you say the unemployment rate is 9%, and really in reality is not take into account people that are underemployed or their unemployment has run out. the congressional budget office and the white house, they are trying to manipulate figures to hide the truth, the reality of the way things really are. you need more money, washington needs more money, a tax increase, to say carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a joke. just come out and say we need more money. guest: let me say to this debt, and again, there is not a penny of tax in this -- let me say to this gentlemen, again, there is not a penny of tax in this legislation. it is a pretty independent office, and the analysis that issues is not done for the partisan advantage of either political party. as steve was indicating a moment ago, the congressional budget

office, this nonpartisan agency, says that by the year 2020, the average effect of cost on the typical american family is going to be $175 per year. the environmental protection agency, look me with the near- term cost is going to be up until that time, says it is between $77 and $111 per year for the typical family. . at the white house, the president meets with members of congress to talk about immigration issues, this after

his town hall meeting last night carried on abc focusing on health care. we will turn our attention to health care and the deficit and the republican party with congressman erick kanter -- eric cantor. and tom ridge, six years after homeland security department was formed, and sir david frost from the latest with the nixon tapes and the situation in iran. first, a news update. >> president obama tells abc news that he is open to the possibility of a new tax on employer-provided health care benefits. senior senators say the tax could be essentials for financing the $1 trillion health reform plan. vice-president biden talks about the impact of the economic stimulus money today. he plans to tell the cabinet that more than half of the money set aside for highway projects,

$19 billion, has been allocated. in two hours, fed chairman ben bernanke faces questions from a house committee investigating whether he and other government officials pressured bank of america with a merger with merrill lynch that cost taxpayers $20 billion. live coverage of the house oversight committee hearing at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c- span radio. also on the hill, former vice president al gore meets with the democratic caucus at lunchtime in support of a scheduled vote this week on energy and climate change. and those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> as this year's supreme court term comes to an end, here it chief justice robert stock about the court's work. then a panel of experienced court watchers including linda greenhouse, jan crawford greenberg, and ted olson review the decisions. saturday morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> july 4 weekend, discover an unfamiliar side of our nation's

first president as we are live from george washington's mount vernon estate with historian and author john ferling. sunday, july 5, lion on "in depth." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back eric cantor, house minority leader and republican from virginia is seventh congressional district. thank you for being with us. guest: good to be with you. host: let me begin by showing you an excerpt of what the president said last night on the abc program in regards to how this program, these changes in health care will be paid. from the east room of the white house last night. >> if it was easy it would have been sold a long time -- solve the long time ago. we have been talking about how do we provide care that is high- quality, gives people choices and how can we come up with a uniquely american plan, because

one of the ideological debates that i think has prevented us from making progress is some people say this is socialized medicine and others say we need a completely free market system. we need to come up with something that is uniquely american. now, what i have said is that point if we are smart, we should be able to design a system where people still have choices of doctors and choices of plans, that makes sure that the necessary treatment is provided but that we don't have a huge amount of waste in the system appeared that we are providing adequate coverage for all people. and that we are driving down costs over the long term. if we don't drive down costs, we will not able to achieve all of those other things. host: eric cantor, a congressman from virginia, where is this legislation? guest: obviously it had a few speed bumps the last couple of

weeks. when we see the real cost of legislation beginning to come out, with the congressional budget office saying one hand, the senate finance bill costing $1.60 trillion and i am hearing estimates of a house bill of $3 trillion, it brings into the question this whole notion that we are going to be bringing down health-care costs. if you are looking to spend that kind of money, clearly money that we don't have common the main concern i think that most americans have about the notion of a government health care plan is that they won't have the ability to choose their doctor, they won't have the ability for their doctor to prescribe a certain procedure because it will all be dictated by washington. long term, the consequences are pretty evident that there will be tens of millions of people coming off of the plans that they have now that they like and having to go on to a government plan, which is exactly the opposite of what the president

begins every one of his statements about, that is, if you like what you have from you can keep it. it is not the case if you create a government plan. host: let me follow-up, because that seems to be the line of questioning as from republicans as they talk to christine romer and others. why is that not the case? why do you think you have a plan, you won't be able to keep it? guest: because if you have the government, as everyone i have spoken to in the administration has indicated, if you have a government plan the way they want to compete with the private sector, there is no way you have an even playing field. you can't have an even playing field if plants are operating in the states -- how can have a federal government has deregulated by the state? there is something i think counter to the constitution. you can't have a government plan to compete fairly with the private sector. and if that is the case, what you will do is see that the

government has unfair advantage, you will see many plans began to collapse and people being transferred or chased off of the plans they got, and then be forced into a plan only designed by the government and this town beginning to tell people what their health care coverage is going to look like. host: this morning " the new york times" preview a meeting between the president and some members of congress on the issue of immigration. this is an issue president bush tried to deal with in this -- his administration. will anything change? if so, what you want change? guest: right now, i don't care what your background is, from what country you have come to america in a legal way, where you live in this country, the number one priority is the economy. people are fearful are -- are fearful of their economic future. we've got to be focused on jobs. it confounds me as to how this

president, this administration, cannot seem to focus on priority one. in the house today, we are listening and watching speaker pelosi trying to man offense to get the votes she needs to pass a national energy tax. then have president meeting with members of immigration. let us try to address the number one issue. and you got already admissions by the white house that we are going to have 10 percent unemployment in this country. that is one out of every 10 families not having a paycheck at the end of the month. ought we not be focusing on that refers? that is my response. obviously we have plenty of other issues we need to deal with. at the end of the day, this president seems to be spending money that we don't have. and the consequences and cost of this agenda are beginning to impact people, and that is why you are seeing the polls and the american people wake up to the fact that they don't agree with the policies being promoted. host: one president obama says these are issues he has to deal

with because. -- when president obama says these are issues he has to deal with because he inherited it -- guest: i do not think the american people are in the blame game here. they want to say washington that will work together, leadership and not partnership. i think when you start to say, we inherited this, this is the other administrations faults -- ok, fine. if you wanted to finger- pointing, i think the american people are sick and tired of that and it won the liberals and results. host: congressman cantor has been the house for nine years. the republican line. guest: i don't understand why people think they deserve a free health care. i lived in a socialist country for five years. it is a joke. i had to diagnose mononucleosis for my son -- they never heard of it. it is frightening. we can't afford this.

we can't afford to be distracted from the cap and trade they are trying to do tomorrow. i'm very, very, very worried. that's it. guest: thank you from richmond. i share the concern that we are seeing an administration that lacks the focus on the number one priority we need to be about right now. and that is getting this economy back on track. host: is a health-care part of the comet? guest: sure, it is part of the economy. but if you don't have jobs, the way this health care system works, you are not going to have health care coverage because most people, as we know, get their health care from their jobs. in fact, 77% of americans. we ought to be focusing on, number one, the jobs. and, number two, if health care will be the cost factor in terms of businesses out there, we need to address and we need to implement reform because if we don't, you will have businesses

exiting the business of providing health-care coverage and then we will end up exactly where we don't want to end up, which is a government-imposed plan describing how people's coverage should look like an washington deciding which doctors and treatment you get. host: dawna has this comment from twitter. please ask him, what exactly is their plan, the republican plan in detail, and not just say what is wrong with the president's policies? guest: absolutely. the republican plan starts with the notion that we need to be patient-centered, we need the ability for choice. let us start with where this health care system is today. our plan says you got to provide more flexibility to employers who have already demonstrated the ability to bring down costs. so we address that by saying employers, especially those picked -- more flexibility to reward good behavior, to reward healthy living so you can bring down costs.

we also say that you ought to make sure that if you are going to have a plan of access for people uninsured, most of the people who are uninsured are uninsured because health care is too costly, so let's allow these individuals -- are plan says allow those individuals to access a larger pool of people, so small business, individuals can get into a much larger pool and insurance companies say the risk is then spread out over a lot more people and therefore you can bring down costs. so we want to have access for people to get into affordable coverage. our plan would subsidize those individuals, help them with their payments of a can have access to a basic plan. what we don't want is washington or any state government sitting there and saying you have to have the kind of plan that we say you have to have. that is where we have gone wrong in this country. we have gone wrong because the

government has said this is going to be the plan, the price that we pay providers, and so we tried to address this terrible price fixing going on through the government right now. where we say the best doctor gets paid the same as the worst dr. in this country. we are trying to address what is wrong with this system, tried to improve upon it and not go on to try to spend $1.60 trillion in this new, bloated government plan. that is money we don't have, and we will end of a system like we have in the u.k. and canada where people cannot seem to get sick to see a physician. they have to go without care. this country should never have to be put into that situation. host: there are three or four house committees drafting legislation and one is ways and means. our guests, congressman cantor

serves on the committee, a graduate of george washington university, got his law degree at william and mary and studied at columbia university. charlotte on the democrats' line from overtime, fla. -- boca raton, florida. are you still with us? caller: i would like to say what has gone wrong is we have relied on the insurance company is -- insurance companies for so long and that if you think that the insurance companies down the line are going to cooperate and keep people ensured who have prior health problems, i think that you have no credibility. and you talk about quality. if you can't afford health insurance were going to a doctor, what good is the quality

only for the wealthy? guest: let me try to address that. thank you for coming in. number one, you speak of individuals who have pre- existing conditions and the inability to get coverage. that is a huge problem beard most people i think right now arkansas -- huge problem. most people i think right now if they lose their jobs, they lose their coverage and as an individual they could not afford coverage on their own. which is exactly why the republican plan has in the flexibility so we can ensure that people don't lose their health care public -- coverage if they use -- lose their job. you all are so new -- are also right in saying if you cannot afford coverage, what am equality? we need to take up a prescription in washington that says every american has to have x y z coverage. what we need to do is provide a field of choice for people in terms of basic coverage. then we build of -- upon that

and create competition and choice for people so they can choose what they can afford and what their family needs. right now the problem is too many people in this country are going without insurance because it costs too much. it costs too much, number one, because the government is in the game of price fixing. we have a lot of cost shifting going on so it is being borne by the business is out there and the individuals who have to pay themselves, not the government. but also we have a situation where states and the federal government has said we are going to continue to raise the requirements of what a plan should look like. if we say, look, we've got to make sure people and not fearful of losing their life savings. think about it, if there is a father who has to spend his life savings trying to cure his sons of cancer, we can't let that individual do that and go into bankruptcy. the government needs to be the to step in into a situation like

that and help an individual who in that circumstance. so, we need to provide affordable access to coverage, and that really means basic coverage. you will not get there with a government plan. it is all about here is the design and with the plan needs to look like. host: our guest is the house republican whip. dean is on the phone from arizona. caller: how were you, john and? guest: the morning. what a cut thank you for c-span. -- thank you for c-span. thank you, mr. obama for the $80 billion he got out of the drug companies. i have talked to many a health care people that are out there that work inside hospitals. they are all for the new computers to take and give all -- download all of the patients informations. they think it is the best idea in the world as long as it does

not get into the public's hands. that is a big concern they do have. second of all, and you make a comment about canada, i happen to have a list 30 friends out in canada and they never had a problem getting to see a doctor right a white -- right away. have a nice day, and would like to hear your comments. guest:sure -- sure. first of all, the issue of privacy and health information technology is a real one. we want to make sure people have protection so their health information is not shared with those who don't need to see it. we've got laws and place, they need to be enforced. and as we continue to step toward gaining efficiency and cost in using information technology, you raise a very valid concern. as far as canada, i think maybe your anecdotal evidence is a different from the ones that pie

have seen. there is no question that the data indicates that in some of the systems, in the u.k. in particular, god forbid you are a woman who was diagnosed with breast cancer that somehow you would not be able to access treatment from three months to six months. in many instances, that is too late. no woman in this country should ever have to be denied coverage like that. in many instances, dean, the folks in canada are able to come into this country to get treatment that they need, and those are the kinds of stories i have heard. here in washington we are looking to try to bring experts and who have had a lot of experience with those programs. we need to take the time to make sure we understand the consequences of a government plan, and i am hopeful we will be able to do that in the next several weeks. host: another twist -- he is avoiding the issue of insurance companies. he did not answer the concern about insurance co. cooperation in health care changes. guest: first of all i will say to the tweeter --

host: do you twert? guest: i do. we do not expect insurance companies to cooperate -- my response is that both republicans plan has -- if someone does lose the job, they did not have to lose their health care and vacant ticket with us. you are right, we need to give more control to individuals so it is they who determine what kind of coverage they got. that is why the republican plan looks to provide individuals with the same incentives through the tax code to purchase and have health care coverage as we do to businesses right now. we have to move in that direction so that people can participate in choosing the kind of care that they can access. host: this next question is one that we have heard a lot over the last couple of weeks, from a viewer who asked, what senator kennedy, who we know is that

lange brain cancer, had access to all of the high-tech care if he were enrolled in his own plan? guest: that is, i think, the question of the day. there are many of us, steve, who think that if you put in place a government plan, you will not have the type of quality of care or choice of coverage the way that we have now, those who have coverage now. again, look at the cost of a kennedy plan. they are astronomical. we cannot afford in this country to provide those who make $110,000 a year with government subsidies. because if we do not have the revenues -- money we don't have. there are long term consequences for doing that on the economy, and when you have the government stepping in and saying we understand the procedures that best fit for every patient, we understand what pharmaceuticals and medicines need to be administered by doctors, that

says to the innovation and research out there that it is only going to be washington that has the ideas, it is only going to be washington that knows how to diagnose patients. that is so counter to what most americans know is the case, and that is the doctor-patient relationship is paramount. if we center on the patient and give credence to the fact that each individual patient and delivery of care is unique, we can't be controlling that here in washington. we have to allow for the flexibility and innovation for doctors to deliver the care they know the patient needs. host: if you are listening on c- span radio, our conversation is what house republican whip eric cantor from va. roses on the phone from phoenix. caller: i am calling to read a couple of little lines from my local newspaper, "the arizona republic, " dated sunday, june

14, regarding an aids drug. . it said the department of health services is slashing the number of free medications it provides too poor and uninsured hiv patients because it did not receive the level of federal funding it requested for its aids drug assistance program. the program has been in place since the mid-1990s, it will still cover the central antiviral that keep patients alive and fight infections, but beginning july 1 it will no longer pay for more than 130 drugs that help patients manage the side effects of their disease, drugs that have been cut from the coverage plan include pain relievers, antibiotics, medications that control chronic conditions such as diabetes and high cholesterol and drugs that treat anxiety and depression. most are common elements in hiv patients. so this is just proof that the

federal government does not help anyone, especially the poorest and sickest. guest: rose, let me respond to that because he raised the issue, i believe, but the government has at its disposal in order to control costs, and that is at the end of the day, begin to ration care because there is no history whatsoever in washington, phoenix, or what ever state capitol you want to name, no history that either party in government is able to adequately reduce costs. the only incidence of reduction and cost in delivery of health care has been existing in the private sector. in fact, i think it is the case that medicare has increased well over 34 percent every year higher than pick other health- care costs. so the government can't control costs. sully only way it can end up doing so -- so the only way it in and of doing so is reducing

the amount of care and what coverage is provided. that is the only way. there is no efficiency and innovation frankly that will come out of washington in delivery of health care, so your point is a very good one. host: this tweet from cats -- congressman, cobra is insane for most of the folks who wish to have continued health care after leaving a job with health insurance. guest: absolutely. it shows we have even added to the insanity of the increased costs of cobra coverage and others this year in congress. we have gone in the wrong direction. what we need to do is put patients back in charge. we need to be providing a subsidy for individuals, in the individual market, and not just businesses, to get out there and be able to choose what they need if they are put in a situation where they've got to access that type of coverage. again, it goes back to the republican plan. we have in the plan the ability for the individuals to participate with a larger group of people so the costs are

brought down and risks for insurance companies are brought down and they can have the ability to choose basic coverage for themselves. host: time for one more call, marcello from west haven, connecticut. caller: good morning, a gentleman. i will be 80 this november -- host: happy birthday. what a cut thank you. -- caller: thank you. i have been a registered democrat 21 cents. as far as i'm concerned, both parties seem to want to spend money, one plan or another, but if we go that -- go back, we started to control with the hmo 's. this year alone might hmo is going up $10 a month, the monthly pay. host: we will stop at that point

because we just have a minute or two left. guest: i think you are right. both parties want to spend money, that means government is always wanted to spend more money, money we don't have. and that is why we need to make sure we are providing the flexibility out there for working families and small businesses to do what they know and they know how to do best, which is to efficiently bring down costs in any way possible. there are those at the white house on the democrat side of the aisle who believe that government is the better provider for health care. there are those of us on the republican side of the aisle who believe a much more flexible, innovative situation could arise if we and our businesses and family is to make known decisions and ensure that you don't have a government bureaucracy making decisions for you. host: of p i know you are heading downstairs -- or

upstairs, msnbc, but they will likely ask you about the situation in south carolina did what is your response to gov. sanford as now former head of the republican governors association? guest: look, i think the people in this country rightfully hold their elected officials to higher standards. i think in his remarks yesterday, gov. sanford address that, he apologized. but i just have my thoughts and fears focused on his family right now. host: finally, if you were to run for president in 2012, what would you take into account, and have you thought? if he were to run for president? guest: not sure about the question there, i am not intending to run for president, -- host: your name has been mentioned. guest: of this country is facing -- whoever is the candid it on our side of the aisle -- and, you know, we as a party i think have now sort of position ourselves