recognition and a discharge could be a very difficult or requirement. it is something that as shell, who has been looking to operate up north in the chukchi, as they have been working with the native constituency up there and working with the regulators, that's one of the issues that has been -- has been confounding them. ..

>> i have been in complete agreement with chairman bingaman that this is not a good thing for our energy bill. and nothing has happened of late that would convince me otherwise. senator boxer has indicated that she intends to move something from her committee, environment and public works by the end of the summer, and i know that the majority leader is looking to that prospect of how you could

team the two bills together. i think that what we have in this energy bill is actually for the awards that are in it, there are good component pieces that really do help us to reduce our emissions, that really do get us on that right path so that we are seeing lower emissions around the country. so if we were not to pass a cap-and-trade bill this year, and we were to pass an energy bill, i think we would actually be doing something positive when it comes to what we are emitting and how we are caring for our environment. recognizing that right now, the

marker that we are using for purposes other than session is the waxman-markey bill. recognizing the cost to the nation, to the consumer from legislation such as this establishing a cap-and-trade bill regime as they have proposed, i'm not convinced that our economy right now is strong enough to take us on. i am not convinced that families who are losing their homes, losing their jobs, worried about health care and, you know, what costs they may have to pay their, i don't believe they are looking at this and saying, by golly, what this country needs right now is a cap-and-trade bill to that's going to make

this country a better place. i don't think that's one of their priorities right now. and i don't think that they are prepared or willing to assume that cost. and that cost is basically an energy tax. and so if you were to take a piece and put it with an energy bill, and particularly at a time such as now when you have a weakened economy, i think you take the whole thing. and i think that's a mistake. i don't think that we should be advancing a climate change go with our energy piece. >> dan whitten with bloomberg news. you endorse a firecracker in 2006 you endorse the bingaman plan, not the same as the, but i think it was a price floor and pricing involved.

if waxman markey were amended to look more like that which you support a cap-and-trade bill and therefore would you be more open to including it with your energy legislation? >> well, as you point out, i have supported a legislation that would put a system in pla place. and i did so because of the escape valve, if you will, the safeties that are there. recognizing that there will be an expense associated with a cap-and-trade bill you, if you're a business, if you're an industry, if you're a consumer but you know -- you kind of know the parameters of how bad it could be, as a business, you factor that into your business

plan. but when you don't know how bad it's going to be, when there is this uncertainty and, you know, we're talking about these tradable credits and we don't really know how that's going to work. we don't know who the winners are going to be or who the losers are going to be, but you have this sinking feeling that you're going to be one of the lugers. that's not the approach that i was willing to take. i took kind of a bold step out three years ago when i signed on to a bill as a republican. there was this sense, you know, what did she know that i don't know. but i would take him i come from a state where we are seeing changes in our climate and we are seeing how it's impacting our environment. and as i've said for us it's not a theoretical exercise. when i sit down with the corps

of engineers, it's not talking about building bridges. it's talking about how we save communities from coastal erosion because the shore ice is receiving so far and allowing the ways to build up, and literally villages falling into the ocean. so i feel some sense of responsibility, if we are contributing, man is contributing in any way to the emissions that are causing the change, then when we can responsibly work to reduce those emissions we should be doing so. so i'm trying to find that balance. if i thought that there were legislation out there that found that balance and could be responsibly paid for, that's a different set of facts. i don't think we have it there.

>> so would use the would you support the identical bill? >> if you married to an energy bill? >> desk. >> i think one of the things you have to keep in mind also, and we said this during the discussion when we were talking about the current change bills that were before is whether it was bingaman or whether it was lieberman warner. the economy has got to be strong enough to go ahead and implement these changes. so if you have a weakened economy right now it might be too much for even the bingaman specter. and i think that's important for us to be looking at. i'd like to think that we're going to be coming to the end of this down the economy, but i'm not an economist that anybody is

going to be listening to. we need to make sure that what we impose on consumers, what we impose on industries that are providing us, you know, all of our resources here is a reasonable cost. >> i was wondering, i covered the market last week and i was wondering what new support really came from the expanding offshore drilling without revenue sharing? seems like a lot of republicans were happy they didn't include the revenue sharing. well, the democrats were happy because it expanded access. so what was sort of the good of that amendment? >> i think the good of that amendment, my view on it, was that through that amendment we have opened up an area that had

been clearly identified as having good quantities of dry gas, clothes and here it is a very lucrative area. and i voted against that dortmund amendment because i wanted to make sure that we had a revenue-sharing piece. i was convinced that we would get greater participation by states in support of opening up areas offshore if there is revenue-sharing that comes available to them. so that's where my butt was on the. i lost on revenue-sharing. that doesn't mean i'm going to come back and give it another go on the floor. but in the meantime, i'm happy that that dorgan amendment is passed and it is included in the

bill. i think that the good news and to gain from passage of the dorgran amendment is we have opened up an area offshore that to this point in time has been closed to any production. that's a big deal. >> well, i do believe it will bring republican votes and senator dorgan, the sponsor of that amendment, you got his support there. i think a lot of it again may depend on what happens with the revenue-sharing debate. so i think where you are going your question is do you lose more because it is in there. you know, how many are out there like senator nelson who will say this is positively a terrible thing versus the numbers of

members who will come on and say yeah, this is a step forward for us, in terms of our ability to increase domestic production. and i would like to think that it's a net gain for us. >> over here. >> senator, why do you say a few words about the prospects for the treaty under the united states could extend equal righ rights, but the u.s. has not ratified the treaty. it seems like it may be some opportunity to come up to the senate floor, what are your interests there? where do you see the prospects for ratification?

anything you might be taking an active role in. >> it's an important question because, as you know, the united states has the opportunity to claim an area about the size of the state of california that if you look at the undersea mapping off of the northern shore of alaska into the chukchi, the mapping that has come back is really quite consequential for us. and when you recognize that the latest studies coming back from usgs in terms of the resources, the oil and gas resources that are potentially under the arctic area there, and some 30% possibly of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves in these arctic waters. it's never been much interest to

anybody because it was pretty near un- accessible. but as we are seeing changes and parsing passageways open up and we're seeing the level of commerce and activity up north, all of a sudden it's becoming the place to look at. unfortunately for this country, if we don't ratify the law of the sea, we can't make a claim to any of those offshore resources, or make that claim before the commission. and that's to our detriment. if we are not sitting at the table we don't have an opportunity to either claim those resources or be involved with the environmental issues that will exist out there, the commerce, the fishing, the

shipping. there is so much that is at stake here, and i think that it's imperative that we as a nation step forward finally and ratify the law of the sea. i stepped off the foreign relations committee this year to go onto appropriations, and i had taken a very keen interest while on that committee and try to advocate a fourth passage even though i'm no longer on the committee i have still been working with chairman carries to help advance a. we have had some strategy a presence on how to move this forward. we have been kind of doing our own little with checks and seeing what members we need to encourage. it's important for us as a nation, not only for the resource value, but begin to make sure that other countries are not going after what i would

suggest would be rightfully the united states in terms of the undersea area. so we're going to keep pushing it. one of the problems has been, it is objected to by some colleagues and we know we are not going to get a uc to take it up, and it will take some four-time. four-time is a precious commodity in the united states senate, particularly this summer so i am not optimistic that we'll will see anything advance before the end of this work period which puts everything in the fall. if people think we are busy now. >> right here. >> i wonder if you could clarify a comment you made, the oil and gas provision, that some of the

[inaudible] >> for instant, senator dorgan coming out of north dakota. north dakota is doing a terrific job up there in advancing their oil and gas reserves. and i think senator dorgan and senator conrad also from north dakota appreciate that as a resource to their state. so even they are democrats who are, you might ordinarily put on the other side of the column when it comes to oil and gas production issues, i think again it comes down to who they represent and the industries that provide for jobs and resources.

so i think it's making sure that amendments are good and balanced and might be able to claim your support. >> over your. >> do you expect any further changes of the carbon capture title of the energy bill? >> i don't think there is anything -- our amendment list is getting to be pretty trashed. no, it looks like everything we had out there was either cleared or withdrawn. >> to clarify something, do you think that's where a lot of your college on the republican side of the packaging deal it has to be both, or simply you just need to bring more votes on that? >> that, i don't know. that i don't know. and again, you're never quite

sure how deep that line that has been drawn in the sand. for me, i feel so strongly that in order to get meaningful production that that revenue-sharing has got to be -- it's got to be part of the deal. but you know, sometimes you've got to accept your half a loaf now to get the full vote later. and i don't know for how many members that may be the way this plays out. is like an war for me. i'm not giving up on anwr. i'm taking a slightly different run at it this time. i didn't get to vote in committee to make it as part of the bill. but just because you haven't been successful right now

doesn't mean that you can say, okay, we're throwing in the dow, we are never bringing it up again. in our committee, the chairman has made the issue of revenue clearing very, very clear to folks on his site. he just philosophically disagrees with it. that's just it. so how that will play out as we move forward with a full bill to the floor, i don't know. >> what political risk does senator boxer raised if she tries to markup cap and trade legislation, driving peak oil prices higher? higher, while she is

preparing for and with california in a dire straits? is there any specific risk that she faces do you think? >> i think she is but i also think she's a pretty smart woman. i think she is thinking about all of that. >> what do you perceive is her calculation? >> i tell you, if oil prices continued to go up and people's attention starts to refocus on what they are paying at the pump as they did last summer, i think her calculus changes. i'm sure you have all seen the list of priorities, i don't remember what -- i think it was a gallup poll when individuals were asked, you know, what your big issue. the economy was number one on the list, and basically

environment or moving towards a climate change, excuse me, climate change was number 20 on the list. and give people, again, are still losing their jobs and worried about keeping their home, and now they're scared every time they go to fill up their car, i don't think a cap-and-trade discussion has much chance of success outside of a small, small committee room. so i just don't see it happeni happening. >> just following on his question. obviously oil has gone from $30 a barrel to 70. i was just wondering following on his question do you see a repeat of the same political fight that we saw last year with republicans calling for more

anwr drilling, and the democrats on the other hand looking to rein in what they called speculation, especially when it comes to money markets, hedging against inflation by putting their money in oil? >> i wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a repeat. and i'll do, i think from a republican perspective, we would be okay with that kind of a repeat because that message, you know, we need to be producing more ourselves with resonating a heck of a lot louder with the american consumer and some amorphous, well, its market speculation and we're not quite sure how that works. maybe you're being gouged, maybe you're not. so i don't think that republicans would be adverse to having that kind of a challenge again. for the consumers benefit,

though, i hope that we don't see a repeat of that. people in alaska are still just bleeding from what they ended up paying last year. in some of my villages back home, you've got people that are paying, you know, $7, $8, $9 a gallon fuel. when the prices go down here, they don't go down up north. because when you get your fuel barged in, once in the fall and once in the spring, you're paying a lot in price and those alaskans were played under paying a lock-in price until just about a month ago. so we don't want a repeat of $14$140 a barrel. >> anymore questions? >> just to follow up on that.

would you consider, even though you are not all that enthusiastic about this bill, but it's okay in its current form if they keep the cat willimantic, it's okay to gain your support at the moment. would it be okay saying that? if you keep out those amendments based. >> if we keep out the ugly amendments, yeah, it's okay to gain my support. >> would you consider i guess, i don't know, try to keep major changes from happening on the floor in order to keep what sounds like a fairly precarious compromise going on here? >> we will certainly try. i mean, as you all know, you can say i'll work hard to keep it as is, or to bill that would you take this out, but it's a

challenge. and i think we all recognize that. i'm sure the chairman is in that same situation, and said people are saying will you promise me that when you get to the floor you're going to work for a higher res. i don't think it's difficult to predict any level of deliverability on that. >> backorder. >> i was wondering, do you think the senate would be better off the american clean energy and security act, to change it and amend it and draft their own bill and is the committee does end up taking the climate portion or take the piece of legislation, how would that be reconciled with the senate, or energy policy? >> you know, i would prefer that

we build our own bill. now, that's easy for me to say because i'm not on the committee that's going to be tasked with building it. but i think that what the house has drafted, it's something that will not meet with acceptance on the senate. and so i do think it will be easier to build our own rather than try to strip out the provisions that are coming over from the house. >> senator bingaman has worked really hard to get you to this point. >> i think i have worked really hard to get him to this point. >> including voting in your favor for things that he himself does not support. so why would he allow a cadwell bill that just blows up that

entire sort of fragile arrangement to -- >> hopefully he won't. >> but seriously will this happen? >> i had in meeting with my full energy staff before he came over here on the status of the remaining amendments, and these two are signaled as truly poison pills, and there is an effort, as we speak, to really try to keep things from tanking at the very end. and you point out that the chairman has really worked with us, and it has been mutual. i mean, we have been trying to build this energy bill as a bipartisan chairman and ranking member.

he's not entirely happy with it. i'm not entirely happy with it, but i think both of us feel that it has come a long way. and i am hopeful that tomorrow we are not going to be dealing with a couple of these amendments. but it's too early to say at this point in time. >> with that, please thank the end o join me in thanking senatr murkowski. >> for information we expect to have senator bingaman in the next week or so. if you are not getting our e-mail announcements correctly, please make sure i get your business card so you can be included on the list. thank you all for coming. >> good questions. thank you. >> the market on the energy bill takes place today at 10:15 eastern time. >> we will go live now to the u.s. senate where members opened the day with an hour of