadership in implementing 5g technology at 3 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up this evening, senator bernie sanders, the incoming chair of the senate committee will talk about the state of america's working class.