the national resources committee, ron wyden. . zphue >> this didn't happen by osmosis. this is a self-inflicted wound. it is not rocket science. this debate on spending and growth and jobs is really about two issues.

it is about health care and medicare and then it is about the broken tax system. back in the summer of 2011, dealing with the debt ceiling, it was clear those would be the issues. i started pushing hard for braurp approaches on both, medicare and the deal with tax reform. i still think we should deal with those issues other we're going to have these rolling fiscal cliffs go on and on. >> are you seeing movement in that direction? >> i am. i've been talking to senators on both sides on tax reform and medicare and there is a sense there is time to get on with it. >> let me ask a question about the sequester and energy policy. are you concerned there will be impact because of the impending and present-now cuts from the sequester?

anything specific on an energy environmental policy that will be hurt because of these cuts? >> a number of specific areas concern me. first, we got to get our folks back to work. i'm concerned that the sequester is going to hurt our ability to do these large landscape projects where we go in and send out these millions of acres and growth and get people back to work. last week i was in the most contaminated piece of federal property. we've had problems with the single-shelled tanks and the double-shelled tampings. the sequester will hurt our ability to get it cleaned up. >> so you think that the sequester could endanger people in washington state, in terms of

the leaking tanks? how delayed do you think the cleanup will be? >> the combination of delays in the clean of schedule and these leaning tanks constitutes an unacceptable delete to the pacific northwest. it is time to make sure we get this cleaned up. that is going to be my questions for the next energy secretary. >> now that we're a couple months into the new congress, have you thought about whether they are going to be the first pieces of the legislation through the energy committee? given that the somewhat new congress, floor time does fill up when they talk about immigration reform and gun topics. have you had any discussions with senator majority reid anne securing floor time? >> i have. he's a strong champion of renewable energy, in particular,

looking at solar and wind in our part of the world. we care a geothermal and hydropower. every time you put some points on the board for those kind of renewable sources you are helping to attack climate change. he made it clear this is going to be a priority for him. coming out of the gate we're going to look at three big air combraps first, natural gas because that ripples everywhere in the economy. this is part, for example of keeping prices down in order to make sure we have a manufacturing renaissance in our country. there's substantial questions, we have to deal with fractioning and methane gas emissions. this is going to be an important trade issue. i and others are looking for where we can have some exports but not so much we would hurt

consumers and business. then we're going to deal with nuclear wastes. i'm very encouraged about the discussions we've had the bipartisan discussions that we've had in the senate. this is an issue that seems to be a longer running battle than the trojan war. we're also going to look at the question of subsidies and in particularly at a time when funds are so scarce. we've been looking at troubling questions involving coal royalties. right now when you treakts coal from land you're supposed to pay a royalty. there are serious questions that have risen in respect with the pricing. some companies want to ship to ashea -- asia they have a lower price that would be made to asia

and taxpayers could be moving out. so we're working on all of those air glass a bipartisan way to make sure we're going to get taxpayers full value, full payment for what they are owed when energy is produced on federal land. >> you mentioned several time you want to find a balance on natural gas exports. what is less clear if you made a decision if there needs to be legislation to find that sweet spot as you put it. have you decided if you're going to have legislation on natural gas exports? >> we made a judgment this week that we're going to have a number of working groups to look at the various issues that go into natural gas policy. i believe our first one will be on transmission and innovation and transportation. all of the important issues and we, obviously, will go on to the question of exports and environmental policy.

but we're going to start the workshop shortly. >> the natural gas act of 1938, control controls the natural gas and exports that go to countries that we have trade agreements. do you think congress needs to revisit that law? >> we're going to look at all the issues in a thoughtful way. it is pretty clear that our statutes have not kept up with the times. the last major energy bill was before the natural gas revolution, essentially back in 2007. i do think we ought to have a thorough review. we ought to be looking at different areas, for example, the tradition in the energy and natural resource committee is to focus on the production side. we still will do that. i'm also going to do everything i can to put a new focus on consumers, the prices that

consumers pay. gasoline prices are almost $4. for this time of year, they are way above the increase we should be seeing. there's not a reasonable explanation for it. i'm concerned about tax law. that's is going to be an issue that i look at. i also think it is time to look at the refinery questions, which haven't been looked at. so we're going to put a new focus on consumers. >> at some point building of an energy policy piece by piece, do you think this country can have an overall energy policy debate? >> that's a very important question. part of it is to try to lay this out in an understandable fashion. that's why the natural gas issue makes so much sense to me. in the past, you would have where everybody comes to the energy natural resources

committee and say we're passing a comprehensive bill. it would be so comprehensive "comprehensive" it would last for two years until someone says let's have another comprehensive bill. i think when you look at the dramatic implications, particularly, of natural gas and essentially made in america energy. that is a very powerful narrative that really moves in the right direction you're talking about. if we do this right it will help our businesses, it will help our consumers, it will allow for a segway to a broader a use of renewables. they need that natural gas to help them get into the base loads. i think natural gas, if i were to put my hand on one thing that really is a narrative and opportunity to get this country where we want to go in terms of

growing the economy, producing are more jobs and a cleaner environment. natural gas is 50% cleaner than other fossil fuels and has largely been cited that carbon dioxide emission goes down. that is a big and powerful narrative. >> one of the concerns that environmental groups and people who live near where the natural gas is being drilled, they have concerned about fractioning. the process that gets the companies to get the natural gas out of rock deep underground. what is your concerns about fracking? what role does the federal government need to play in that role? does it need to be left to the states or do you think congress needs to pass a law? >> amy, at this point i would say not all fracking is created equal. for example, some of the fracking in the northeast states, which is close to the water table represents a more serious challenge in terms of health and environmental poice

than in north dakota where it is deeper down. they have environmental questions, they are different. one of the reasons i'm encouged about the possibilities of common -- encouraged by the possibilities of common ground. there was discussion back and forth and the senator of north dakota who has great expertise in this area. they talked about exactly what you're talking about. my sense is there could be an opportunity for a real activist role for the states. they would in effect take the lead but you could have a federal minimum standard and you could have a great deal of disclosure. for example, the fractioning and a variety of other -- fractioning and variety of other

issues. we agree on the following step, i think there is an opportunity for common ground here. >> senator, one of the very high profile things that will happen in the committee quite soon is the hearing for the nomination sally jewel. i believe that is march 7. what is the first two or three questions you're going to ask her? >> before i get to my questions, i think she's an inspired choice. so often you get people who have been around the beltway and i respect that. they come from either an agency or think tank. you don't get the kind of expertise and, sort of the fresh approach that i think we're going to get from her. i think if you look at her background she's been running a $2 billion company, she's an engine nearing by training. her first job was with mobile. she has a lot of expertise in

the area and she's a leader in terms of conservation policies. i think she brings a lot of fresh ideas and the chance to really let us look at some important issues early on. certainly, we'll be asking questions about her views with respect to the balance on federal lands, with respect to energy development and environmental policy. i'm going to ask her questions about royalty issues. the question of making sure taxpayers get what is owed to them on federal lands. then, of course, because she has a broad swath of responsibilities if forestry we'll have a number of questions there as well. her responsibility goes to agencies like the bureau of land management. these are areas in our part of the world where we have to get the cut up, we have to put people back to work. we think we can do that in line with sensible environmental

policies. >> on the topic of royalties. i know you have found an agreement on revenue sharing for coastal states that produce energy off their shores. where did that rank on your priority of getting that out of committee? do you think that the wider senate could pass a bill like that? >> the royalty issue and the revenue sharing issue both need a thorough examine nation. -- examination. what it comes down to is there maybe a chance to build a new coalition, because all over this country where there are federal lands and federal waters, you have people are trying to create jobs in these various kinds of

industries and environmental folks working together to try to do both. they are sitting around tables and going, what is this going to take to protect jobs and make sure we don't end up being a ghost town? i think there might be a chance to build a coalition around a revenue sharing approach. that would mean for a lot of these communities we can get them off these fiscal rollercoaster they are on. when guy to meetings in southwestern oregon and we've got people -- timber company owners and environmentalists saying we have to get back to the woods and the environmental folks say let's protect old growth. those meetings are not different than the meetings that i saw in senator andrew's district where people are saying we have to find a way to get energy. we can't increase our foot print. we have to find a way to get

energy and the sierra club gets up and says let's move that money for coastal restoration. >> one final question on that, do you think that the royalty and revenue sharing, could any of that money go to reducing the deficit? >> the reality in this kind of climate, revenue sharing is a taxpayer's issue. it is a jobs issue. it is an environmental issue. and it ought to be about preventing ghost towns in resource dependent communities. yet you are going to have to have a portion of that money going there. >> you mentioned climate change a couple of times. we heard the president clearly in the state of the union reiterating his call for congress to act on a price for the market mechanism and quickly say that if they do not act, he will use executive authorities.

>> the senator and i were smiling through this. it was john mccain and joe lieberman who were doing this and smiling through it. >> getting me to what i wanted asked about, we have seen pricing legislation start to show up. even though it would not technically go to your committee it touches on every issue before your committee. is there any chance of a passage of legislation that seems remote right now? do you want the majority leader to bring the boxer sanders bill or some other mechanism to the floor? is it time for the senate to have another floor debate? >> first of all, the majority leader indicated in his first or second press conference after the election that we have got to do something on climate change. he has already signaled that this is a priority for him. what was useful about the

president's comments in the state of the union is that only the congress has the tools to deal with the added challenge presented by climate change, where you have got to figure out a way to drive down emissions. in effect it was put in the congressman's lap. i think that people were surprised because he gave a very strong statements and people were wondering what would come next that the state of the union. the president declared that he would be giving congress a very wide berth to try to develop a bipartisan approach. i am pleased to see that he recognized that the congress has the tools in the toolbox to do this right. >> is it your goal to have one of those tools employed by cap and trade or carbon? is that something you would like to move forward with this year?

>> i have not had a chance to talk to individual senators about a variety of different approaches, but if i am going to look for every opportunity to create incentives for low carbon economies, that will clearly be good. >> do you anticipate higher clean energy standards? do you think that would have support in the senate? >> i want to talk to my colleagues about it. i was a co-sponsor of that bill on a the last cut -- in the last congress, as you remember. we had a challenge in passing bipartisan support for it. one of the challenges last year was the possibility that we could give a broader role to the states and a federal targets, allowing for the states to have some flexibility in terms of hitting that clean energy standard.

that may be a way to break the gridlock and we'll talk about that. >> on your note about gasoline prices going up, do you have any plans to hold a hearing on that? >> yes, i have spoken with senator murkowski on that and we do have plans. >> do you have any news on consistency? >> first is the question, what is going on to make the prices go up so dramatically now? the tradition has always been that the prices go up in the spring. looking at the history unless, this is the biggest increase in like the last month that people have seen in quite some time. i can see your expression. there are lots of gas price increases and no reasonable explanation for this right now. the iranians are not rattling on right now.

we have yet to see any kind of unusual developments. that is why i want to look at a whole host of issues that have not been on the table at all. >> senator melendez introduced a bill the other day citing high gasoline prices, he wants to prevent the country from exporting refined petroleum products. in 2011 they exported $90 billion in gasoline and diesel. given your focus on exports in general, do you think that that could be a cause of high gasoline prices? >> senator menendez has been a strong advocate for consumers. we are certainly going to look at his idea. the bottom line ought to be -- and i also think about the subcommittee on international trade as well, certainly in my part of the world one out of six jobs depends on international trade.

my focus, with respect to trade, and i think what the senator was talking about, is always trying to do everything you can to promote a finished product. let's try to grow things in america, mix things in america, add value in america, and ship them somewhere. so the focus on finished goods make sense>> four minutes left. to me. last question? >> the nominee for the interior department, there has been widespread expectation that m.i.t. physicists will be nominated to replace the outgoing steven chu. if he were to be the nominee, is that a nomination that you would be pleased with? we have heard some environmentalists expressing concern. >> i generally do not get into potential nominees. we have a history with the

doctor, particularly with respect to some conversations on natural gas and exports. certainly, anyone else being the nominee, he will be in effect leading the agency in promoting the president's policy. i want to ask him a number of questions as they relate to natural gas, particularly renewables. we have this great opportunity right now that have gotten a real short shrift. a very striking an important state from mit not long ago. we will have plenty of discussions for the new nominee. >> what is his connection to hanford? >> he had had a fair amount of

involvement earlier and we had some spirited discussions, let's put it that way. >> we look forward to that confirmation hearing. >> how about the relationships with the house? are you finding areas where you can bring legislation to the president's desk? >> one of the smartest and most thoughtful people i know in public policy, in effect he was playing a tough hand after the cap and trade went down. now we had an election. the senator and i have gone over to meet with the house and i think that there is a sense that after the election it will be time to get serious on these issues.

particularly the ones we're talking about. i do think that there is a chance to make some fresh policies and get things done. >> come back and see us along the way. thank you for being here. we are back with amy harder and ben geman. after talking with the chairman of the new senate energy committee out of oregon, ronald wyden, he outlined an ambitious agenda. this town is really concerned -- consumed with debt and deficit issues and the fracture between the chambers of commerce and the white house. i am wondering, is anything going to move this year? last year was on hold for these issues. the senator was optimistic that there could be a post-election chances. do you agree?

>> one thing that was interesting about his comments is that we heard an incredibly broad agenda as far as the topics that he wants the committee to explore. natural gas, royalties, a hearing and gasoline prices. when we ask for more specifics on his legislative agenda, he was far more cautious. we did not hear as much about the specific legislation within the committee, speaking to what you are talking about. he knows where he wants the committee to go, but given the gridlock in any legislation, that is yielding a much more sort of difficult looking crystal ball right now. we certainly have not heard yet on the specifics and what they are. >> the committee has moved into a de fall oversight committee, that is all they can do, no matter the focus. it will be an oversight and

there is not a lot that congress can do on gasoline prices. we see this debate every year. that the energy committee is doing great oversight and when we asked him about senator reid and the majority leader, he does not really answer that question because the answer is probably no. that senate and democratic leadership needs to focus on beating back these items. so, everything is playing second fiddle to these big fights playing out on an almost monthly basis. >> but he does have a confirmation hearing in front of him. he was very complimentary of the president's appointment. what will this be a stage for, then, if the chairman is already quite sure? >> the will be the chance for people on both sides of the

aisle to exercise the chance. we have seen incredibly consisting collisions between republicans in the interior department and the oil and gas development that should be allowed on federal lands. i think that we will hear from -- i expected to be cordial, they typically are. i do think we are going to hear republicans asking if she agrees with the decisions from her predecessors on the six month moratorium on drilling. the interior department has also been delayed but is also in the mix and under progress on the hydraulic fracturing that occurs on federal lands. the oil and natural gas industries are not fans of that regulation or legislation. if i were to look into my crystal ball, i would think that

these would be the questions from the other side of the aisle. >> were you surprised at the center point that the natural gas had in the senator's entire focus? >> i was not. i have focused -- i have spoken to him over the years and he has always been a champion of the national discussion in general. he has always been one of the most outspoken members of congress about sounding the alarm on natural gas exports. it really has changed the paradigm of energy. i anticipate that to be a big focus. including in the confirmation hearing. it has affected every part of the energy debate and in affect every hearing. does it point the way to american energy independence? american energy independence? >> it does point the way toward