long, and we would join in the fact that it has been a very long process and somewhat tedious. but i think certainly from the individual who mentioned this, their perspective was, finally! a committee that is actually taking the time to go over some very difficult issues, very contentious issues. .. really evoked passions on both sides.

and yet i think at the end of that debate, and, you know, my side lost that, you'll recall, but i think that there was a sense that we had the ability to really discuss why it is important, get those issues out on the table and then you vote and sometimes you're going to lose and sometimes you're going to win but at least we've got a process that is working as those who maybe a junior in high school understand this process to work. that the committee process actually does play out. one of the reasons that senator bingaman and i are both very anxious to see the energy bill wrap up in addition to the fact that it has been long, but is that we're moving into the health reform legislation and we're both involved in that on the help committee. that's a process right now where i can tell you juxtaposing how

both committees are handling very important national legislation, i sure prefer what we're doing in the energy committee and how we're giving all members an opportunity to really weigh in on very difficult issues but very substantive issues. we intend to wrap things up either by tomorrow, although, more likely wednesday morning. we've got our markup set for 10:15 tomorrow and then spillover wednesday morning. and hopefully we'll conclude can that mark at that point in time. we have a few things that are yet outstanding in the oil and gas title. a few things with energy markets. and a couple hanger-ons that we need to clean up. there's 17 amendments that we're

working -- 22, i'm told? 17 and then we had a handful as well. so, you know, say 20 amendments and, of course, we're all working to see what might possibly get cleared before then. but we do fully intend to wrap things up. is it a perfect bill? absolutely not. for those of you that may have read the article in this morning's "washington post," i think it summed it up pretty well. it seems like everybody is just a little bit annoyed or perhaps angry at certain aspects of the bill. if you've made everybody a little bit mad, maybe we're getting closer to being right in the middle of that sweet spot. i would hope so. i think it will remain to be seen how the votes will come out on this bill on wednesday. i'll be honest with you, i don't really know.

i know that some of my democratic colleagues don't think that the res goes far enough. i know some of my republican colleagues don't think that the production piece goes far enough. so i'm sure we'll have more discussion about that before we conclude. there are some good things, i think, in this bill. the opening of the destin dome is positive. all of you i have not been a supporter of the res but i'll tell you the standard that we have in place in this bill is a more palatable standard from the perspective what we were able to get in as it relates to new hydro -- excuse me, new nuclear. we got some alaska hydroprovisions.

we got a better definition of biomass. there are things in that res that in my opinion make it work better. do i like it? no, but is it better? yes. so again there are aspects of the bill that i wish we could have enhanced more. i don't think that we do enough for nuclear in this energy bill and i'm disappointed in that. but that's something that i think you will see when we go to the floor a great deal more discussion about how nuclear will play a role in emerging energy policy as we work to reduce our emissions. i think that that has to be a bigger factor. but we do make good strides in advancing renewable energies. the clean energy deployment bank, i think, is critically important for us. and that's a provision that

senator bingaman and i very early on came together on and said, this should be a keystone, a cornerstone, of our legislation, and i think that that is a good, strong piece. we've got the efficiency components in there that i think are good. a good energy work force training component. and we've got some aspects of that that work force training that again will go a long way not only with the renewables but our other energy forms as well. so after about three months, i'd say that we have -- we've put together a product that is comprehensive, looks to how we -- how we get to the next

generation of renewable energy sources while at the same time recognizing that it is our more conventional fuel sources, whether it's oil, natural gas, or coal that have made this country what it is. and we will need to continue to use those resources. so at the end of a long work period, i think we're ready to have final discussion on an energy bill and see where it goes. of course, that next discussion -- and i'll just preempt your question, when do we go to the floor with it? i don't think believe, frankly, we're going to see anything before fall. we've got enough our plates with the appropriation bills that are starting to come through. we've got the judge sotomayor confirmation.

and, obviously, we're going to be focused on some other issues before we move to energy to the floor. so i'm not a betting person, but if it were to come before fall, i would be amazed. so with that, i throw it out to you for the fun questions. >> if imposing a question, if you would please identify your name and news organization, please. >> senator murkowski, do you expect to -- i know you mentioned you've got some problems with the legislation, obviously, but you also mentioned the things -- are there things you expect to vote for coming out of committee? >> i knew that was going to be your first question and, of course, you always want to leave your options open just in case the sky should fall tomorrow. in looking at what we have outstanding, there are a couple

of provisions in the oil section that i will tell you right now that cause me great trouble. these are amendments from a democratic colleague that would put limitations, further limitations, on oil production. i'm very concerned about them. i'm very hopeful that either they won't be brought up or that they will fail. i have said repeatedly that in order for me to weigh this out and find a positive balance, the domestic production piece has got to be meaningful. and as it is now, i'm okay with it. it could be -- it could be much stronger, i recognize that. my concern is that we may be in a situation tomorrow where with a couple of amendments, you could for all intents and purposes, you could stop, say,

for instance, alaska oil operations onshore and off tomorrow with one of the amendments that is pending. and if that happens to me, that's a poisoned pill. [inaudible] >> it's the cantwell amendment. i don't know the number. >> but may i follow up with the dow jones, if those amendments were not to be offered or passed, as it currently sits -- >> i'm much more inclined to support it, absolutely. >> you have a question up here? >> yes. you talked about the process earlier about the healthcare bill and how that was kind of opposite of what you're seeing with the energy bill. speaking about that just real quick, is the healthcare process so onus right now as you see it early on that it's really going to affect things as it moves to the floor? and with the energy bill, what

do you see as being realistic things you've seen on the floor. you've talked about anwr and natural gas. what are the common ground with some of the folks on the other party. >> let's do your second part of your question first. i think nuclear is an issue where we can do a little bit better than we have in committee. i've had conversation with some of my colleagues on the other side who agree for a multitude of different reasons that nuclear must be a larger player in our energy portfolio. and have indicated that they want to work with me to make that happen that. so i think that is one area

where we will be able to make some, i think, positive changes to the bill. i know many of my republican colleagues are going to want to work very hard in enhancing some of the oil and gas, the domestic production pieces. as you know, sometimes -- sometimes the domestic production piece takes on a partisan bent. it shouldn't. and i'd like to think that might be an area where if we frame the amendments right, we can pick up the necessary support from some of our democratic colleagues but that's a tougher -- that's a tougher lift. you've already heard from some that they're going to attempt to either strip out or beef up or pull down some aspects of the bill. some don't like the res.

think that it needs to be much higher. senator nelson from florida has threatened a filibuster because of the destin dome piece. i think it was senator bingaman there's been a lot of lines drawn in the sand and my earlier comment was there's something in this for everybody to hate. the question is, is do you hate it so much that you would be willing to throw aside all of the other helpful component pieces. your first question about the help committee and do i foresee that this is -- that the process is so bad that it's going to taint it? we're just getting started. i mean, we did the walk-through last week. what was frustrating with that walk-through was there are portions of this 600-some odd page bill are completely blanked

titles. sections where there just essentially are place holders. when i left work on friday night, i was talking with my help, she said boss, i'm prepared to be writing amendments all week long and i know where you're going on the rural piece but my challenge, she says, is i'm -- i don't know what i'm amending in many of these areas. and we're moving to a markup in two days. and so that is extremely frustrating. so the process is one where i think you will hear republicans complain all throughout that we haven't seen a complete text and then when you try to get clarification on some -- i feel some pretty simple areas, the response is, well, we really have not identified that yet.

i think we all would concede, republicans and democrats alike, that this discussion on healthcare reform is imperative. it's important. we've got to -- we've got to -- we've got to move through it. but if the goal here is to get a product by a date certain rather than to get good policy, that's going to be a real problem. and i don't have any problem at all sitting through days and days and days and weeks of markup. do what we did in the energy committee. take months to do it. but try to focus on getting a good product rather than you've got a time that is set in stone and by golly, that's what's going to drive this.

>> thank you. what about environmental provisions on the energy -- >> what about which provisions? >> environmental provisions, on the environment. >> they're all throughout it. >> okay. could you please elaborate a little bit more on that regarding the energy bill and the environmental -- like, i don't know nuclear waste. >> when you look at, for instance, the renewable electric standard, i mean, this is a push that is designed to hopefully reduce emissions, which, of course, speaks to the environment. now, i say that with a little bit of frustration because i have asked continually, as we have gone through this -- through this debate, if our goal with an res is to reduce emissions, then nuclear has got

to be part of that because you've got an energy source that isn't emitting any carbon. but there are some in this res debate, as we move forward who i believe think that the goal is to erect more wind turbines, to put in place more solar panels and to advance those technologies, advance those industries, advance those green jobs. well, that's fine to advance the industries. it's fine to get more green jobs, but please as we -- as we put in place an res standard, let's recognize that those energy sources that do not have carbon emissions should be in our favored category and they're not. you know, as i say, we made some

small wins with new nuclear and uprates. made some small wins with hydro. but there's -- there's kind of a tradeoff here. there's this assumption, well, you have your power generated by the wind or by the sun and it's environmentally pure. well, if you're using solar that uses any amount of water, that's a problem. if you've got wind that is in the -- in the path of a fly-way, that's a problem. so i don't know that anything is environmentally pure. but i think what we need to be focused on is how we reduce our emissions in a meaningful way. that >> rebecca cooper with nuclear new build monitor. i wonder if you could talk about

both what do you see the nature of the four amendments on nuclear being more sensitive to the senate as was tried in the committee or something more specific like expanding loan guarantees for nuclear plants or upping the amount of nuclear taken out of the baseline in the res? and then secondly, if you could talk about how likely it is you'll get to introduce that amendment before the committee before the markup, thanks. >> well, i think what you're going to see is good, constructive debate on nuclear and i think those amendments will range from everything that you have suggested to loan guarantee, to how we deal with the waste management issues. i think the gambit is going to be all throughout. so i wouldn't suggest that anything be limited. as far as what we might expect out of committee, we have been trying to work to see if we

could get a nuclear amendment cleared that speaks more to a sense of this nation's policy towards nuclear from -- just kind of from a broader perspective so we're hopeful that we'll be able to do that. we can't confirm that at this point in time but we'll confirm that. >> can we go back to the amendments. can you explain to me what they would do and why they're problematic? >> well, the amendment -- you got it there? there's two of them. one relates to drilling requirements. the other one relates to discharge limits. and the drilling requirements one is particularly concerning because the way it's drafted is

not clear. at first read, it makes it appear that this is related to drilling operations in arctic waters. in icy conditions. but then when you read it further, it leads you to believe that it could also be any operations in the arctic. so it's less than clear as to where it applies, whether it's out other areas or in the npra. but it -- it essentially requires that until it can be clearly stated and defined, that there -- there's essentially no impact, and that any and all

spills are capable of being secured. that there shall be no operations. now, in order for the permits to be issued, you've got to provide the certification from all the regulatory agencies that are in place there. so you've already got a process in place but in looking at the language from the alaska perspective, it would appear it is an effort to stop most certainly offshore drilling in the chuzchi and possibly onshore and to discharge limits requiring but allowing the secretary to write rules on discharge but how we find what a pollutant is for purposes of

this discharge, it is uncertain and unclear. and given -- given the most current ruling out there that carbon emissions are considered a pollutant, essentially, anything that's going on up north could be considered a discharge that could be subject to these rules on discharge. so we're concerned because the impact on existing production could be quite detrimental. >> down here? >> could you talk a little bit about shell gas, lng and alaska

gas. there was a redevelopment last week that trans-canada and exxonmobil are getting together but there's a difficult question. there's a huge amount of -- a potentially huge amount of gas going to flow into u.s. markets. and where do you -- where do you see the alaska project positioned? >> it's a good question. we do have great potential here in this country with shell gas. we're seeing it coming out of the barnett. we're seeing it coming out of the marsalis. these are sources that quite honestly 10 years ago, 5 years ago we really hadn't factored into the mix and they are extremely important as we look to domestic production and how we bring natural gas up and get it into the distribution system. that's huge. i believe you're going to need

all that we can produce domestically here as well as what we can deliver from alaska. we've got 35 trillion cubic feet of known reserves up north and unlimited quantities beyond that. i believe we're going to need all of them, particularly, if we move to a situation where you've got a cap and trade regime in place. and we're looking to get additional quantities of natural gas. if you do a lot of what our friend t. boone pickens wants to do. it's to have available supplies of natural gas. and quite honestly i don't want those available supplies of natural gas to be imported lng. i don't want to knowingly take this country into the same situation with natural gas that

we are currently with oil. we're close to 70% reliant on foreign sources for oil. we've got the ability in this country with alaska's natural gas to be able to meet our needs. but we got to get our gas online. so the news last week about exxon stepping up and partnering in with the trans-canada project is good. we've always known that in order to get alaska's gas to the lower 48 market is it will take all the guys who have the gas that is exxon, bp and conoco sitting down with the state working a deal and figuring out how we move that down a pipe. and now we have the three who hold the gas at least in the same room. now, they're not all sitting at the same table but they are in the same room. you've got bp and conoco that have formed up their partnership

which is denali. they're advancing field work and now you have exxon/trans-canada. i believe that you will see and i can't predict but there will come a time in the not too distant future where everyone comes together to make this project a reality. contained in our energy bill are a couple of provisions that help to facilitate that. you'll recall back in 2004 in the energy act -- natural gas pipeline act of 2004, we had inserted a loan guarantee provision, $18 billion loan guarantee. we are upping that amount to $30 billion. it's anticipated that this project will be anywhere from 26 to $30 billion. the rate we're going it's going to be more than that. so we've upped the loan guarantee and we've also provided access to the federal financing bank so it's an effort

to help reduce some of the financing costs which again as this project just continues to get more expensive, anything we can do to help facilitate that will be important. >> you look favorably on natural gas for transport? >> absolutely. absolutely. if you think about our options, when it comes to how we as a nation move ourselves, move our vehicles, i think it's only a matter of time before we figure out a way to get ourselves off of oil. we should be moving in that direction. and i think that natural gas clearly holds one of those -- one of those keys. and again, if we've got the resource and it's a domestic resource, why would we not want to move in that direction? >> just one technical issue and then a broader issue.

so would you support zero discharge drilling in the arctic on future leases? you noted concern about existing leases but i'm wondering if you ignored existing exploration and talk about future exploration. and then more broadly, bingaman has said he wants to consider the energy bill separately on the senate floor and the majority leader has continued to say that he wants to consider energy and climate together. can you tell us about the nature of what you understand about the division, the disparity there and how you see it unfolding as we go forward? >> you bet. just very quickly on the discharge. i think again, you know, the devil is in the detail in how we define discharge