it is about more energy security and reducing our dependence on middle eastern energy. not only keystone, but more energy development. ultimately, that is what is most important, doing what we can for the american people. >> how many senate republicans would which hold their report from any transportation bill that does not include this pipeline? >> the bill got to hundred 93 votes in the house. that is a veto-proof majority. it included keystone and other energy provisions, which i drafted with others. these are integral parts of the

high will be aired -- highway bill. this is about taking trucks off the road. in my state alone, it will take five trucks a day off the road that are beating up our roads. again, i go back to the merits and what best serves the american people in the best possible highway bill. on the keystone issue, this is someone you have been negotiating with on this for some time. he dealt with you even when he was on the payroll conference committee. is he someone you are talking to actively now as part of the transportation bill? is there senate democrats support that could put pressure on the administration? >> absolutely.

senator baucus has been very helpful and offered to help through the whole process. we would start up putting more than 100,000 barrels a day of oil into this pipeline. so this is important for north dakota and montana. senator baucus is from montana appeared as well as for our country. i expect him to be heavily involved in this effort. remember, we have 56 votes in the senate. we were missing several of our members. we have 58 members on board. so the support is growing. the conference but for the first time earlier this week. they said this is a very large conference. but senator in half insured a pretty strong warning to republicans say, look, we have this bill and we worked very hard on it. it has a two-year extension. and the house republicans,

either whom are freshmen and are against government spending, they are coming together with the rest of their conference. how do those two things reconcile themselves? how do senate republicans help house republicans in this process? >> we all want to move the highway bill. but this is an important part of getting it passed through both the senate and house. if you look at the bill itself, it is primarily the bill that was put together in the senate so the provisions that the house added, one of which is keystone, are important in terms of getting it through the house. the senator's comments were very good in that he said, look, we want to get a highway bill done, which i absolutely agree with, very important, but, at the same time, he thinks keystone should be and will be part of it because it is important infrastructure and that is what a highway bill is all about. >> you reference to the importance of gas prices as a

motivator. but gas prices are already starting to trend down. one analyst of this morning predicted that by midsummer it would be down to $3 a gallon. does it change the political dynamic? >> you have to look on a longer- term basis. over the last three years, gas prices have doubled. the reality is we can produce more energy in this country, particularly working with our closest friend and ally canada. we can produce more energy than we consume. that gets us to energy security. that means not only lower gas prices for the long term, but also a security issue so we do not have to rely on the middle east or places like venezuela, not to mention a huge job creator and lower energy prices that helped get our economy going. that is so important. we need economic growth as well as better control spending. so for all of those reasons, we need not only keystone and other vital infrastructure projects to move forward, but we

need to continue to gain energy legislation for the good of the country on a longer-term basis. i believe we can get to energy independence in five years to seven years if we pass the right kind of legislation, creating the kind of legal, tax, and regulatory environment that stimulates the economic environment. >> you mentioned the importance of curbing spending, which reminds me of the appropriations committee vote. and it shows you and mcconnell voting with senate democrats. this is being pitched by democrats as a repudiation of house republicans who want to cut spending. do you regret voting with democrats on this? or is it being misread? >> aniston the first part of your question. >> -- i missed the first part of

your question. >> only two republicans voted against the spending caps, endorsing the house position. you were not one of them appeared you voted with senator mcconnell and all the democrats. the democrats are pretty excited about this because they say that house republicans are split. do you regret the vote? do you wish you had voted with senator murray and? >> you are talking about the appropriations bill, which is meeting the budget control act and is part of spending reductions that were put in place part of the debt ceiling -- >> but house republicans want to cut $19 billion from that level. >> i thought there was only one vote but did not support moving forward, which meets the budget control act. i think there is a strong bipartisan majority that is working to reduce spending in line with the budget control act. we will need to do more. that is what sequestration is about.

but unlike the house is working on right now, i do not agree with sequestration. i think we need to find a better way to do it. there is too much pressure on the military to find the savings. but the real way to do it is to have entitlement reform, tax reform, passed a budget with savings included where we go through and do it in a very thoughtful way rather than sequestration. again, it is about further reductions and further savings. we're definitely working on that. but we're also making sure that we meet the requirements of the budget control act. >> do you believe house republicans will agree with you that this level is the right level? >> i think we will resolve the differences in the appropriation process between the house and the senate. yes. i think we will have agreement there by the end of the year. there is obviously a huge

cushion washington to cut spending. you are someone who is fiscally conservative throughout your career and as governor. when you look at the house version of the transportation bill that has a lot of provisions that cuts spending with these projects and appropriations where you are looking to cut programs and not others, there is a balance there. i wonder if you think there is this -- it is important that there's a certain level of government spending even though there is an environment in washington that is so opposed to it. >> this relates to the question she just asked. to get the budget deficit under control, we have to reform entitlements and we have to have tax reform as well. i don't think you get revenue from higher taxes. you get revenue from economic growth. so we need economic growth.

we need federal tax reform. and we need and tenement reform. discretionary spending, we are reducing. -- and we need entitlement reform. discretionary spending, we are reducing. for example, the senate agricultural committee just signed a new bill where we reduced spending by $23 billion. that is more than the amount called for in the budget control act picked it called for summer between $11,000,000,000.2115059965 dollars. -- between $11 billion and $15 billion. we need legislation that helps our economy grow and fines real savings in discretionary saving -- this question in spending. but we cannot do it alone. we have to have been tournament -- we have to have entitlement

reform. >> the amendment of women and children who rely on those programs, it presents a difficult choice, the charge to cut spending or to drastically reform or change these programs that so many americans depend on. how do you move forward with those choices and make sure that the balance is right? >> you are talking about the nutrition program. only 20% of the aga bill relates to farming and ranching. the rest is nutrition. it used to be called food stamps. out of that 80%, only $4 billion of the $23 billion is reduced. so the vast majority actually relates to the various farm programs because we strength and crop insurance, which is the key to an effective form program. we have a more effective farm program. we continue the important

aspects of the agricultural belt in that respect. but we're talking only a $4 billion reduction and an 80% of the total funding is in that portion of the bill and. you see a significant increase in food stamps and snap payments in recent years. i think we're doing exactly what you described, making sure we address nutrition needs and still find necessary savings and having an effective farm program. >> in the case of the agriculture bill and the transportation bill, we saw the senate act first as the house was kind of struggling with its transportation bill. you are moving forward and have bipartisan margin. now we see the same with the agriculture bill. do you think that house republicans can take a page from your conference, which is full

of stalwart legislative work yourself? >> we have to find ways to work together. in the senate, you cannot pass anything unless you have 60 votes. i was governor of north dakota for 10 years. you have to work with both sides of the aisle to get something done. ultimately, that is our responsibility in congress. we are elected by the people to get the work done for the american people. we absolutely have to find ways to work with republicans and democrats to get the work done for the country. i am an optimist, but we have got to get on top of our deficit and debt. we have to stimulate economic growth. i truly believe that means that, by the end of this year or the first part of next year, we have got to have a big plan under way that does what i said just a minute ago that goes to the entitlement reform, tax reform, that gets better spending through the right process, the

right kind of energy program. we have to do these things and it will take bipartisan work. senator lugar is a fine individual with a long and very good career serving the people of indiana. the new candid it, whoever it is, whether it is in vienna or whoever we have, once they are elected by the people of their state and they come here, we have got to find ways to work together. that goes for the whole spectrum, republican and democrat. whoever we elect. it is incumbent upon us to work together. we have to. >> he has said openly that he does not agree a compromise and there's too much of it in washington.

you think that attitude may dissolve if he is elected? >> there is a difference between adhering to your principles and have you believe government should work on behalf of the people. for those laws that are more conservative, we believe it should create environment that true the stimulates small business and empowers people and that is how it works best. whereas, people in the democratic rolm want more government involvement. regardless of your principles, which we all aid here too, we still have to find ways to work together. that still involves compromise. ultimately, we have to get the job done. >> right now, the democrats hold a very slim majority and republicans are hoping to take that for themselves. you need 60 to move anything forward to.

the need to change these in more conservative way. how do you think that meshes with the need for democrats and productivity? also, there were a lot of people that came in with their class that was very conservative. we have seen an evolution of some of those colleagues that now they have come to washington, they see the need to advance the politics. >> i think they still live here to their principles and are still working to do these things, but at the same time they're building relationships that are helping all of us to work together to find solutions. as we work to craft a solution, they're still going to try to hold out solution more to the conservative approach, but they understand there has to be some give-and-take ultimately to get

something passed. >> nine minutes left. >> when leaders have been dealing with advancing your policies, there have been a lot of debates on the issues. yet talked about the economy, jobs, how are the leaders helping to shepherd new members to not only consolidate about a message but think about an approach that can be done to move those sorts of things for word? also, when you lose a bet it -- a veteran senator, like senator lugar, are you losing that influence that really helps maintain this aura that is serious, legislative, that have changed things? >> when someone leaves, you always lose certain skill sets and talents. in the case of senator lugar, a

great experience. i worked closely with him on keystone as we were crafting the legislation. you also gain something from the new members that bring in a new >> -- a new perspective, experience of what ever they were doing in their state working with the people come and new and fresh ideas, energy enthusiasm. that is true not only in congress but a business organization or anything that you do. that is always the case. good leadership recognizes that we have a point of view but works to empower us in terms of getting things done. ultimately, at the end of the day, recognizing that we serve the american people and have a responsibility to get things done. >> turning back to keystone for a moment. this is fueling the domestic oil production that the president himself has rhetorically, at

least, of embraced. but he talked about this as a framework that would take a lot of resources from the formation and keep them coming down, but maybe not the oil that would flow through. do you think the president is paying lip service to this and focusing on greater production a bad idea given what it would do for your stick -- your state? >> it did not make any state. he went to cushing, oklahoma, to talk about the southern one- third of the project that did not require presidential approval. the only thing he needed to do was approve the cross-border portion of the pipeline. that really does not make sense. that was going to go ahead anyway. he has expressed concerns about the full project and now it is time to move forward.

again, that is why you see the growing bipartisan support for the project. as i could just take a minute, when i started as a governor in north dakota in 2000, the energy companies were still leaving. we put the right environment in place in our state and next year we will pass up alaska in oil production. the only state that will produce more oil than us next year is texas. think about that as a country if we do it right. i believe in environmental stewardship, but with the right policies we will stimulate investment and with the new technology we will produce far more energy with environmental stewardship. all of the traditional sources and renewable. that is why i think we can reach energy independence within five years if we do this right. this is an incredible

opportunity. >> even though this would only make up $100,000 per day of the 800,000 barel -- barrel per day, you think you can coexist? >> it is already over-subscribed and we're behind the curve. we are doing 100,000 barrels per day each year in terms of production. production is still going on but we are behind the curve with infrastructure. keystone is just one piece of infrastructure. we will need a lot more. in working with canada, we are up to 75% of the oil we consume just this one project to get as 5 or 6% more. a few more projects like this and we are there. then we have oil and natural gas to boot. good environmental stewardship,

a lot of energy, a lot of jobs and economic activity. >> i will transition back to politics because i did not know much about oil production. some money ran against is running for senate now. what do you think the politics in your state right now? what do you think of her as a candidate? how are you advising? now senator conrad is retiring. you're seeing a transition. what do you think the political prospects are? has it transitioned that greatly from democrats to republicans? >> we're one of the fastest- growing states in the nation, doing more in energy, high-value agriculture. we have become much more diversified. it is a very dynamic, changing

state. in terms of the race, rick berg is in congress right now and he is a former majority leader in the state house of representatives. certainly, heidi was formerly attorney general and is a capable candidates. rick has an outstanding track record. on the issues, he is where and north dakotans are in terms of where the state in the country needs to do to get back. i believe he will win. >> there were trying to push for to run against you last cycle and your approval rating was north of 80%. what do you think makes such a popular lawmaker or executive in your state? >> we have a great state.

tremendous work ethic, a great education, and we are really breaking out in terms of the economy and what we are doing. for anybody running for office, you have to tell people what you're going to do. it is like a job interview. in north dakota, when they look at what is going on in the state, they want our country to do a lot of the same kind of things. good fiscal responsibility, making sure we take your the fundamentals like good transportation, but at the same time getting control of our spending like entitlement reform, tax reform, strong military. these are the fundamentals. in north dakota, when they look at a candidate they will look at someone like rick and say they have a track record of doing it in north dakota. that is what they want done at the national level. >> your prediction is by the

deadline of june 30th there will be a highway bill signed by the president. >> i believe so. >> it you recall last time we talked, we took collars and it was amazing how much interest there was from a national perspective because people really want to energy security. the transportation bill is important and i think we will have it done. i believe keystone is an important part of it. >> senator, thank you for being with us. elana shor and meredith shiner, talking politics and the highway bill he is working on. are you as optimistic that the bill will be signed by the president and will include the pipeline? what are the challenges? >> i am deeply cynical by nature. i think there will be some kind of highway and infrastructure bill, but the dynamics we kind -- we tried to address is very

interesting. on the senate committee passed the transportation bill, a two- year extension. the house could not even get a bill to the floor and yet they are still coming to the table pushing for things, pushing for the pipelines. there will be a choice whether or not you want the infrastructure projects to fall through pushing for a pipeline that, one, could get authorized anyway, and then they continue to use it as an issue against the president than democrats. it has been a good political tool for them. they have policy reasons for wanting it, but if it does not end up in that bill, they will debate it the next one. >> i could not agree more with her assessment, frankly. senator and off -- imhoff, sang

a different tune before the conference started. this support on the merits, but he works very closely on the bipartisan bill with senator boxer and he was not allowed -- about to let that get killed. i question the depth of senate support for really sticking with this. >> to the to the compromise situation, we talked about senator lugar's speech to this week. senator durbin was optimistic about finding a way to get along. do you agree? how strong an urge is there to compromise? >> to your fourth point about senator lugar, there have been discussions why they're trying

to decide to why a person who spent 36 years in the senate could not win in a state for the democratic party did not even put up anyone to run against him. there was a debate that he voted from a farm and was staying in hotels. they felt it he had lost interest in their needs and with them. starting last congress with conservative members, they have opted for more establishment republicans and they will have a long internal debate. in order to get anything done, raising the debt ceiling again, which is subject by the next congress starts or extending the bush-era tax cuts with the help of democrats last congress, there