CSPAN/Newsmakers

October 19, 2009

12:00 p.m. EST

SUSAN SWAIN, HOST: CSPAN’s Newsmakers is very pleased to welcome this week, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Senator Murkowski is the lead republican member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the United State Senate and Washington parliament’s (ph) ranking member. Thanks for being here this week.

Let me introduce our two reporters who both cover energy, Richard Cowan of Reuters and Renee Schoof of McClatchy Newspapers and Renee, we’re going to start with you.

RENEE SCHOOF, REPORTER, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: Thank you. Senator, one of your fellow republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina recently joined up with Senator John Kerry about a possible compromise on the Climate and Energy Bill. You said it was an important turning point and that ideas from both parties would be needed. I’m just wondering what you think the key ideas – what your view is of what needs to go into that legislation to make a consensus possible.

LISA MURKOWSKI, SENATOR OF ALASKA: Well, I think the framework that senators Kerry and Senator Graham had outlined in their letter – and granted, this is just a letter, they haven’t proposed any draft legislation. But I think it gets us talking in an area that we haven’t been talking about when we’re talking about climate change legislation. So much of the discussion gets wrapped around the cap and trade piece and it begins to define the conversation about climate legislation. I think its important that when we talk about what we’re going to be doing to reduce our emissions, we also need to be stressing our energy independence in this nation and how do you get to that world of energy independence, how do we define that? Well, so much of that comes back to what we can do realistically with renewables, but also what we can do with increased domestic production. The domestic production piece has just been kind of pushed off of the table in recent months and so I think this opinion piece that the two of them penned is a good indicator that perhaps the conversation is changing and I think that that’s good. I think that that’s necessary.

SCHOOF: Are you part of that conversation? Are you talking to the sponsors, Senator Kerry and others?

LISA MURKOWSKI: I have talked with Senator Graham, talked with him after he had – he’d written this article with Senator Kerry and I said, fill me in on the details. Where do you see this going? How do you see this unfolding? And it was a good conversation, I mean Senator Graham has some must haves. He wants to see a very robust nuclear title. I think that that’s imperative. He wants to see more when it comes to increased domestic production offshore and onshore, and that to me is also an imperative. I have not – in fairness, I haven’t had the same conversation with Senator Kerry, but I think what the two of them are trying to do at this point in time is to reach out to other colleagues on both sides of the aisle and find out from members where do we go on climate change. What is your must have? And again, getting the conversation kind of moving again in a cooperative manner rather than republicans in one corner and democrats in another, I think, is a positive signal.

SWAIN: Richard.

RICHARD COWAN, REPORTER, RUETERS: Senator when you and some of your fellow republicans talk about alternative energy and the need and there are now democrats in the House pass bill that does include some provisions to help spur alternative energy, but Senator Kerry and others say that that just isn’t enough. It won’t adequately tackle the climate change problem. So do you think they’re wrong on that count, and if not – how – what else would you be willing to see in a climate bill that would directly tackle the climate problem?

LISA MURKOWSKI: I’m in the camp of we’ve got to have it all. We cannot count exclusively on renewables to get us to this carbon free environment. It has to be a mix of others. Nuclear must be a part of the solution and it’s not counted in the renewable category. I’m one of those that believes very strongly that if we want to see the reduction in emissions that the president has set forth, that Waxman Markey has set forth that the Kerry Boxer bill sets forth, that the only way we’re going to be able to get there is if we really ramp up nuclear. We had a hearing in the energy committee this week and the question was asked of the head of the EIA, the energy information administrator, you know what’s it going to take, how much nuclear will it take? And you know it’s on the order of what Lamar Alexander has been talking about, we need 100 new nuclear plants in this country. Well – so in other words, when you say are they right, do we need more than just renewables? We absolutely do. And how we get there is really something that we have not been able to yet map out. There’s a lot of great goals out there, but tell me how you get there from here.

We’ve got some good technology that we can look to, carbon sequestration is certainly one of them, but we’ve got to be realistic, we don’t have anything that’s commercialized yet. So let’s – let’s have good strong goals, but let’s not set ourselves up to fail if what we’re building is kind of a wish and a prayer energy policy.

COWAN: A few years ago there was a republican energy bill that was enacted that did contain some help for the nuclear energy industry. Why wasn’t that enough and why should there be more government hand outs to this industry if Wall Street isn’t willing to invest in it?

LISA MURKOWSKI: Well, one of the reasons that there wasn’t enough is I don’t believe that what we put into law in terms of the nuclear provisions in that last energy bill were actually implemented through Department of Energy. For a multitude of different reasons that we don’t need to go into here, they didn’t move on it. They didn’t advance the loan guarantees that we had set up to help facilitate it.

So if we – just because we put it into a law doesn’t – and the administration or the agencies don’t enact it, we haven’t done anything. So the question that you ask is why do we need to do more? Well maybe what we need to do is fulfill the promise that we made in the first place. I happen to believe that when you have 26 different applications that are pending out there and you’ve got loan guarantees that will recover about four of those, we’re not meeting the demand that is out there. I think we do need to do more.

SWAIN: Renee.

SCHOOF: Let me ask you about the costs of the legislation, a huge issue on the hill, republicans are calling it a tax on energy and there are all kinds of estimates about what it will mean for the ordinary family. And yet the legislation that went through the House provided a lot of compensation, both for companies and for consumers. So can you explain to me a little bit about you know how this is viewed as a tax and what your concerns are about how this will affect families and what kind of cost containment provisions you’re looking for in it?

LISA MURKOWSKI: The cost piece of it is absolutely key and critical – particularly at a time when our economy is weak. I think we all appreciate that. As we discuss what’s going on with healthcare and healthcare reform right now, so much of it coming back to not where does this policy take us, but how much is this policy going to cost? How much is it going to mean to the average family? And I think that that same question is absolutely as important with healthcare as it is with the climate change issue.

So, where are we? How much does it really cost? The cost estimates are all over the board and we heard that again at this energy hearing that we had the other day. We brought in Doug Elmendorf from the Congressional Budget Office, we had Richard Newell from EIA, we had a gentleman from CRS, we had someone from EPA, everybody who’s been looking at these various models and Elmendorf from CBO admits that well, OK we’ve been saying that the House bill is about the price of a postage stamp a day for a family, in fact he acknowledged that what they had to do is they’d look at it at a point in time, in the year 2020. Well, by 2020 the most aggressive and the most expensive of the cuts will not be in play yet so what it’s really going to mean for the family? Can you model it out? And all of the – all of those that are engaged in this modeling acknowledge that it is very sketchy, they are very skeptical about their own numbers and their ability to really define what those costs are. So, I think it is fair to try to pin that down more than we have been able to.

One of the things that came clear form that hearing was that you will see job loss. Now all along the president has been suggesting we move towards the green jobs and the green power and climate change legislation will allow us to really build this new opportunity for jobs out there. Well, it belies the fact that in the meantime you will have whole industries that will go down. You will have whole industries that will likely go overseas. We will see a loss in jobs, particularly in certain parts of the country and I think that that is – that’s an important thing for people to understand. How many jobs do we lose? How many jobs do we gain? We need to be looking more critically at the cost assessments that are out there so that we can better explain to our constituents what it means to them and their family.

And when we talk – now the phrase has been out there, you’ve used this that this is an energy tax. I think we need to recognize that it may not just be limited to say for instance what you – what you might pay on your utility bills. But what is it doing to the cost of the foods or the product s that you buy at the grocery store. If in an effort to pay for the expenses that go into this energy tax, the farmers have to pay more and ultimately that ripple effect, what are those indirect costs to us. So again, whether its healthcare or whether its climate change, I think people want to know more accurately, tell me what it’s going to cost.

COWAN: Senator, are you at all worried that trying to nail down the cost and the potential job losses could be a very long arduous process? There’s some scientists that say there’s just not time to dicker over this, the problem is so urgent that action is needed now. When you’re in Alaska is there a sense of urgency there? Do you see any direct impact of climate change on your state? I’ve heard some environmentalists say Alaska is melting. Do you share that sense of urgency?

LISA MURKOWSKI: I think what Alaskans are – and I hesitate to use the term for all of them, but I think there is a concern that is being expressed by Alaskans but also a caution, make sure you do this right. We – we’re a producing state, we understand what it means to use the resources from the land. But we also understand and appreciate the role that we have as stewards of the land and when we see changes to the land coming about from things that you’re not quite sure how is this affecting – how is this impact coming to us, what is causing the loss of the sea ice that adds to the erosion issues. Yes, in Alaska we are seeing change and that’s why I have been one of those republicans that has perhaps stepped out front a little bit more on the issue of climate change, why I actually signed on as a cosponsor of legislation in a previous congress. It was a bill that dealt with this, I felt in a more cautious manner, but there was a heavy adaptation piece because in my state, I’m looking to say well how can we, as an area that is being impacted, how can we learn to adapt while all this is in place.

So in terms of the urgency, again, I think we need to make sure that what we’re doing to work to reduce our emissions, which is I believe the responsible thing to do, we do it in a manner that allows our economy to continue to be strong. If we put in place policies and provisions that literally bring this economy to its knees because of the cost, how are we really helping? We need to have the capital out there to facilitate the new technology to allow all these – these innovations to come together and take place. We’re not just going to be able to shut the whole thing down and say well, this is what we have to do in order to save the planet. We’ve got to find that balance, if you will, so let’s figure out how we do this. Let’s work to reduce our emissions, let’s work to do it responsibly and let’s be moving forward rather than be in a state of denial.

COWAN: So then if there were to be a democratic bill that moves through the Senate this year or next that has expanded nuclear power, it has offshore oil drilling, encourages alternative energies, but has cap and trade, would you vote for it? With strict emissions limits, would you vote for it?

LISA MURKOWSKI: It depends how the cap and trade piece is structured because I have noted on several occasions, I’m quite concerned about how through the process or the procedure that would be put in place, there’s opportunity for manipulation out there that I think we need to be very, very careful about.

I don’t want to see allocations just based on the politics of who happens to be on what committee, there needs to be a sound logic for it. So I’m going to look very critically at how any type of a cap and trade piece would play out. I want to look very carefully to see how the cost to the consumer is handled. You know how much actually goes back to help the consumer offset those costs that we know will be there. I also want to make sure that when we say OK, there’s an oil and gas piece, there’s a nuclear piece, that it’s more than just window dressing. It can’t be just something that says we support nuclear, there has got to be a real path forward that allows nuclear to take the role of energy production, I believe we should be taking in this country. And as well the domestic production piece as well.

So count me as one of those who will keep my mind open as we move forward in looking at all aspects of this.

I have said repeatedly that when we’re talking about climate change legislation, we need to make sure that all the options are on the table out there. What are we doing to make sure that we’re meaningfully reducing our emissions? But it seems like we’ve gotten to this point where you’re either for Waxman Markey or Kerry Boxer, or you’re against the environment. That’s not a fair statement in comparison. You can be for a good strong economy and for reducing our emissions and working to really help environmental issues. It doesn’t have to be an either or proposition.

SWAIN: (INAUDIBLE) nine minutes left, by the way. On the nuclear element, there is a mention made of private capital being necessary really to expand the industry, but private capital is concerned that public sentiment will short circuit any plans that they might have. Where does the leadership come on the national level to bring public opinion along for nuclear energy, which you support?

LISA MURKOWSKI: It’s an excellent point and I am convinced that we will see this nuclear renaissance that has been talked about for some time when you have that leadership at the top. When you have the signal that says nuclear is going to be a critical component of our energy portfolio.

That hasn’t been said clearly. The president has said, you know nuclear needs to be part of the solution. Secretary Chu has said nuclear needs to be there. But then the actions within the administration have not necessarily backed that up. Wasn’t just months into the administration when basically the plug was pulled on Yucca? Now if I’m an investor and I’m looking at nuclear as an opportunity and recognizing the costs involved in this and I’ve got an administration that is using the right buzz words, but when it comes to full on support, the actions that are being taken, whether its support for meaningful loan guarantees, expanded loan guarantees, whether it is making sure that we have a permitting process that actually flows and works. If you don’t have the actions backing up the words, as an investor I’m very hesitant to come out. So I think it has to start from the very top and I’m hopeful, I’m very hopeful that the president will recognize that in order to meet the goals that he has set out in his support by statements of what the House has done in terms of a reduction in emission standards, I am hopeful that there’s going to recognize that in order to get there from here nuclear will have to be part, an expanded part, of how we move down that path. And that that commitment will be made at the top to really aggressively start pursuing nuclear at all stages.

SCHOOF: Could I ask you a sort of a two part question looking ahead to the Copenhagen negotiations on climate? Is it your view that it is necessary for the U.S. to take action quickly as Richard was alluding to before, to cut emissions or is it more reasonable to wait until there is finally, at some point, an international agreement with China and India and everyone kicking into the same plan?

LISA MURKOWSKI: I think we need to be doing it right now and I think we are. We’ve actually seen a reduction in our emissions, and truth be told, a good component piece of that reduction has been what has happened with the economy itself. When the economy is weak and we’re just not doing as much, consuming as much, moving as much, we’re going to see that drop in emissions. I don’t want that to be our policy. We have a recession in order to reduce emissions, that’s not good, it’s not sound, we don’t want to go there, but I think it is fair to say that when you look to what we have put in place through the energy – energy acts of ’05 and ’07, we have really started to go down that path. We’ve got some good conservation pieces.

With the energy bill that we passed out of committee in June, good strong efficiency pieces, particularly when it comes to the buildings and some of the code aspects of it, I think we forget, when we talk about a reduction in emissions we’re thinking it has to be some phenomenal program and in fairness, we could achieve some very quantifiable reductions if we’d just eliminate some of the waste in our consumption right now. I don’t mean to highlight all the lights that are on, but I mean our reality is that we can be doing a lot more with a consciousness. We haven’t worked to put those in place. But I do think that we can cite to the good things that came out of our energy bill that is just waiting to go. I think that the president can cite to the action that is underway in Congress, that one body has moved a bill out – that’s a bill that I don’t support, but when people outside of the United States suggest that we’re not doing anything, I don’t think that they’re fully appreciating what is happening within our Congress, what is happening within the administration, what is happening to advance policies that will work to reducing issues in addition to what we have already done.

SWAIN: Richard, three minutes. Final question.

COWAN: One of the big hang ups in the international climate talks is the fact that developed countries, the United States, the EU, other major emitters, have not come to an agreement on how and whether to compensate developing countries to encourage them to create more alternative energy. Would you be willing, as a senior member of the Congress and a leader on energy issues, would you be willing to write a check that would allow the United States to pay some of the least developed countries to try to get ahead on the climate change battle?

LISA MURKOWSKI: Would I be willing to allow that check to be written. You know we need to be a participant, we need to be working with other countries to insure that they too are taking the right steps, but I think we also need to recognize that we need to be acting within our own country, this is part of the criticism that we’re taking now from other countries is that we’re not leading enough. I don’t think leading is necessarily writing a check to a developing country, I think so much of it is what we do by example, and I think that there are ways that we can be sharing technologies. There are good cooperative agreements that are already out there, in place. I think we can be doing much more to help facilitate that. But I don’t think it’s as easy as just writing a check and saying go figure it out. I think we need to be collaborating and working with developing and developed countries on this.

SWAIN: So an interesting close out here, 2010 is an election year – for you personally. I’m wondering given the demographics at home, which vote will be more closely watched in Alaska, healthcare or energy?

LISA MURKOWSKI: You’re asking me to choose which is my favorite son here. Its – that’s a difficult question because for Alaskans both of these issues are key. So much of our world in the state revolves around energy, but if you don’t have healthy citizens you don’t have much either. So these are both issues that have generated a great deal of interest, a great deal of scrutiny. And so our job is just to do the best that we possibly can on both of them.

SWAIN: Is any bill with the public option a no go for you?

LISA MURKOWSKI: A bill with a public option is a no go.

SWAIN: And last question, you’ve recently joined the Senate GOP leadership team, are we going to be seeing more of you on the national stage?

LISA MURKOWSKI: Well, my first priority will always be what’s happening in Alaska and making sure that Alaskans are feeling well served and in that capacity, representing Alaska, if I can be more present on the national scene, I’ll be there.

SWAIN: Thanks for being with us.

LISA MURKOWSKI: Thank you, appreciate the opportunity.

SWAIN: Newsmakers is back with Renee Schoof and Richard Cowan after just talking energy policy with Senator Lisa Murkowski. We heard her describe that in the politics of the energy debate that it’s been framed that if you’re not for Kerry Boxer legislation you’re against the environment. Can we talk a little bit about the framing of the debate nationally and how you see this proceeding. Renee?

SCHOOF: I thought it was interesting that Senator Murkowski doesn’t want to have this debate either framed as republicans are against doing something about climate change. She clearly wants to see some action and although as a member of the republican leadership, she may not be working directly with democrats on a signature bill for the president, she is involved in the discussion by talking to Senator Graham who is doing just that. So by extension she is getting her voice heard and I think looking for a consensus, it’s interesting.

COWAN: It was clear that she appears to be open to talking to democrats on legislation. Often times republican leadership simply puts out the word that this is nothing more than a national energy tax. I don’t think she once framed it in quite that stark an issue and she was talking about the details. She made it clear that she would drive a hard bargain to get her on board. She clearly wants a large nuclear title, she wants offshore drilling, it looks like, in addition to other alternative energies. But she did seem open to talking.

SWAIN: Just in understanding the way Capitol Hill and the way Republican Party politics work. Why is Lindsey Graham having the conversations when we’ve just had the senior republic member of the energy committee here? How is that all working?

SCHOOF: Well, I think her role in the leadership makes it maybe a little more – a little more difficult for her to jump right in more directly. It is a signature issue for the president, there’s a lot of hot rhetoric. But I think what’s interesting is that people like Senator Murkowski might be looking more at the specifics, what exactly do we need on nuclear, what do we need on drilling. Looking for a deal, possibly.

SWAIN: Well, you asked questions about nuclear energy and what was your take away from her criticism of the administration, sort of walking the walk as well as talking the talk.

COWAN: She wants to see action on nuclear, she thinks that they can be doing more even separate from legislation. Talk about 100 new nuclear power plants in the United States, which Senator Lamar Alexander is also pushing very hard, Senator McCain who’s been very active in climate also, that’s very important to him. A lot of people question whether 100 new nuclear plants is doable and they sometimes will privately say we k now that there’s no way that that can happen but we want to get the conversation and move the industry ahead and she clearly believes that as well, that it’s a clean renewable energy. It doesn’t address all the problems, safety problems, the fears over nuclear energy that – and the financing problems that have bogged down that industry.

SWAIN: Has the recent expansion of natural gas reserves in the United States changed the energy debate?

SCHOOF: It could change it somewhat since it does provide a bridge, an alternative in the midterm for bringing emissions down.

SWAIN: And you both asked about Copenhagen, how does the discussion with the administration on a global level affect what’s happening legislatively here in the energy debate?

COWAN: They’re hand in glove and it’s hard to tell if there’s lack of action in one place or lack of progress it’s hard to tell which gets hurt – which has to happen first and which gets hurt more.

Obama had hoped for a bill or more progress on a bill by the time of the Copenhagen meeting in early to mid December, it’s not going to happen. And so then there’s a question of well, if that then slows down Copenhagen, what will happen next year in Congress. Will it then slow down Congress even more and things might collapse.

SWAIN: And is the slowness all because of healthcare?

SCHOOF: Well, healthcare is holding it up but energy and climate are an extraordinarily complicated issue and it could take a long time to unwind.

I agree with Richard though that if the United States doesn’t bring a finished bill to Copenhagen, there very little on the table, the rest of the world will be waiting.

SWAIN: On energy legislation, as Senator Murkowski talked about all of the secondary costs – costs of transportation for goods and services to the market and the like, does that bring additional bedfellows to debate?

COWAN: It is important consideration, especially the cost is always important, especially with the U.S. economy hurting so badly and people out of jobs, people fearing that an energy bill will lead to higher consumer prices, it scares a lot of people. Senators from poor states, like in Arkansas, are particularly attuned to that problem, even a tiny increase in consumer prices could be a very hard sell, especially next year, an election year.

SWAIN: Overall, is this shaping up to be a democrat republican, liberal conservative, or regional debate on energy?

SCHOOF: Well, I think it will be a little bit of all those things, certainly regional. Every state has its issues, manufacturing states, coal dependent states; they all need to work through some way to reduce emissions without devastating the economy at the same time.

SWAIN: Well, given the economic concerns, are the nation’s governors really involved in sending messages to Washington about this particular legislation?

COWAN: Governors are weighing in. There are some republicans – republican governors who are maybe striking a different posture than republican leadership on Capitol Hill. I think that Governor Schwarzenegger in California who’s made some interesting comments that maybe put him out further ahead. And yes, they have a big stake in it.

SCHOOF: In fact hundreds of mayors and governors are pushing for cleaner energy future and so there is really interest enough for the country.

SWAIN: Well, thanks both of you for being here this week and thanks for your questions for Senator Murkowski.

SCHOOF: Thank you.

COWAN: Thank you.