calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets. >> congress retus is week for legislative work. of the u.s. setes back at 3:00 eastern, lawmakers have scheduled a confirmation vote for brendan owens to be the assistant defense secretary in charge o t energy needs f the military worldwide. nevin mcpeak is also supposed to be sworn in. the house is back on tuesday, members will vote on legislation , barring the president from releasing the psint -- releasing from the oil reserves unless for emergencies. that is on c-span two and you can also watch on c-span now, or online at c-span.org.

this week we 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 talked about building energy from fridl 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 house republicans brought up 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 some bipartisan legislation or is on nuclear. i think the energy department has been supportive of a potentially uranium stockpile. there is a world where hydro in nuclear energy can find agreements. anything coming out of this congress was surprised folks who watch it closely. host: this is bill joining us on the independent line. thank you for calling, you are on with the gas. caller: thank you for taking my

call. it is hilarious to me that these reporters on your network all the time that have little knowledge on the subject they profess to report on. the lack of technology to maintain the ev industry. i live in central alabama. about 30 miles from where i live there is a big field filled with wind turbines. it is unproductive, you have done for -- dead birds everywhere.

and by the way, -- host: let me interrupt you there. guest: currently, it is easy to point to the potential flaws in the technology that we are turning to to get away from fossil fuels. the point you raise generally speaking are points that we would hope a congress that is looking deeply at scrutiny and oversight would look at. the thing i've heard from presses, it's strange that democrats did not look more these issues when they had control of the house. when they are not present at the table, it does leave room for republicans to say why are you

not looking at these issues? host: as far as the energy committee, what kind of hearings are we expecting? guest: i would expect a lot of focus on the giant package the new speaker is interested in moving. i would expect new focus on energy security. i would expect to see some focus on efg, environmental focus and government issues. they have tried to use their boardroom to leverage. host: are these dead on arrival in the senate or with the white house? guest: yeah. it is a wonder that folks i speak with are bullish on

something like a deal on permits moving through this new congress when we had such difficulty approving a speaker and in the senate, the political dynamics around bipartisan agreements are fraught. there are a lot of people in the environmental advocate space. i will not call anything dead. like any sports game, you want to see it until the end. at the end of the day, it will be difficult. especially since republicans are still challenging the administration on these issues. host: from patrick in georgia, a republican. caller: good morning. i had about two questions.

i was wondering what she thinks about the sanctions on russian energy and how it is affecting industries in europe? guest: i did not expect to hear a question about lunar mining. the artemis is trying to create a global mining. that is also the plot of a netflix film called don't look up. when it comes to russian sanctions, there is an open question as to whether or not there sanctions demonstrate how ineffective our current effective supply chains will be in the future conflict.

there was a lasting impact on prices. if china invaded taiwan, it will be even harder and we will feel those price increases in our day-to-day pocketbook issues. today, we are dealing with as high of an oil price. there has been arguments against using the strategic petroleum reserve. when it comes to being effective, there is a good example of why they were not. what that harbors in the future. russia is a major producer of diamonds for jewelry and industrial purposes. it was really hard because

diamonds are not regulated under the same scheme. russia was able to ruffle feathers by simply saying they do not agree. we track them with customs and border protection's. there is a little bit of concern the potentially, these diamonds and pieces of jewelry may have funded the war in ukraine. sanctions will be an open question but for future geopolitical conflicts it's worrisome that they could be ineffective. host: i would expect he will talk about energy policy from the house, what about the topic of climate change? guest: i think we will hear more about climate change from the left. in the senate, you will be a lot

more focused on the kind of issues like the oil industry's role in propagating a climate denial campaign. at the same time, republicans by and large have difficulty denying the full nonexistence of climate change. i will be watching how they oversee this annual climate science report that the united states puts out to forecast how climate changes is affecting her day-to-day. i would say oversight over scientific integrity that comes out of the white house and biden administration, that will be the place republicans focus on. not doubting climate science but doubting the projections. host: let's speak with fort collins, on the independent line. caller: hey good morning.

if windmills are killing the birds. if you are concerned about that, ban all caps in america because they kill over one billion birds a year. also, looking in oil, it's not just a climate change issue. it is a security issue. when we are dependent on venezuela, saudi arabia, russia, to get our energy from. i think that's a big mistake. we need to become energy independent. i won't see clean energy but it's a heck of a lot better. i was speaking to my neighbor who teaches client science. if you are worried about

whales and seals, climate change is killing everything. we are on a bad path with this. for the republicans in the house, they will grandstand, sit there and puff out their chests. they will not work with the senate or get anything done. in two years from now we will be exactly where we are sitting right now because of the way they are approaching this. host: got you charles, thank you very much. guest: the congress represents in the best of way the issue democrats may find themselves how republicans focus on how clean energy is not clean. whether it be hunter biden being involved in coble mind deals with the chinese. or just generally speaking, how

we manage the energy transition. i understand why people say why save the birds when we're dealing with climate change? there are a lot of people focused on both. this is an issue that will consume this new congress. you have folks in the senate starting to look at this issue and try to get ahead of this. studies have actually shown that when you present, i was speaking with my driver bruno. i speak with lift drivers about climate change and they are concerned. and then i asked them do you know that the batteries and

electric cars could be mined by child labor? we will have difficulty managing these competing issues and it could be an issue that republicans take on to highlight the tension that was brought up by the collar. host: let's hear from pamela, and taxes on the democrats line. caller: i do have an interesting question for you i would like to hear from you. why does everybody overlook lightning? i know that el in california was looking at that for quite a few years. they never said if it was successful or not successful. they did say that if they could capture one lightning bolt that it would power cities like seattle for a year.

why can't we do something like that? guest: the biden administration has taken shots that geothermal, i have not seen lightning power generation but i will research it after hearing it on tv. people are looking towards circular economies. a place that calls for not mining more when it comes to the energy transition. this idea of trying to generate clean batteries. host: what do you expect to

watch for in the next weeks or months when it comes to emily see policy? guest: republicans will pass legislation that will have difficulty in the senate. they will focus deeply on how the clean energy industry is not as clean. they will deal with emerging issues like efg and whether folks are living up to their commitments. it will be a lot of messaging. if you are working at a company that's working with the biden administration and you are looking at will i be brought up in the new republican house is an oversight target. we had a story that outlined three companies, 20 companies that could be potential targets for oversight. it is more than two dozen before

th