Rep. Graves it is important to look at where we were. We passed legislation to address this type of scenario. We increased funds for organizations to make sure we are prepared for this. This is an evolving threat. Every country in the world is working together with the World Health Organization till learn as much as we can. The legislation we passed through the house yesterday provides funds to the department of health. The primary objective is trying to get funds out to the state Public Health departments and the folks who are actually on the ground. This is everything from surveillance, trying to understand where the infection is, how it is being transmitted and learning as much as we can. It is about ensuring we are moving forward on treatment and vaccines. Most importantly, getting the resources out to our state and ublic entities to ensure they have the appropriate testing and other types of respiratory equipment and other Protection Equipment they need to be effective managers of this awful pandemic we are facing. Ben to follow up quickly, what do you mean by surveillance . That is intriguing. Rep. Graves i guess i should have used a better term. What i mean by that is monitoring where the infections are. Where we have confirmed cases. How it is spreading. Surveilling, monitoring, making sure we understand what is happening. It helps us to learn as much as we can about the disease. Also, it helps us to ensure the efforts we are undertaking are as successful as possible. The more we learn about transmission, the more we learn about incubation time, it helps design the response to this evolving situation. Steve i would like to turn to the select committee on climate. And ask whether republicans are working on a report on what their positions are in this area. Whether or not might be doing that in conjunction with democrats or parallel to them. Rep. Graves as you know a climate report or Climate Strategy for congress. There are efforts and certainly bipartisan efforts. In addition, we have been working to collect information about some of the strategies, where we want to make sure we have appropriate kind of i guess policies laid out in this overall report. Let me be clear. We can work all day on resilience and Energy Conservation and those efforts should be bipartisan, without a doubt. You have heard folks say we need to eliminate all fossil fuels. I dont agree with that. I dont think science shows that would be the right approach and i think it would be contrary to the objectives climate advocates are out there talking about. Certainly, i think it would be contrary to the interest of the u. S. In terms of employment, in terms of trade deficit, wages. And opportunities for americans. There are absolutely are areas where we have bipartisan consensus. I am really excited about working together on some of the successes. But there are other areas where i am very concerned about some of the statements we have heard from leaders that i think would be very dangerous to the u. S. We are making sure we are pulling together our thoughts there and whether we can incorporate into the main report or have it as sort of an alternative report, we are not sure yet. We are going to continue working together with members of both sides. See where we can continue to build consensus. Steve the position on fossil fuel sounds more like Energy Efficiency bill rather than a climate bill. I was wondering if you could Say Something about the difficulty of having a climate bill when the president has declared the issue a hoax. Rep. Graves first of all, lets be clear, it is not a bill, it is a report. This is a report or a strategy. Second of all, i think that would be a fundamental mistake to separate the two or try to. Lets be clear why. When you look at the greatest success in reducing emissions, not just in the United States, but around the globe, it is a result of transitioning to cleaner fossil fuel technology. I am going to say that again. Because it is something that may seem counterintuitive, but it is clearly supported by fact. The greatest emissions reduction we have had around the globe has been the result of transitioning to cleaner fossil fuels. You could look at a recent statement by the International EnergyAgency Director that said the change in the u. S. Power sector over the past 10 years have been historic. The greatest reductions in emissions i believe he said ever or certainly over an extended time. It would be a mistake for us to jettison or ignore where we are actually gaining our successes that have resulted in the u. S. For example being the largest reducer in emissions over the last 15 years, a larger Emission Reduction than the next 12 countries combined over that time. Steve that is partially because we are bigger. In any case rep. Graves wait a minute. Wait a minute. I dont take it is appropriate to dismiss and say we are bigger. The science does not show this needs to be per capita. It is about the cumulative concentrations, what the u. S. Is doing, we are actually having the greatest success on the globe. The environment does not respond based on concentrations per person. It responds based on overall concentration. We are the largest reducer. Period. Steve those overall concentrations are still going up and will continue as long as we are using fossil fuels. Rep. Graves i disagree with that. Lets take that apart. Number one, i think it is important we do acknowledge the fact that emissions are still going up. For every one ton of emissions, china has increased them by four tons. And that has actually been allowed under the paris accord and it is allowed to continue that through 2030. Now, they are releasing more than the United States, the european union, and japan combined. That is a dangerous trajectory. I think it is a mistake to ignore what china is doing. Number two, with regard to fossil fuels, there is this mistake out there that looks as fossil fuels as the enemy. The science doesnt necessarily say it is fossil fuels. It is the emissions. If you can utilize fossil fuels in a way that separates or sequesters the emissions, you result in the same outcome except for perhaps with lower emissions, with lower energy costs. When you look back historically over the last 10 years, that is exactly what has happened. Lets look at those facts. Legislation was going to mandate emissions reduction, it was going to pick winners and losers in terms of energy technology. We have actually exceeded the reductions called for under that mandatory legislation. Exceeded. We did it by letting the free market choose and we have done it for lower energy prices. John can i ask a quick question, is that strategy something you have to come up with together with democrats . Or are you writing a separate one from the democrats . Rep. Graves it is our hope we have a bipartisan support. It is important issue. When you look back over the last several years, the facts support a strategy where we should be able to build consensus over what has worked in the past 10 to 20 years. It is our hope we have a bipartisan report. We are certainly not going to be irresponsible and move down a path of a Green New Deal that i believe would result in increasing emissions, increasing our trade deficit, losing american jobs and reducing our Economic Growth or even a slump. I think it would be a fundamental mistake. If we see paul is see policies moving in that reckless direction, then we would be writing a real report. That is not our intention. Im hopeful we are able to work together. John and you said you are required to come up with the strategy. Is the house and senate as well required to vote on whatever strategy you come up with . Rep. Graves the intent is the committee will finalize a report. The committee will vote on the report. Whether the house takes it up will be up to Speaker Pelosi. Under the charge we have been given by leadership, we are to come up with a report under committee rules, we will vote on the report. Whether that goes to the full house or not is up to the leadership. The idea is the individual components of the report will be referred to the relevant committees to fulfill the objectives of the report. John we have about 15 minutes left. Two points. , give us a timetable on when the report will come out. I want to ask about Nuclear Power. Rep. Graves as i recall, i think the rules and the actions that established the committee, i believe it requires by the end of the month we have to have that report passed out of the climate committees. That is the timeline we are looking at, yes. Power,d on Nuclear Nuclear power generates roughly 20 of the power across the country. What role do you see it having in the future . Would you want to build out more Nuclear Plants and reactors . Do you want to shut down plants . And then what do you do with the fuel . That is of course the big milliondollar question. Rep. Graves it is. It is a great question and it is one of the real challenges as we move forward. As you noted, Nuclear Power plants today provide about 20 of the overall electricity portfolio around the u. S. Another really important statistic is that Nuclear Power represents about half of the emissions free electricity in this nation. If you look at the licensing and life of some of the plants a few years ago, we were looking at an extraordinary decline. It was very concerning. I dont think we had low emissions or emissions free facilities that would be online fast enough to help replace that technology. The Nuclear Regulatory commission has stepped in. In the and there have been efforts to extend these licenses. You talked about the future of nuclear. Right now, the u. S. Has more power plants than any other country in the world. We have historically been the leader. I believe we are giving that up to russia and china. I think that is a mistake from an Energy Security perspective. From a Global Security perspective, it is a mistake as well. I think that as we move forward, we must invest in advanced nuclear. I think it is critical. You noted the fuel storage issue. It certainly needs to be included in these thoughtful discussions. Some of the newer technologies on the horizon, the waste issue becomes a much lower challenge, becomes much less of a challenge than it is today because of the type of technology we have moving forward. Let me go back and say it again. Right now, the United States has more Nuclear Power plants than anyone else in the planet. Anywhere else in the planet. We only have two under construction right now. Whereas you look at what china, russia, and other countries are doing, they are moving in the opposite direction. It is in the u. S. Interest to progress advanced nuclear technology. I think it is in our interest to be able to export the technology to other countries. And i think it would be a fundamental mistake for us to ignore or for us to not include nuclear in our future energy portfolio. Ben what do you think is behind the flipflop of the president , who originally supported yucca and is now opposed to it as a longterm waste site. Rep. Graves when i think of waste and yucca, i think about all the money we have wasted investing in it. I have historically been a supporter of the facility. We have invested so much money. It was part of our strategy. In terms of us fulfilling the commitment we made to Power Companies, they were charged money in exchange for providing a storage facility. We have collected the money but have not provided the storage capacity. As you know, this waste issue has evolved out of necessity. Many of these Power Companies have had to establish alternative storage mechanisms. It is not as though there is not capacity in place. Out of necessity, these companies have created storage capacity. It is safely being handled right now. As we think forward and we think about advanced nuclear, the need for yucca certainly decreases because of the type of waste product you would have. You would have under these technologies on the horizon. One, i think if we are going to shift strategies to this distributed storage, i think we have an obligation to invest in this distributed shortage in the storage in the shorterterm as we continue to invest to perfect nuclear technologies. The waste challenge becomes a much smaller issue. Steve we are coming up on the 10th anniversary of the deepwater horizon accident. The governor of your state, governor edwards, has a strategy for addressing this through both climate and restoration, shoreline restoration. What do you think about his strategy and what do you think do youaccident think in retrospect about the accidents and what bp has done to try to help the state or the shoreline . Rep. Graves first, in regard to deepwater horizon, the judge who handled the multidistrict litigation on deepwater horizon got it right when he said this was reckless behavior. You can look at the fact we have produced billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and we have done it safely. There were clear trends going on for several years with reduction in regard to barrels of oil spilled. In the numbers of accidents, meaning incidents. Everything was going in a clear downward trajectory. I think this was a project that was not properly managed. I sat through many days in the court and it was clear this was an irresponsible anomaly. There were a series of errors made, any one of which that could have caused this disaster that resulted in the senseless death of 11 people. Really, really awful. I think there have been a number of improvements in safety that have resulted from this. This was the largest settlement in u. S. History from a single company. I think it was appropriate considering the impact of the dollars that continue to be invested in the restoration of the gulf coast. Secondly, with regard to governor edwards, his climate announcement, he announced he was going to put together a group, an Advisory Panel to help advise on effectively a future strategy for climate for louisiana. I think it is really important that we do pull people together because i feel like this issue has been ruled by emotion over the last few years, rather than by fact. A few things that kind of confirm that. Whenever people think about which states have been leaders on Climate Change, folks often default to california. The reality is when you look at the performance of the california over the last 10 years, they have reduced emissions by less than 1 . By less than 1 . If you take the 40 other states that are not following this kind of california model, they have actually reduced emissions by 9 . Nine times greater reductions than california. California is paying multiple times the cost of electricity compared to my home state of louisiana. The state of georgia, for example, i think they have reduced their emissions in excess of 20 during the same period that california has only reduce theirs by 1 . It is good that governor edwards has put together this panel. I think it is very important we try to inject more science, more facts into this. Because if we continue operating or following this emotional trajectory we are on, i am very concerned about the repercussion on the u. S. Economy, wages, individual employment opportunities, the trade while this might sound counterintuitive, the facts prove this, im concerned about what is actually going to happen with us increasing emissions rather than the reduction we saw last year. And there are statistics on california that dont even include the 80 million megawatts california is importing into electricity from other states. The amount they are importing from the United States is more than what other entire states consume. Everybody i talked to says they want to leave california. In any case, i cant say enough. I am all for a clean energy future. I think it is important for our children, our grandchildren. The more we can do on Energy Efficiency and conservation, it complements the president s agenda on reducing taxes, on reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, trade agenda that helps improve the competition of the u. S. Workforce. This complements that. If we can bring down energy costs. And it reduces emissions. It is a winwin. I am concerned about some of the strategies proposed by radicals. Steve i wanted to ask you about the strategy. It seems like a lot of what your strategy you are looking into is dispensing money for r d to look for strategies that will help bring Carbon Dioxide out of the atmosphere and into some sort of storage type mechanisms. How do you decide where that money goes . That sounds in some ways more like a democratic plan where you are talking about big spending, not talking about, say, a carbon tax or Something Like that. John congressman, we just have a few minutes left but go ahead. Rep. Graves let me be clear on a carbon tax. I think a carbon tax would be an awful mistake, increasing the cost of energy for americans. It would prevent our ability to exporting cleaner Energy Solutions to 35 countries. Which supplants russian natural gas which is 40 dirtier than the u. S. With regard to our strategy, it is not to spend money on r d to find solutions. It is to double and triple down on the solutions the u. S. Has carried out over the last 15 years, resulting in us being the singular Global Leader in emissions reduction. The singular Global Leader. Is it also moving forward with Complementary Technology on sequestration . Yes. Absolutely. Building on some of the technological opportunities like a power facility in texas that is providing natural gas generated electricity at net zero emissions. Those are the types of projects moving forward that i think we can build upon that are going to be a major part of our clean energy future, in addition to the nuclear opportunities you raised. We cannot forget the Important Role solar, wind, hydro, and other renewable sources will play. We have got to get this Energy Storage technology improved because the state of Technology Today cannot address our future needs. Ben it is clear you like this issue, get fired up about it, and you clearly have a wonkish interest. Rep. Graves i just had two cups of coffee. Ben i understand, i know the feeling. [laughter] i wish i had two cups myself. The Republican Party has addressed two main ideas on how to address Climate Change. One, Carbon Capture. The other, from a congressman from arkansas, essentially planting trees. Those will address Climate Change to a certain extent in certain sectors. How are you going to knock down emissions in transportation . Because Carbon Capture does not address that. How are you going to address ag. Tell us how across the economy you are going to lower emissions. Across a variety of sections. John i will give you the final two minutes to answer. Rep. Graves i think it is important to acknowledge you dont necessarily need to eliminate emissions at the very source. You can provide complementary initiatives. You can have emissions over here but you can sequester over here, and it still results in a net reduction. We do that through all sorts of strategies, like wetlands mitigation. It has enjoyed support on both sides of the aisle. It is important to recognize that. Number two, the strategies we have laid out so far, they are simply one component of a larger strategy. That we are going to laying out as part of a three or four part series. The final thing i want to say and i think it is most important is the fact we have got to be evidencebased and how we move forward. We need to make sure our strategies are based on things that are going to work. Since we have been the Global Leader in reduced emissions, lets double and triple down on those strategies and complement it with carbon sequestration. With better Energy Storage technologies to where we can use solar, wind, and other sources. More so than we are able to do today. I think this comprehensive strategy as we move forward, a truly all of the above you its base u. S. Based resources, affordable prices, exportable, these are great opportunities for the United States to have this next generation of Energy Leadership around the globe. I think it could be a boost for the u. S. Economy versus adversely impacting it, like i think the Green New Deal would. John thank you so much. Representing the sixth district of louisiana. The Ranking Member on the select committee for the climate crisis. Appreciate you being our newsmaker this week. Rep. Graves thank you. John now we continue with the roundtable portion. Steven mufson is with the washington post, ben hulac is with cq roll call. I want to start with where we ended on that comprehensive strategy, released by republicans. How has that been received by the rank and file . And outside environmental and Energy Groups here in washington, d. C. . Ben i would say it is not comprehensive. The congressmen dodged around my questions. They talk about two things, trees and Carbon Capture technology. Which has been used, incredibly expensive, but it is not widespread. The idea behind it is you essentially trap emissions before they can leave the atmosphere. It is used in a few plants across the country, a facility in texas that exxon mobil operates that has previously been successful with this. It is no comprehensive strategy. He didnt answer questions about how to address agriculture emissions, which is one of the top four or five biggest emitting sectors of the economy. He did not have an answer in transport which is the number one. Comprehensive it is not. John i want to ask you, he also talked about spending on research and development. Complementarty investments strategies. I am old enough to remember back during the obama administration, there was a Clean Energy Investment program, solyndra got money. In the republicans and the republicans concern back then when democrats were talking about research and development was picking winners and losers. What did you hear from him on that . Steve it is inconsistent with what the situation actually is. As he said, the stimulus package back in 2009 for the entire economy included essentially the Largest Energy bill of all time. Because it gave 60 billion to 70 billion to give out two o Different Companies for their r d. In the case of solyndra, that did not work out too well. Here, he is talking about this Company Called net power which people say takes natural gas and has no emissions. That is not quite right. The net power facility does produce Carbon Dioxide at the end. It is not mixed in with other gases, so it is free and that you dont have to pay for a new process. But it is giving you Carbon Dioxide that has to be dealt with somehow. The congressman is very much in favor of promoting natural gas. But natural gas will still, at best, go into this process. I think there is still a lot that needs to be done to get to a more realistic republican position. John in our final minute or so question to both of you. , a this Climate Strategy to committee is coming up with, how likely do you think it will be . What are your expectations for how it gets received . Ben i couldnt tell you. I dont know how the parties might blend the reports. Said an pelosi Speaker Pelosi said the report will go out to various committees that will then use it to draft legislation. I dont know. I think it is speculative. Steve i dont see how congressman graves gets to a point where he can issue one unified report. The gulf is too wide. It is a step forward that republicans even utter the word climate, but from where he is to where the democrats are seems like a big gap to me. The and tellingly, republicans in the select committee are almost entirely from fossil fuel heavy states. West virginia, louisiana and north dakota to name a few. John we will have to and it there. Thank you so much for being air being our newsmakers and helping with newsmakers this week. Ben thank you. Tonight on q a, Peggy Wallace kennedy, daughter of former four term alabama governor and president ial candidate George Wallace, talks about her fathers controversial career, and what inspired her to write her book the broken road. Back in 1996, we took our young son who was nine at the time to the Martin Luther king Museum Historical site in atlanta. And we went to his church and to his grave and we went over to the museum, and it was being newly constructed at the time. And we were going through the exhibits and we came to the exhibit, alabama exhibit. The Baptist Church , fire hoses and dogs in birmingham, and George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse store. And burns looked up at me and he sad, why didas so popeye do those things to other people papa do those things to other people . And it broke my heart. I said, papa never told me why he did those things to other people, but i know he was wrong. So maybe it will just have to be up to you and me to help make things right. Announcer watched on ad at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans q a. Booktv, reflections from my watergate lawyer and the effective twoparty political system on democracy. At 7 50 p. M. Eastern, and her latest book the watergate girl jill line banks talks about her legal career including her role as one of the three assistant special prosecutors in the watergate case. And at 9 00 p. M. , on afterwards, new america senior fellow lead rotman argues in his book breaking the twoparty do loop that the twoparty system is damaging americas democracy. He is interviewed by George WashingtonUniversity Professor and author matthew dallek. What would be the chief advantages to having a multiparty democracy . Democracy, i mean, it is always going to involve conflicts. The issue of consensus are not political issues. But the challenge is we need to have some system by which we can agree that some set of rules are fair, and some set of procedures are fair, and we can abide by those outcomes. Announcer watch jill line banks and afterwards with lead rotman today on booktv, and be sure to tune in next weekend for our two day live coverage of the tucson festival of books on booktv on cspan 2. Announcer next, Bernie Sanders campaigns in grand rapids, michigan, ahead of tuesdays primary. Michigan has 125 delegates at stake, the largest Number Available of the six States Holding primaries. Showsnt emerson poll senator sanders trailing joe biden in michigan. He was joined at the beginning of the event by the reverend jesse jackson