Republican Congressman Juan Ciscomani, the U.S. representative for Arizona’s 6th District, was recently named vice chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus.
On the group’s website, under a section called “What We Believe,” the caucus declares that “the climate is changing, and decades of a global industrial era that has brought prosperity to the world has also contributed to that change.” The section goes on to hail private sector innovation and fossil fuels as the key to both American prosperity and reducing emissions.
Congressman Ciscomani joined The Show to talk about the Conservative Climate Caucus, and how he sees the group playing a role in climate-related policymaking.
Full conversation
JUAN CISCOMANI: This is a very important aspect of our district overall, the, obviously climate and making sure that we have both a protection of our incredible environment but also at the same time simultaneously be able to promote economic development and, and the Conservative Climate Caucus does that, right? It has a balance of the approach and how can we protect the environment, especially in the beautiful state like Arizona where we're known for our outdoors and we're also known for the Grand Canyon, of course, and we're also the copper state where we have mining and we have things that are vital to the economy and in the history of our state.
SAM DINGMAN: So, I know that a significant part of the caucus's efforts are around reducing regulation on private industry, if I'm not mistaken, is that correct?
CISCOMANI: That's part of it. So it's promoting, overall promoting policies that advance the clean energy technologies and, and focuses on unleashing the American energy response to lower costs and so on. And part of that is the regulation, like I said, always balancing that with protections for the environment.
DINGMAN: So, how do you see a less regulated private sector as being in service of reducing emissions overall?
CISCOMANI: I'll give you an example. The Critical Mineral Consistency Act, that's one of the bills that I introduced. It passed last Congress on bipartisan basis it basically ensures parity between critical minerals is defined by the Department of Energy and also critical minerals defined by the U.S. Geological Survey so we have a clear demand for clean energy and and critical minerals that continues to grow, as we do more electric vehicles or we're looking at the solar energy and so on. These are all critical elements of that. And when we are making it more friendly in the business environment for mines to be able to deliver on the demand for copper, for example, by copper being listed on, on the critical mineral list, then that also is able to speed up the, the process of being able to get it out of the ground and produce it.
At the same time, we have to make sure that the mines, of course, as they do, are, are being friendly to the environment, and they're recycling water, and they're taking all the proper steps for that.
DINGMAN: So how would you characterize the urgency of the overall mission of reducing emissions though, because, you know, as I'm sure you know, the administrator of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, has characterized a lot of the rollbacks on industry that he has proposed as, in his words, driving a dagger through the heart of climate change religion. How do you see the types of measures you're advocating for in relationship with that?
CISCOMANI: Well, one thing that I learned very quickly in Washington is that there are a lot of different players there. People are trying they have different job descriptions. And people lose themselves and trying to comment and do things that are clearly not part of their jobs.
So what I have always done is clearly just make sure that I stick to my job and my job is to legislate. My job is to bring forward these bills that are gonna produce what they're gonna produce. Whether someone describes them in a different way in the administration. We're, we're gonna, you know, that, that's one way to go about that. Part of my job is to represent my district and that's what I'm doing through this legislation. So for example, again, I'll say the bill that I have here strengthens and safeguards both our domestic supply for these critical minerals and this legislation passed on a bipartisan basis.
Another example I'll give you the, the clean energy tax credits. That's something that was key of the IRA. And we have to protect them here for the, for my district, it's created jobs, it's, I don't love everything and mostly not, not, not much of the IRA as big as the bill that it was. But this was a good aspect of it. So myself and 17 other Republicans wrote a letter to the chairman of Ways and Means to make sure that this is protected.
DINGMAN: Yes, that makes sense. But, but I am curious to know what is your position on the scientific perspective around climate change. Again, as I'm sure you know, the UN has advised that global emissions need to be reduced very drastically by 2030, or we will face “abrupt, irreversible, and dangerous impacts for humanity.” So, while I hear you saying that you are advocating for these measures, how do you see the caucus interacting with the administration and the Senate on that?
CISCOMANI: Well, you know, we have to stay focused on what I can do, what I can impact up not only as a vice chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, but just as the member of Congress in this area, and we all want to preserve and save our environment, and that's what's gonna be the focus while we don't choke business out of existence and both sections of this can coexist.
DINGMAN: Well, let me ask you this then, congressman, if I could just switch gears, I want to talk about the budget, if I may. You recently signed a letter calling for the protection of Medicaid, but you also voted for a budget resolution that would seem to necessitate cuts to Medicaid. How would you reconcile those two things?
CISCOMANI: Well, I think it's a very important question, Sam, because, when, when people hear that, they assume that the resolution that we voted for is the set in stone amount that needs to be found from that area and that's not the case. What the resolution did that both the House and the Senate passed, it gives a blueprint of where the money needs to be found and, and the, the target amount as well for that. So the target was $880 billion over a 10 year period. We go back in this process now of the reconciliation process as you rightfully differentiated. That will go probably the goal that we have is until Memorial Day, so you got another four weeks of this, of actually digging in and seeing where this money can come from.
On work requirements, for example, when you have an able-bodied adult with no kids that is single, and that person is taking benefits off Medicaid from a single mother or a family in poverty or a disabled individual, or the elderly, then that becomes a problem and the improper payments that we've seen are as high as $100 billion in these improper payments. So when we tackle the improper payments, we tackle people that are the only people that are here legally to be able to receive these services and, and we add things like work requirements. We can also make sure that we protect these services for the people that need it the most and the people that these these programs were created to protect and serve.
DINGMAN: So, are you optimistic that there is an opportunity to find a substantial amount of that $880 billion without significant cuts to Medicaid?
CISCOMANI: I am. I'm optimistic that's the case. There's always cleanup to be made in these areas and there's always waste and abuse and many times even fraud that can be found in these, in, in these programs, but we have to protect the vitality of them when you have a district like mine that it's maybe 22% to 24% we've seen of the population being on Medicaid, that becomes a top priority for me.
