british house of commons. you can also watch our programming any time at c-span.org and it's also searchable at our c-span library. c-span, washington your way. a public service created by >> jeff bingaman is our guest on "newsmakers. we're joined by a reporter from a "roll call" who has the first question. >> the majority leader, harry reid, hopes a bill that would cut big oil tax breaks will get voted on next week and use the savings to pare down the deficit. it seems in this political climate, somebody's going to have to pay, whether it is in

medicare are still loans. do you think big oil can afford to give up these cuts they have been getting for decades? >> i think they can clearly afford to give up some significant number of these tax provisions. i think not just someone's going to have to pay, i think everyone is going to have to pay if we are going to be able to make a dent in this large deficit and that have accumulated. there have to be significant spending cuts, significant revenue increases, and that means some of these tax expenditures as they're called around washington are going to have to be pared back. >> we saw the big five ceos from the oil companies yesterday, is

this just political theater? even senator rockefeller seasons to think big oil is going to win in the end. we get higher gasoline prices, there is a call to repeal the tax breaks, but it doesn't seem to get done. is this just lawmakers posturing? >> i think there is obviously some posturing going on, but i do think there is some value in putting the budget discussion into some context. i think that was one of the purposes of my trying to do this hearing, to say all of the talk, particularly on the republican side, is where can we cut on various programs that are of assistance to people and if you're going to deal with the deficit, you're going to do it in two ways -- you can raise additional revenue by cutting back on some of these tax

breaks and i think that was one of the purposes of the hearing, to remind people of that and say it does it make good sense to be continuing with all of the tax breaks in the code today while we are cutting away at the various programs some people depend upon. >> just to be cleared, are you a yes vote? >> frankly, have not decided how to vote. i support paring back some of these tax breaks, whether or not there is a whole list and the proposal that has been brought forward and whether or not all of them should be pared back, i am not certain on this point. >> , have you voted in the past? >> i do not think we had this particular proposal in the past. i have voted in some cases to remove and reduce tax breaks for

the oil industry. in other cases, have voted not to because i felt the proposals covered too much and there is an argument which was made very strongly by the ceos that if you are going to change these tax provisions, he should not do it for five companies, you should do it mortgage generally. so there is an argument there that deserves attention. >> should the money go to other things other than paring down the deficit like there are some plans to support clean energy with that. would that gets votes for natural gas? >> i think there are various provisions in the law scheduled to expire. energy provisions for clean energy sources. we will have to find funds

somewhere to continue with those provisions and i think it is important we continue with some of them. this was one place the funding could come from, reducing the benefits fossil fuel has traditionally enjoyed. i think that would add an additional argument to those who would support this proposal, but clearly we need to reduce the deficit as well as extend these tax provisions for clean energy going forward. >> does this bill have enough votes to get out of the set? >> i do not believe it does. i think the republicans will come up with an alternative that doesn't have the votes either. i do not believe it is likely. i think the votes we will have next week are on motions to proceed to consider these bills and i don't think the senate will vote, i don't think

there'll be enough votes to consider either of the bills likely to come to the floor. >> all of us are talking on this friday afternoon, so this legislation is likely to come up in the week ahead, one of the chief executives at exxon at the hearing on thursday said they pay 32% on average in u.s. income-tax is and a tax increase would alter their investment decisions. do these oil companies pay their fair share as has been said by some democrats who wanted to pay more? >> i don't know. that's a very subjective judgment as to whether they are paying their fair share relative to other companies and other taxpayers. i think it is pretty clear that

reducing some of the tax benefits would not jeopardize the profitability of some of these companies. i do not doubt they might let at shifting around where they invest some of their funds and where they hope to have future production and some of that might move out of that united states if they felt the tax burden in the u.s. was unfavorable to them compared to other countries. the profitability of these companies is pretty well established and as long as the price of oil is anywhere near where it is today, they will define. >> everybody right now is thinking about gas prices. everybody who has a car, you have seen it when you go to the

pump. with $4 a gallon gasoline, democrats are pushing this and acknowledges not going to do anything about gas prices. is there anything that might actually get through congress this year in this polarized environment that might yield some relief, whether on speculation or opening up areas for drilling or are you of the mind there is not a lot congress can do? >> you have to look at the short-term. you have to look at the long term next. it is not realistic in my view to think we're going to legislate a change in the price of oil and the short term. i think that's unlikely to happen, or the price of gas at the pump in the short term. i do think we can policies in place that help keep the price of oil down in world markets in

future years and will thereby keep the price of gas at the pump down in future years. >> is there anything specific you are working on or could actually get through both chambers to the president's desk? it seems like the past several years, the capt. trade bill died and there has been an inability in congress to get major bipartisan energy legislation through. what kinds of things could we be looking at? >> i will give you a list, but you are right, the environment is a difficult one to get anything passed. i think there are things we are considering in the energy committee with that we could pass if we could get cooperation, and i hope we're able to. there is legislation to encourage communities to move

more rapidly to facilitate the use of electric vehicles. center alexander from tennessee and a senator from oregon have taken the lead on a bill they just introduced this week that we will have a hearing on in our committee and hopefully be able to move ahead with that useful legislation. but it is long term. there may well be things we can do to encourage the use of natural gas in transportation and that will displace oil. we have had a reasonably good success in the last few years because of the renewable fuel standard we put into law in 2007. we have had reasonable success at getting biofuel more in use and displacing some of the oil. for the first time in a long time, we are in fact seeing a reduction in the amount of oil

we have to import and a reduction in the amount of oil we have been using. we are moving in the right direction and i think it's possible congress could do things in this session to move us even further in that direction. >> one of the things that has been controversial is where do you drill and how much do you drill. this is an area where republicans are beating up democrats and certainly, one senator keeps talking about drilling in deep arctic wildlife refuge. you are one of the senators who filibustered opening that up for drilling and that could have potentially yield of a million barrels of oil per day. do you still think that was the right decision and in this environment now, you and other democrats might reconsider some of those decisions? >> i think it was the right

decision. that's my decision. people need to realize that for the first time in 30 years i've been around the senate, we are increasing our production of oil in this country. it is not going down. it's going up and we are clearly increasing our production of natural gas in this country. the idea we are shutting off everybody's ability to produce oil and gas is not accurate. the increase that has occurred even in a couple of years president obama has been in office has been substantial. it is not primarily his policies that have cost it, it is primarily new technologies and techniques being used by the industry, but we are seeing increases in production and i favor increases in production and have voted that way

consistently. >> it seems to be an issue that keeps coming up and it is harder and harder to justify with oil over $100 a barrel to say we still should not drill there. >> i think the judgment there is a do you think it is a wildlife refuge that ought to be kept free of drilling activity or to you not? if you do not think it should be kept free of drilling activity, then fine. i have felt it should be kept as a wildlife refuge and not have drilling activity there. i think the idea that by opening it that we will see a drop in the price of oil worldwide is not the real world. the price of oil is set on world markets and has more to do with how many new consumers are coming into the market in china and india, buying cars and

demanding oil. those increased demand for gasoline and oil are what are driving the price of oil up, as well as turbulence in the middle east and north africa which creates great uncertainty about future supplies. >> president obama unleashed the big plan to double clean energy production using nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. is that going anywhere? is that something for his second term? >> we hope is going somewhere. on a bipartisan basis, we have prepared a so-called white paper where we've set out all of the different questions involved in how you would construct a clean energy standard which would be along the lines the president

talked about in his state of the union speech. we want -- the president says we would like to have a% of electricity produced in the country produced from the so- called clean energy sources by 2035. we of got nearly 300 responses back to that white paper. we are trying to figure out if we can put together a draft peace of legislation that could be seriously considered in the committee. we do not have the answer, but we are trying to get to something that would achieve the kind of objective the president laid out. >> do you see the president getting aggressive on that? last time there was a big sweeping energy climate bill, it seemed the administration pulled

back and did not work with congress as much as it might have. >> i think they are working with us in trying to come up with a draft proposal. that's the stage we are at now. if we can get a draft proposal with bipartisan support, i assume they would use their abilities to persuade people to seriously consider it. that needs to be said in the context of everything is tough in this congress. trying to get agreements from the house of representatives to do anything along the lines the president laid out is going to be a difficult proposition, but i think we're all living in that direction trying to see if it can be done. >> one of the things i wanted to follow-up on is the nuclear power issue. we have this disaster which

continues to unfold of fukushima with talks of a meltdown and terrible radiation. nuclear power seemed to be the bipartisan linchpin for getting anything major done. is there still the potential or momentum for getting something significant done on a clear power or to you feel like you have to wait and does their need to be a cooling-off before you can address that issue? >> the issue of nuclear power, we did a lot of things in the 2005 energy bill to encourage more nuclear power plant construction in this country. some of it has been successful and there have been applications pending before the regulatory commission. not as much as the industry had hoped, but right now, frankly

there are no proposals pending in our committee that have caught of substance to them on the overall subject of nuclear power. the one thing we are working on and hoping to have a hearing on in the next few weeks is modular and nuclear reactors -- relatively small reactors we believe there is a potential use for and can be produced in a very safe way, but it is not as though the republicans have a proposal for expanding nuclear power that the democrats have been resisting. that is just not the case. i strongly rep -- strongly supported what was in the 2005 bill and we react -- and we enacted. since then, we have been saying tell us what else the government has to do to make this so-called

nuclear renaissance occurred. the truth is that the economics are not very good, particularly with natural gas as cheap as it is. most utilities look at the prospect of building a nuclear power plant and have to compare that to the cost of building a new gas-fired generation plant and the gas fire went out in most cases. >> the president said a few weeks ago when the oil price was $113 a barrel that he has a plan to tap the strategic petroleum reserve to keep up in case things get worse. it would only take a few days to get it done instead of weeks, since he has the plan already. heavy seen the plan and is it a good one? at what point is it wise to use

their resources? >> i have not seen the plan as such, so i cannot comment on whether it is a good one or a bad one. i think in the short term, the time has passed when we should be seriously considering using the strategic petroleum reserve. if it goes back up again, the idea of the strategic petroleum reserve was to be able to respond in disruptions to supplies, not just respond to changes in price. but if there was a day disruption in supply that threatens the economy or the united states, we would be able to respond. that is the right use of the strategic petroleum reserve. there was a disruption in supply when the turmoil began in libya and that has continued. there is still a disruption in supply, but i do not see it

worsening. it is pretty clear there is no shortage of oil worldwide. i think one reason the price of oil has gotten where it is is that analysts who follow this on a regular basis have realized there is no shortage and its not likely there will be a shortage and the price had gotten higher than could be justified. >> i want to ask you about the senate in general. you have been there a long time and you are retiring. i want to get your sense of what the senate is like today. watching it, it looks like not a lot is happening. this week, there were votes on judges and there's another week where there was a single vote on a judge and it seems there are five weeks spent on a small business bill that ended up in a drawer somewhere because democrats did not want to vote on an amendment.

is there an inability to get things done in this set? what is your sense of why things are so slow and why there doesn't seem to be much other than the deficit and debt talks going on, is there nothing else that can get to the floor? >> obviously there are a lot of factors. the senate is not functioning the way i would like to see it function, but i think the polarization that has settled them here in washington is a large part of that. that's a partial explanation. a lot of folks are being elected to office these days with a real commitment not to compromise, not to give in to the other side and of course, we've got large constituencies out there that

they insist they not compromise. so it is hard to govern, hard to operate the senate as it was intended to operate if you do not have a willingness on all sides to compromise and work things out. we have a presidential election coming up next year and that is undoubtedly beginning to have an impact on our ability to get things done and will continue to as we approach that date. there is a lot of factors that make it difficult. >> with the overriding concern about the deficit, you have all of these big talks going on out there. is there not enough oxygen in the room to get other things done? even something as basic as the faa reauthorization bill -- they still cannot quite work out

with a house on a basic bill like that. all of the oxygen is on this other issue. >> to some extent, i think everyone is preoccupied on how are going to get a budget agreed to the. that is the top priority for the president and for the leadership right now. but as i say, the same factors that are polarizing that debate come into play when you try to do pretty much anything else, like this small business innovative research bill that we have not been able to give final action on. >> yucca mountain. we were talking about nuclear waste. it is pretty much on ice and not popular among democrats and others, especially not popular

in nevada. we saw the blue ribbon panel for obama on nuclear waste is putting out its draft plan on what to do with nuclear waste. they are calling for some above- ground sites. do you see at as a reality? is there a place that can be done? >> i don't know for certain. i have not seen the report, but i don't know any reason it couldn't be done. assuming -- i think there are locations in the country that would be willing to host above- ground storage for some time and that brings jobs and there are all sorts of reasons why communities would consider that possibility. i have not seen the blue-ribbon

panel report to understand what kinds of locations they think would be appropriate. >> on the broader budget debate, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell made it clear that medicare needs to be part of any deal on the debt limit. democrats are not in love with that idea and they want some revenue and republicans have taken that off the table. are we heading to a big cliff or where do you see a compromise emerging to actually avoid a catastrophic default? ati'm not good at looking crystal balls and telling you what is going to happen in the future. i can tell you that every time we have made serious progress in reducing the deficit since i have been here in the clinton years and george h. w. bush,

when he was president, it was done through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases or revenue increases. i think that is the right formula. if we are going to get the deficit reduced, it's going to take that kind of combination again. >> what is your best moment in the senate? >> i don't have a best moment to offer up to you. >> your fondest memory? >> i've been here 29 years and there have been a lot of good moments, but lots of frustration also. i'm sure everyone who has served in the senate would see it the same way. >> thank you. >> we are back with our reporter. if the senate brings up a bill this week dealing with tax

breaks for the big oil companies, what are they trying to accomplish? >> it would cut $21 billion in 10 years for these oil companies. this is for the big five. it does not affect the smaller companies. it has no chance of getting through the house and probably doesn't even have a chance of getting anywhere close to the 60 votes it needs in the senate. what is designed to do is the senate democrats are trying to contrast this tax break for oil companies with republican proposals to cut medicare benefits and say if you guys want to cut medicare benefits but these big fat oil companies, you want to protect, they don't really have any expectation this will end up on the president's desk at this point. they're trying to set up the larger discussions over the deficit and the problem the democrats and up having is they

do not have their own budget proposal. they are divided and they are somewhat united on this but they have plenty of folks in their own caucus to do not like this, people from oil states and the senator said themself doesn't mind the strategy but he's not committed to voting for it. it is going to be an interesting vote, but it's not going to go anywhere in its current form. asking a lot of senators and members this question -- what are you going to do right now about gas prices? as he said, there's not a lot they can do. there doesn't seem to be any real bipartisan proposal coming forward that would deal with anything in the short term or long term that can get to the