i think the damage is going to be off route -- the gamut is going to be al sadr out. i do not think anything will be limited as far as what we might expect in committee -- the gamut is going to be all throughout. something that speaks more to a sense of this nation's policy towards nuclear from kind of a broader statement perspective, so we are hopeful that we can do that. we cannot confirm that at this time. >> can you explain to me what they would do? >> well, the amendment --

there are two. one is concerned because the way it is 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 when you read it further, it leads you to believe that it could also be any operations in the arctic, so it is less than clear whether it is in one place or another, but it is

essentially requires that until it can be clearly stated and defines, there is essentially no impact -- until it can be clearly stated and defined, there is essentially no impact. you have got to provide for the cert from all of the regulatory agencies that are in place there, so you have already got a process in place, in looking at the language, from the alaska prospective, it would appear that it is an effort to most certainly stop the offshore

onshore and elsewhere, -- and onshore and elsewhere. there is requiring the secretary of the interior to write rules, but in terms of how we define what a pollutant is for purposes of this discharge, but it is also uncertain and unclear -- discharge, it is also uncertain and unclear, and given the most current ruling out there that carbon emissions are considered a pollutants, is essentially then, anything that is going on up north could be considered a discharge that could be subject to these rules on discharge, so we are concerned because the

impact on existing production could be quite detrimental. >> down here. >> could you talk a little bit about shale gas energy and alaska gas? there is potentially a huge amount of gas that would flow into u.s. markets, and where do you see the alaska project position? >> good question. we do have great potential here. we are seeing it coming out of various areas, and these are sources that, quite honestly, 10

years ago, five years ago, we really had not factored -- factored into the mix, and they are extremely important if we look at natural production and how we bring it up and bring it into the distribution system. that is huge. i believe that you're going to need to produce ever the domestically here as well as what we can deliver from alaska. we have got 23 million cubic feet of known reserves of north and unlimited quantities. i believe we are going to need all of it. particularly if we move to a situation where you have got a cap and trade regime in place, and we are looking to get additional quantities of natural gas. if you do a lot of what our friend t. boone pickens wants to

do, it depends on our ability to have supplies of natural gas, and quite honestly, i do not want those natural supplies of natural gas to be imported. i do not want to knowingly take this country into the same situation with natural gas that we are currently with oil -- we are close to 70% reliant on foreign sources for oil. we have got the ability here in this country, with alaska and natural gas, to be able to meet our needs, but we have got to get our gas online, so the news last week about exxon stepping up at partnering with the transcanada project is good. we have always known that in order to get the alaskan gas to the lower 48 market, it was going to take all of the guys that have the gas, and that is exon, b.p., and condit go --

conoco sitting down and figuring out how we move that down the pipe, and now we have the three that hold the gas, at least in the same room. now, there are now sitting in the same place. now you have exxon transcanada. i cannot predict, but there will be 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 will recall that the 2004 in the energy act, and the natural pipeline, there was a loan guarantee provision, $18 billion

of a loan guarantee. at the rate we are going, it will be more. we have upped this. this is an effort to reduce some of the financing costs, which, as this gets any more expensive, we will look at how to do this. if you think about our options, when it comes to how we as a nation moved ourselves, move our vehicles, i think it is 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 keys. again, if we have got the resources, and it is a domestic resources, why would we not want to move in that direction? >> just one technical issue and then a broader issue. would you support 0 discharge drilling in the arctic? i know there is a concern about existing resources. bingaman had said that he wants to consider the energy bills separately on the senate floor. the majority leader has continued to say something else. could you tell us about the nature of the disparity there

and how you see that unfolding? >> just read quickly, on the discharge, -- just very quickly, again, i think the devil is in the details in how we define discharge and how is your discharge could be a very difficult criteria for a requirement. it is something, as shell has been looking to work up north, they have been working with the native constituency up there and working with the regulators. that is one of the issues that has been confounding -- it has not yet been resolved, but it will be. >> may i interrupt you? >> yes. >> this was one of those things

in which the compromised drilling in a highly sensitive environmental area, by reaching an agreement about zero discharge. >> again, when i say the devil is in the details, it depends on how we define "discharge." if it is going to conclude that we have a facility onshore that is processing something that is reducing -- emitting carbon, and that counts as part of your discharge, you know, how are you going to achieve that? as far as the energy bill being married to a cap and trade, i have been in complete agreement with chairman bingaman that this is not a good thing for our energy bill. nothing has happened of the 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 and the two bills together -- team the two bills together. in this energy bill, it is actually, for the warts 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 committing and how we are caring for our environment -- what we are emitting. for the purposes of the discussion, this is the waxman- markey bill. recognizing the cost to the nation, to the consumer from legislation such as this, and establishing a cap and trade regime as they have proposed, i am not convinced that our economy right now is strong enough to take this on. i am not convinced that families who are losing their

homes, losing their jobs, what cause they may have to pay their, i do not believe that they are looking at this and are saying, "by golly, what this country needs is a cap and trade program that is going to mate -- make this country a better place." -- what cost they may have to pay for. if he were to take a cap and trade puiecpieciece and put it h an energy bill at a time like now when you have a weak economy, i think that is a

mistake. i do not think that we should be advancing the climate change bill with our energy peaciece. >> i am what bloomberg news. >> this was a cap and trade plan -- i am with bloomberg news. this was a cap and trade plan. if the waxman-markey had looked more like that, would you have supported the bill, and, therefore, would it be with your energy legislation? >> well, as you point out, i have supported legislation that would put a system in place, and i did so because of the escape balance, if you will -- the escape valves, if you will,

recognizing that there will be an expense associated with a cap and trade regime. if you are in business, if you are an industry, if you are a consumer, and you kind of know the parameters of how bad it can be, as a business, you factor that into your business plan, but when you do not know how bad is going to be, when there is this uncertainty, and we are talking about these tradeable credits, and we do not 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 losers, that is not an approach that i was willing to take. i took kind of a bold step out three years ago when i sign on to a cap and trade bill as a republican -- when i signed on

to the cap and trade bill. "gosh, what did she know that i do not know?" we are seeing changes in our climate, and we are seeing how it is impacting our environment, and as i said, it is not a theoretical exercise. when i sit down with the corps of engineers, is not talking about building bridges. it is talking about how we save communities from coastal erosion, because the shoreline is receiving so far and allowing the waves to build up, and literally, of villages are falling into the ocean -- literally, villages are falling into the ocean. if we are contributing, if man is contributing in any way to the emissions that are causing the change, then we can responsibly work to reduce these emissions, and we should be

doing so. so i am trying to find that balance. if i thought that there were legislation at their -- out of their -- out tehrehere that coue responsibly paid for, that is a different set of facts. >> so would you support event that arlen specter bill? -- which you support than -- would you support it then? >> one of the things you have to keep in mind, and we said this and the discussion when we were talking about the climate change bills that were before us, whether it was bingaman or it was lieberman-warner, the economy has got to be strong enough to go ahead and implement these changes, so if you have got a weakened economy right

now, it might be too much for even the big diamond-arlen specter -- it might be too much for even the bingaman-specter. we are going to be coming to the end of this down economy, but i am not an economist that anyone will be listening to. we need to make sure that what we impose on consumers, what we impose on the industries that are providing all of our resources here is a reasonable cost. >> i covered the markup last week, and i was wondering what support came from the amendment? the expansion of the offshore drilling without revenue sharing?

it seems that a lot of republicans were not happy because it did not include the revenue sharing, while the democrats were unhappy because of the expanded access, so what was sort of the good of that amendment? >> well, i think the good of that amendment, might be of it was that through that amendment, we had opened up an area that has been clearly identified as having good quantities of gas, clothes and. it is a very lucrative area, and i voted against that dorgan amendment because i wanted to make sure that we had a revenue- sharing piece. i am sure we would get a greater precipitation with opening up areas offshore if there is revenue sharing that comes available to them.

so that is where my vote was on that. i lost on revenue sharing. that does not mean that i will not come back and give it another go on the floor, but in the meantime, i am happy that that dorgan amendment passed and that that peace is now included in the bill -- that that piece is included. there was a little bit of heartburn, but i think there was a gain from the passage of that amendment, and that is we have an area up from offshore that to this area in time has been closed to this production, and that is a big deal. i do believe that it will bring republican votes. senator dorgan, the sponsor of that amendment, you have got his support there. i think a lot of it, again, may depend on what happens with the

revenue-sharing debate, and i think where you are going with your question is do you lose more because it is in there? how many are out there? like senator nelson, who will say this is absolutely, positively a terrible thing, versus the numbers of members who will come on and say, "yes, this is a step forward for us in terms of our ability to increase domestic production," and i would like to think that is a net gain for us. >> the united states could extend equal rights -- the u.s.

has not ratified the treaty yet. but it seems to me that there may be some opportunity to come up to the senate floor. what are your interests there? what do you see are the prospects for ratification? anything you might be taking an active role in? >> as you know, the united states had 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, 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, some 30% possibly of the remaining oil and gas reserves are in these arctic waters. it has never been much interest to anybody because it was pretty near on accessible, as we are seeing changes, as we are seeing passageways open up, and we are seeing the level of commerce and activity of the north, all of a sudden, it is becoming the place to look at. unfortunately for this country, if we do not ratify a lot of the sea, -- the law of the sea, we cannot make that claim before the commission, and that is to

our detriment. if we are not sitting at the table, we do not have an opportunity to either claimed as resources or be involved -- to either claim those resources or be involved. the commerce, the fishing, the shipping -- there is so much that is at stake here, and i think it is imperative that we as a nation step forward finally and ratify the laws at sea. i stepped up the foreign relations committee this year to go on toothpicks another, and i was trying to advocate for its passage, and even though i am no longer on the committee, i have still been working with chairman kerry to advance this and how we move it forward. we have been kind of doing our

and checks and seeing what members we need to encourage. it is important for us as a nation, not only for the resource vallium but, again, to make sure the other countries are not going after what i would suggest would be rightfully the united states in terms of the undersea areas, so we are going to keep pushing. one of the areas that is subjected to by some colleagues, and we know we are not going to get something to take it up, and it will require some foretime, and fourth time is a precious commodity in the united states senate, so i am not entirely optimistic we will see anything advanced before the end of this

work period, which puts everything into fall. we are really going to be busy now. >> over year. >> from "the washington times." if the oil and gas provisions are rewarded right, -- >> for instance, senator dorgan, coming out of north dakota, north dakota is doing a terrific job in advancing their oil and gas reserves, and i think senator dorgan and senator conrad also from a north dakota appreciate that as a resource to their states, -- their state, so

even though they are democrats, even though you might ordinarily put on the other side of a 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 is making sure that amendments are good and balanced, and we might be able to claim their support. >> do you expect any further changes into the bill? >> i do not think there is anything -- our amendment list is getting to be pretty trashed. no, it looks like everything we had out there was cleared or

withdrawn. >> center, just to clarify something. -- senator, just to clarify something. revenue sharing. does it have to be both? >> that, i do not know. again, you are never quite sure how deep that line is that was drawn in the sand. i feel so strongly that in order to get meaningful production that that revenue sharing has got to being -- it has got to be part of the deal. but, sometimes, sometimes you have got to accept your half a loaf now to get something more later. and i do not know for how many