>> these men go through things and no one understands except each other. >> the thing that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover. they were such a different man -- they were such different men that ended up forming an alliance and being enormously productive and formed the foundation of what became a deep friendship. the letters between them later in their lives about how important they have become to each other or extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive club in the world. on the private and public relationships of presidents, tonight at 8:00. >> welcome to "newsmakers." our guest this week is senator john hoeven of north dakota. he is a member of the conference committee working out the differences on the surface

transportation bill. over $100 billion is at stake, thousands of jobs. june 30 is the deadline for expiration. thank you for being with us. let me introduce our reporters. meredith shiner is a reporter at "roll call" print senate leadership. elana schor is the congressional reporter for "environment and energy daily." we will start with you. >> you are entering this conference. the white house has already threatened to veto the house bill that has the pipeline attached. privately, both sides of the debate say east and xl must be a great bargaining chip for you to press the issue to give it up in exchange for something. that is politics. no one likes that messy part of it. is there anything you can discuss as a possible trade for

keystone in the talks? >> i think we will passkeys down as part of the highway bill. -- i think we will pass keystone as part of the highway bill. support has grown. the people of this country want it. we need more energy to reduce the price of gasoline. we're still $3.80 average, close to $4 on the national average. we need more energy to bring down gasoline prices for every consumer in america and for our economy. it is a tremendous job creator. not one penny of government spending, but a $7 billion investment and will create thousands of jobs. it is about more energy security in reducing our dependence on oil from the middle east. on the merits, the people of this country want keystone and more energy development. that is what most -- what is

most important, doing the right thing for the american people. >> how many republicans would hold their boat if it does not have the pipeline? >> the bill got a veto-proof majority in the house. it included eastbound and other energy provisions. these are integral parts of the highway bill. this is about taking trucks off the road because we move trucks off the road. they are beating up the highways and creating safety issues as well. this is important infrastructure. i think in both the house and senate. we are up to a strong majority. i go back to the merits and what best serves the american people' in the best possible highway bill.

on the keystone issue, senator baucus is someone had been negotiating. is he someone you are talking to as part of the transportation bill? is there senate democrat support for this that could put pressure on the administration and their leadership? >> absolutely. senator baucus has been very helpful and offered to help through the whole process. the formation is in north dakota and montana. 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 -- as well as important 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 -- senator inhoff issued 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? that way these drafts can be created in the projects started. >> 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. stimulate private investment. >> 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 -- push in 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 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 billion and $15 billion. we have passed a five-year senate bill that provides

substantially more, $23 billion in savings. we need legislation that helps our economy grow and finds real savings in discretionary spending. but we cannot do it alone. 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 -- the choice 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 -- bill 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 and this country. but the new candidate, mr. murdoch, whoever it is, whether it is indiana, whoever we have, once they are elected by the people of their state and they

come here to d.c., we have got to find ways to work together. and that goes throughout the whole spectrum, republican and democrat. whoever we elect, it is incumbent on us to work together. we have to. >> mr. murdoch has said openly that he does not believe in compromise that there is too much of it in washington. is that an attitude that might evolve if he is elected? >> there is a difference between adhering to your principles and how you believe government should work on behalf of the people. and for those of us who are more conservative, we believe it should create an environment that really stimulates positive get negative private -- stimulate private investment and entrepreneurship and small business across this country and empowers people and that is how it works best. whereas, typically democrats want more government involvement. regardless of your principals, which we all appear to our

principles and that is what we should do, we still have to find the new candidate, whoever it is, whether it is indiana 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. >> murdock 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 were a lot of people who came in with the class who were very conservative and have a lot of these beliefs coming into the senate. i am wondering if you have seen an evolution and with some of those colleagues who see the need to use the tools of the senate to advance their conservative politics. >> i think so. i think they still adhere to

their principles and are still working to do the things they told the people they would do. i think at the same time, they are building relationships that help all those to work together to find solutions. as we were to craft the solution, there's still going to try to pull that to the conservative approach. they also understand there has to be some give and take to get something passed that serve the american people at the end of the day. >> when leaders of been dealing with advancing your policies, there have been a lot of large debates on the issue. you talked about the big issues, the deficit, the economy, jobs. how have leaders helped new members consolidate around the message and think about approaches that can be done to move those things forward? also, when you lose a veteran

senator, are you losing institutional knowledge and that influence that helps maintain the aura that surrounds the senate that has changed bill's for our country? >> when someone leaves, if you lose certain skill sets and talent. in the case of senator lugar, a great experience. i worked closely with them on keystone. we were crafting that legislation. you also gain something from the new members bring a new perspective. they bring experience of what ever they were doing in their state. they bring new ideas, energy, enthusiasm. that is true not only in congress but in a business organization or anything that you do. that is always the case. good leadership recognizes we have a point of view but also

works to empower us to get things done. at the end of the day, recognizing we serve the american people and have a responsibility to get things done. >> turning back to keystone for a moment, the foundation in your state is fueling this oil production boom that the president has rhetorically embraced. when he approved the southern leg of keystone, he talked about it as a framework that would take a lot of resources from the foundation and keep those coming down to the gulf but maybe not the canadian oil that wouldn't flow through. do you think the president is paying lip service? is focusing on the greater foundation production in a bad idea? >> it did not make any sense. he went down to oklahoma and talked about approving the southern leg of the project. that is about 1/3 of the

project. it does not require presidential approval. it did not make any sense. the only party needs to weigh in on is approving -- the only part that he needs to weigh in on is approving the cross-border part of the pipeline. that did not make sense. that was going ahead anyway. he has expressed concerns about the full project. we have addressed those concerns. now it is time to move forward. that is why you see growing bipartisan support for the project. when i started as governor in my state of north dakota in 2000, the oil companies were leaving. we put the right environment in place in our state. next year, we will pass alaskan oil production. the only state that will have more oil in production in north dakota will be texas next year. think of what we can do as a

country if we do it right. i believe in good environmental stewardship. i believe with the right policies, we will stimulate private investment. with new technologies, we will produce far more energy with much better environmental stewardship, all the traditional sources oand renewables. i believe we can get to energy independence within five years if we do this right. i think this is an incredible opportunity. >> that oil would only make about $100,000 -- barrels a day. you are not concerned about your state having to compete with the canadian influx customer you can coexist? >> absolutely can coexist. the pipeline will go to 1 million barrels. we are behind the curve. 100,000 barrels a day. production is still going up. we are behind the curve with

infrastructure. that is why i am pushing to move it. keystone is just one piece of infrastructure. we will need a lot more. with keystone and working with canada, we're up to 75% of the oil we consume, just this one project its us five%. a few more projects like this, and we are there. we can do this. then we have oil and natural gas to do. a lot more energy, a lot more jobs and economic energy. >> you talked about new first elected governor in north dakota. someone you ran against a decade ago is running for senate now. i am wondering what you think of the politics of this state right now, what you think of her as a candidate, and how you are advising people to construct an effective campaign.

two senators are retiring. you are seeing a transition. i am wondering what you think of the political process. talk about how it has shifted hands from democrats to republicans. " we're one of the fastest- growing states in the nation. our economy has become much more diversified. it was historically agriculture. it is a dynamic, changing state. in terms of the race, rick berg is the republican candidate. he is a member in congress now. he is the former majority leader in the state house of representatives. heidi highcamp was an attorney general. she is a capable candidate. rick berg has an outstanding track record. on the issues, he is where north dakotans are in terms of what our state and country need to do

to get back on track. i believe he will win the race. >> democrats were trying to push her to run against your last cycle. your approval rating was north of 80%. you to a large part of the vote. what makes the popular and successful candidate or executive in your state? >> we have a great state. tremendous work ethic, a great education. we are breaking out in terms of our economy and what we're doing. for anybody running for office, you have to tell the people what you are going to do. it is like a job interview. that is how i look at it. 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 things. good fiscal responsibility, making sure we take care of fundamentals like a good transportation bill, but at the

same time, getting control of spending. i talk about entitlement reform, tax reform we need to get back on track, strong military. these are the fundamentals. when north dakota looks at candidate, they will look at somebody like rick berg and say that is the kind of thing we want done at the national level. >> your prediction is that by june 30, there will be a highway bill signed by the president and it will include keystone? >> i believe so. the last time we talked, we took callers. it was amazing how much interest there was from a national perspective. people want energy security. this transportation bill is important. i think we will have it done. i believe keystone is an important part of it. >> senator, thank you for being with us. elana schor and meredith

shiner, our conversation was politics and the highway bill. are you both as optimistic as he that a 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 sort of highway and infrastructure bill. i think the dynamics we tried to have them address between senate and house republicans are interesting. the senate passed the transportation bill. the house could not even get a bill to the floor. yet they are still going to come to the table pushing for certain things, pushing for the pipeline. there will be a choice at the end of today whether or not you want all of these infrastructure projects to fall through pushing for a pipeline that could end up getting authorized any way. if it does not make it in this bill, republicans can continue to use it as an issue against democrats. they have been effective at

that. it has been a good political tool for them. they have policy reasons for wanting it. if it does not end up in the bill, it has been part of the discussion probably every time a new piece of legislation comes up. >> i could not agree more with her assessment. when you talk about keystone, you need to realize that senator inhofe sang a different tune before the conference started. he said he supports keystone on the merits of the same reason as senator hoeven, but he worked closely on the bipartisan bill and was not about to let that be vetoed because of the pipeline. the thing most people think it will be authorized eventually. i question senate support for sticking with this. they can politically gain from waiting. the compromise situation.

senator hoeven was optimistic that people will find a way to get along. do you agree? you have only had a couple of days to talk to sources on capitol hill. how strong an urge is there to compromise on spending issues? >> to your first point about senator lugar, there has been a lot of discussion about why this person will have served 36 years in the senate could not win a state where one. the democratic party did not even put up an opponent to run against him. he did not have the residents from which he could vote. there was a debate. he quoted from a farm. he was staying in hotels when he was visiting the state. the people felt he had lost touch with their interests and needs. we saw this starting in the last congress