Issues. It is about health care and medicare and then it is about the very broken tax system. Back in the summer of 2011 we were dealing with the debt ceiling. It is clear those were going to be the issues. I started pushing very hard for bipartisan approaches on both medicare and to deal with tax reform. I still think we have to deal with those issues. Are you seeing any movement in that direction . I am. I have been talking to senators on both issues. I think there is a sense there is a time to get on with it. Are you concerned there is going to be any impact to your communitys actions because of the impending cuts from the sequestered . Is there anything specific on Energy Environment policy that you think is going to be hurt more so than others because of these cutbacks a number of areas concern me. First we have to get our folks back into work. I am concerned our sequester is going to hurt our ability to do these large landscape project. Last week i was at hanford which is the most contaminated piece of federal property. They had problems with the single shell tanks and double shell tanks. The sequester will hurt our ability to get that clean up. That affects the columbia river. You think the sequestered could put that in danger in terms of the leaking tanks in Washington State . The way i would characterize it is it is a combination of delays in the cleanup scheduling and the leaking tanks constitute an unacceptable threat to the pacific northwest. It is time to make sure we get this cleaned up. That is going to be a big focus. My next question is for the energy secretary. Have you thought about the first pieces of legislation you are quick to be moving through the Energy Committee . Even though we are into the new congress, a majority leaders have talked about immigration and then control. Have you had any discussions with harry reid about curing floor legislation . He goes very strongly about these issues. He is a very strong champion about renewable energy. In particular he is looking at solar and wind. He cares about geodethermal and hype of and hydropower. To attack the Climate Change issues. The leader has made it clear this is going to be a priority. Coming out of the gate i think we are going to look at three big areas. First is natural gas because this ripples everywhere in the economy. This is keeping prices down in order to make sure we have a manufacturing renaissance in our country. There are substantial environmental questions. Be a point have to deal with franking we are going to have to deal with fracking. We are looking for a sweet spot where we can have some export but not so much that it would hurt consumers and business. We are clinton deal with Nuclear Waste and encourage the discussions we have had in the senate. This is an issue that seems to be a longer running battle than the trojan war. We are clinton be looking at the whole question of subsidies, particularly in the time when funds are so scarce. There are some pretty troubling questions involving coal royalties. You are supposed to pay a royalty when extracting coal from federal lands. Some of the companies that want to ship to asia there is a lower price than you would have in shipments to asia. We are working on of these areas in a bipartisan way. We will get taxpayers full payment value for what they are owneed. You mentioned you want to find this Natural Balance on natural gas exports. Have you decided whether you are quick have legislation on natural gas exports . Senator rakowski and i have made a judgment this week rakowski and i have made a judgment. Our first one will be on transmission and innovation. We obviously will go on to the question of exports and environmental policy but we are going to start this shortly. The natural gas act of 1938 controls natural gas exports. Do you think Congress Needs to revisit that law . We are going to look at all of these issues in a thoughtful way. It is pretty clear that our statutes have not kept up with the time. The last major energy bill was before the natural gas revolution back in 2007. We ought to have a thorough review. The condition in the energy and National Resources committee has always been to focus on the production side. We still will do that. I am also going to do everything i can to put a new focus on consumers. The prices that consumers pay and businesses pay, and let us face it gasoline prices are almost four dollars. For this time of year they are way above the kind of increase we would be seeing. I do not think there is any reasonable explanation for it. Tax law clearly favors the speculators. I think it is time we look at the refinery question, which hasnt been looked at. We are going to put a new focus on consumers. Do you think that this country can have an Overall Energy policy that is effective for these Big Questions . That is in a very important question. The problem is try to lay this out and an understandable fashion. That is what the natural gas issue makes some much sense to me. In the past you have lots of valleys where everyone would come to meet and say we are passing a comprehensive bill that would be so comprehensive it would last for two years until everybody came along and said let us have another comprehensive bill. I think when you look at the dramatic implications, particularly of natural gas, essentially made an american energy, that is a very powerful narrative that really moves in exactly the right direction. We do this right, this is going to help our businesses, our consumers, it will allow for a segue to a broader use of renewable. They need natural gas to help them get into the base loads. I think natural gas, if i were to put my hands on one thing that really is a narrative and an opportunity to get this country where we want to go in terms of growing the economy, producing more jobs, to also having a cleaner environment because natural gas is 50 clinton the other fossil fuels and has largely been cited as car dioxide the emissions have gone down that is a powerful narrative. People living near where natural gases are being drilled, they are concerned aboutfracking. What are your concerns and what role do you think the federal government needs to play in that . Should it be left to the states, do you think the interior Department Needs to do more, or do you think Congress Needs to pass a law . Amy, not all fracking is created equal. Some in the northeast states represents a more serious challenge in terms of health than the north dakota. One of the reasons i am encouraged about possibility of Common Ground is that at our first hearing there was a fascinating back and forth senator hoven of north dakota and they talked exactly what youre talking about. There could be an opportunity for gabriel activist role for the state for a real activist role for the state. You could have a federal minimum standard and youc ould have a great deal of disclosure. I think if you look at the back and forth in that first hearing, walkednly they didnt out there in we agree on the following steps, i think there is some opportunity for Common Ground. March 7th. E thats what are the first two or three questions youre going to ask at that hearing . Let me tell you, i think she is inspired choice. You get people who have been around the beltway. I respect that. It comes either from an agency or a think tank. If you do not get the kind of expertise and fresh approach that i think we are going to get from sally. If you look at her background, she has been running for almost 2 billion companies. Her first job was with mobil. She is a well known 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 imporant issues early one. Certainly will be asking questions with respect to balance. I am going to be asking her questions about royalty issues. It is making sure taxpayers get what is owed to them on federal lands. Of course we will be as the number of questions in forestry. These are all areas where we have to get the cup. We have to put people back to work. We think we can do that in line with a sensible environmental policy. Clucks on royalties, i know that you andsen. Mukowski have agreed on revenue sharings for costal states that produce energy off their shores. Where does that rank in our priority in getting that out of committee. The royalties issue and revenuesharing both need a thorough examination. Let me give you my sense of where we are with respect to revenue sharing because it is my intent to look very closely with senator rakowski with senator with sena with senator murkowski. You have people trying to create jobs in these various industries and environmental folks working together in a very practical way to try to develop they are sitting around tables and saying what is this going to take to create jobs, to protect our environmental treasurys, and make sure we do not end up in a ghost town . I think there may be a chance to build a coalition around a sharing approach that would mean, for a lot of these rural communities, we can get them off of this fiscal rollercoastered that they are on. When i go to meetings in southwestern oregon and we have people environmentalists say we have to get to work, the environmental and timber folks say rated their meeting is not very different than the meetings i follow people are saying we he got to find a way to get energy. We cannot increase our foot pit footprint. The sierra club gets up and says we should use that money for coastal restoration. Excuse me. 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 taxpayers 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 write down the emissions. In effect it was put in the congressmans 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 . I want to talk to my colleagues about it. I was a cosponsor 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. 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. Lets try to grow things in america, mix things in america, add value in america, and ship them somewhere. Four minutes left. Last question . The nominee for the interior department, there has been widespread expectation that [indiscernible] will be nominated to replace the outgoing stephen 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 aiding 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, lets 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 brainwash legislation . One of the smartest and most thoughtful people i know in public policy, in effect he was playing a tough and after cap and trade went down. 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 were 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 postelection 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 incredibly consisting collisions cordial, they typicallyi do think we arer 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. Are. 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. Real surprise at the center point that natural gas had in the senators 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 0. 2 Energy American energy incentives