tv Sen. Curtis Has Conversation With Politico CSPAN January 15, 2025 2:19am-2:41am EST
2:20 am
>> thanks for sticking around for the overtime session i know what you're thinking this was mute. i was just out here. >> will listen, you , you hd a number of important topics of the new administration already, and the event is about the first 100 days of the new president. i want to take a couple minutes to talk about the outgoing president. i'm curious, your experience
2:21 am
with the biden administration, how engaged is the president been with you? have you heard from him? have you met with him? >> no. i think as republican in the house i didn't expect to but we had come as republicans as i would say close to their interaction. i was invited down to the white house i think for one bill signing. what was a bill? >> it was early on in the administration. i don't. i will reckon we passed 27 bills in that time. so we were pretty active. but does not a lot of interaction. >> you've never spoken to president biden? >> only in a very formal setting with lots of other people. >> i understand we will describe it. i'm not sure it makes sense to me. i understand you're a house republican. there's an awful type majority, right? you have expressed interest kind of a record of working on a bipartisan basis on a number of
2:22 am
issues that are of some significance with this administration. did usually have zero expectation that would be a a phone call? >> zero, really. yeah. sorry. >> no, no. >> no. i think a lot of it comes from look, in the house there's 435 of you. as republicans, you are not in the first part of this call is to begin with and i don't know but i would assume colleagues don't wake up in the morning thinking the president going to come today. >> you don't want that founded the conservative climate caucus be deflected with an opportunity to work together? >> i will tell you john kerry was amazing. john kerry was very, very in tune with the work i was doing. he met with us, he talk with us. secretary granholm was very engaged. so to be fair when the president was himself the were several people on his team who were
2:23 am
really watching what we were doing and wanted us to be successful. >> where do you, what do you think the goal is that come for republicans in this of administration? >> such as in case anybody is not totally similar, the duck into a top line. a number of years ago a little concern republicans were not engage in the climate conversation so i did what i would suggest it i should do and i jumped in with both feet. i found the conservative climate caucus to get republicans engaged. people can add it on the back and said you'll get five republicans that will join. i'm to just unitary today ths 87 house republicans that are part of the conservative climate caucus. that answer your question, the role is incredibly important. the reason why is if you have conversation as something that has a significant of policy, i know you can separate climate policy for energy policy. and last conversation we had about energy is critical. if you say one half of congress
2:24 am
will show up to the conversation, you're not going to get the best interest. so if republicans are not sure of the conversation, not showing up for the climate conversation can we are not showing up for the energy conversation. it's critical to get the best policy republicans are there and articulating our solutions and we're debating their solution and coming to the best conclusions. >> do you think president trump, do think when you say you're not showing up for the, conversation you are really showing up for the energy conversation that doesn't seem that's the way president trump sees it himself. >> you know, it's hard to know but i will tell you if you look at his appointees, we would have some real serious entity/climate conversation. i'm sure to tell you the narrative has been that to be cleaned have to give up affordability and give up
2:25 am
reliability, given energy dominance. this is what the republican voice is important is wait a minute, you don't. you can be clean, you can and can't affordably come hang onto reliability and you can beat energy, and clean at the same time. what you may not use the president say that if you look at this appointees that resonates. by the way, as are all coming whether related to energy are not as a come to me and my cynical, i'm having this conversation with all of them about my work on the climate and how i'm hoping they can help. >> who do see a month of people you met with four among the broader cast of characters in this of administration as in tune with the clean part of that conversation? >> i just came from the house. i was in energy and commerce committee and when i showed up seven years ago, if climate came up in a hearing it was a debate about the sites. by the time i left if climate came of it was that the debate about methods.
2:26 am
and how do we get affordable reliable clean? that was the conversation. you're going to that more and more from republicans. i think you're going to see that and maybe to be more specific with your question, , everybody that comes in whether it's epa, a lot of connection pete hegseth on-duty, a talking about that role and will of energy and all those things. it's hard to find one topic that spans every part of the administration as much as energy. >> tell me more about your conversation with pete hegseth. >> i shouldn't have brought that up. listen, to me i take very seriously the role of the senate has in the constitution for advice and consent. so when he came to see me, i have been quite a bit of research on him but not enough. i asked him and he said to me
2:27 am
for five names of people that you want me to talk to who can tell me who the real chief is there a very welliver as an elected official the what's out there in the news may or may not be accurate and wanted to know exactly what was accurate. the day before five names. i called a and occult some additional people that he didn't give me because i want to know who he really is i spell that a message of a number of books, i'm going to book but you tell which one you want me to read an agenda. and so for me i can't make a good decision whether it's somebody that is as controversial as pete hegseth for noncontroversial as marco rubio if i don't look at the entire sheet of music. part of that will be hearings. like i don't even get have all these pieces together. i hope all of my colleagues take that same seriousness in our constitutional responsibility. the reason i think that's important is that's not going against the president. in my view that is helping the president.
2:28 am
i tend to get my role as if you think of the board of directors, who directs and say i want you to see us to everything i propose. >> a lot of people actually. >> is not a good way to run a business. you want your trusted people write you to tell you what they are saying. i think it's that only consent. it's advice. i can't of the present advice if i have thoroughly investigated and understood every moving part to this nominee. >> how important not just a pete hegseth but with nominees generally how important to his personal character? >> it's huge. i try to live my life, going back to my constituents, i would put that out first and foremost. so it is a big deal. now, we are all flawed and the question is at what point do you cross that line, right? none of us are perfect. i'm the first to tell you that i think my past that if i were nominee would be coming up. that's the burden i think on us
2:29 am
is where that line is. >> if you were to be reviewing a nominee who had superb professional credentials, a track record of good judgment on policy but some profound personal character issue that would still give you pause? >> so yes, and because you have to balance, like all of those things you laid out there could be in degrees s fours degrees of qualification and decrease of flaws. that's the bird is trying to decide where those were. there was a nominee, you all know who i'm referring to, that didn't make it, and i think universally it was felt that the equation was way out of whack. didn't even get off the ground. just too easy of decision that the gap was too far. >> could you give us an insight as to your think about tulsi gabbard? >> so she is the biggest problem for me is she's been so low profile. the understood come to my office
2:30 am
and so if you go back to the analogy of a sheet of music, in her sheet is pretty point for me and i need more information to start filling that in. and look, if i can't fill it in, i can't vote for her. i've got to find a way of getting information to make the decision. >> what is your assessment of the nodes that are already on the page? >> all i have is what's out there in comments. unlike us before as an elected official i'm the first to understand like you can't really, you have to be careful like what you're hearing about somebody. and so i want to do the research and it will do the research and put the energy and before a cast that vote to make sure i i fuy understand what the package is. >> in the past give introduced legislation to limit the president stability, not any particular present limit the presidential power to issue terrace or national security
2:31 am
reasons. -- terrace. what as you look at the way tariffs have been used at president trump in his first term, by president biden in his term will get to the first 100 days of this term, how much are you concerned about the president having unchecked authority in national security? >> let me say i want to be agnostic republican or democrat president and just as a general executive orders are a terrible way to run a country. we will see in a very few days a rapid swing at policy as executive orders are put into place just as a song a rapid swing a policy for you to go. that's a terrible way to run a country. the problem is when we don't do our job in congress, it makes it more tempting for the administration to do those things. it's incumbent on us to do our job and take away that temptation from the president. >> how to do that?
2:32 am
>> i got a bill called the prove it act and it's amazing how simple it is. it is simply asking for study on carbon intensity, a study, and it's a tiny little swing and it's a heavy lift to get it done. here again this is why i think the president often goes to executive orders because by nature away the founder set it up it's really hard for us to get things done. i i wouldn't change that but its hard. but at the same time i'm working on monsters to get a simple study done. >> someone who's talked a little using authorities is elon musk. we we're going to transform government, make it more efficient, cut trillions of dollars into it heavily using executive authority. how possible is that to you? >> when i became mayor of provo, one of my favorite positions ever was the mayor of provo, and we need more mayors in congress
2:33 am
by the way. i inherited a budget that because of the crisis, financial crisis back into thousands and i need to cut the budget. we did so very carefully but we cut a substantial part of our city budget and increased employee morale and increased quality of services delivered to our residents. and i bring that up because one of its business or government, there's always waste. there's always particularly when you go decades without going back and analyzing it. so i welcome the evaluation of that waste. i welcome the evaluation of programs that are no longer needed. and if we do it correctly we will come out the other side with increased morale amongst federal employees and better services delivered to our constituents. if we do it wrong we will destroy morale, destroyed the quality of services where delivering, and so to the extent i have an influence in the
2:34 am
process i want to make sure we do it right. i think quite frankly this one of thinks the american people are saying please go do this. like people can see there's waste or people can see the debt is too high. and so i think there is broad consensus it needs to be done unless could do it right. >> what is doing it might look like in the context of doge? >> i can tell you for me and my experience is if you come and say we're going to cut conflates a hypothetically every program the federal government by 20%, and you you cut the good programs and you don't cut it up that programs as much a she should. to add your question had to do that right? you have to get in the weeds on everything we do and say could be done better? or should not be done at all? right now i i get a real glarg example, the number of empty office building in washington, d.c. with federal workers coming to work begs the question, should they become in to work,
2:35 am
and if not why do we have the buildings? one of those two needs -- doesn't make sense? one of those needs and elon musk to look up because it's gone for years and a state that it has and it will just continue and that's where the american people can see all, something needs to be done. >> do you think democrats ay to deal? >> i'm really happy with the tone in washington, d.c. right now. eight years ago it was a stereotype more were not can work with the present not my president were going to stop. that's not the tone right now. the tone right now is you are thinks america people expect us to get done, and they are not all partisan. the american people you expect to fix a quarter to the american people expect inflation to come down. i just sent from my democratic colleagues many of them want to be part of the solution. that's a good place. i just feel like look, it's
2:36 am
never perfect. republican, democrat. like we have the potential to really find some synergy here and do some things that the american people are expecting us to do. >> it strikes me that in the past couple of ministrations there have been meaningful bipartisan accomplishments. they have a message of the on issues that are top of the mine for the average voter, right? say what you will about the chips act. i don't think on main street in provo the lower people like revved up about semiconductors that made them under has been your constituents. it on something like inflation, muslims like immigration, your optimism level that you can put together something that's going to get like not 51 votes, some reconciliation deal but 70 votes generational atop a schmidt? >> if we are talking about border specific and that overall immigration, very, very high. if we are talking about bringing
2:37 am
2:38 am
0 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on