progress. they'll talk about congress, the white house, the influence of media on politics. we'll talk with peter brooks of the heritage foundation. the topic will be weapons of mass destruction. also jerry herbert will be along. topic, congressional redricting. hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. we'll see you back here tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> mike pence is our guest. he will be here to talk about the agenda and issues facing them. congressman pence, if i could start as we're taping this the house is in the midst of debating the energy bill. if it passes, in your view, what is the outcome?

>> sadly, and thank you for having me on. if the cap and trade legislation were to become law, the net effect would be very little benefit to the environment and the loss of millions of american jobs. the american people i think want congress to deal with our energy challenges and they want us to set a course for energy independence, for a cleaner environment. but they want us to do it in a way to make our country and economy stronger, not weaker. unfortunately, this bill amounts to a national energy tax that will raise the cost of energy to every american household. and while the number of how much impact will be for household will be disputed, very little dispute that this bill will cost millions of american jobs. >> do the republicans have an alternative? >> we do. i was privelenled to chair the

working group among house republicans that formulated the american energy act. it's available at g.o.p..gov. and we traveled the country with hearings and unveiled the bill a number of weeks ago to generally favorable reviews. it's an all of the above strategy that says, yes, to more domestic exploration for oil and naltralt gas. it creates a renewable energy trust fund using those lease revenues to subsidize and encourage the development of solar and wind and alternative technologies. we call for 100 new nuclear power plants to be constructed in the next 20 years. and then we create a whole range of conservation incentives within the tax laws that will encourage individuals and businesses to conserve energy in their use. so it's the kind of all of the above strategy that we believe is not only much more appealing to the american people but

ultimately will serve the interest of our nation in the long term. >> if i could follow up. most republicans are expected to vote against the bill today -- friday. and if that is the case, do you run the risk of this major bill passing, getting lots of press, and republicans appearing as obstructionists, or as, the "party of no"? >> principle opposition always carries the risk of being misunderstood. but i have to tell you, i had a town hal meeting in richmond, indiana monday this week. packed room, several hundred people came out. and there was a very broad understanding that this cap and trade legislation represents a national energy tax. and in this difficult economic time, i think most viewers and most americans know this is not the right course for our

nation. they want to see congress deal with our energy challenges just as much as health care, just as much as other issues. but they want to see us put first and foremost policies forward that will make our economy stronger and not weaker. so is there a risk? yes. we'll try and combat that by making our position based on principle and on the american economy. but we'll also be articulating our alternative, which are -- our all of the above strategy. which every time i talk about that in indiana or elsewhere around the country, it is met with overwhelming approval. the american people know how we can steer a course toward a cleaner environment to energy independence and even create jobs. and it's by doing all of the above. >> one of the ongoing debates in the house and senate is cost to the average american

household. now, we, you and i and other reportors have discussed this at press conferences. you continue to use this figure of 3100 per household. >> right. >> the nonpartisan congressional budget office came in, and it's not an apples to apples comparison, and said, no, $140 per household. your figure comes from a source at m.i.t. congressional budget office certainly is a credible source. how is the constituent supposed to sort this out? how can you explain in lay terms how much it's going to cost without sounding partisan? >> i think you can do that by quoting the president of the united states. president obama said as a candidate in january of 2008 to the san francisco chronical, and i think i've about got it memoriesed, but forgive me if i don't. the president said, if my cap and trade bill becomes law,

utility rates would, quote, necessarily squyrokt. he said that will cost money -- sky rockette. >> and they, referring to the utility companies, they will pass that along to consumers. so there is a debate over the amount of money. the c.b.o. actually said the gross increase in energy cost to households is $1,400. but they mitigated that by the expectation that there would be government programs and revenues that would offset that. we've stuck with the $3,100 number the heritage foundation projected more than $4,000. but i prefer to stay where the president is, that utility rates would necessarily sky rocket, and that would be passed along to consumers. and most americans understand that, they know that particularly, if i may say, in the midwest where we rely more than 90% of our electricity in

indiana comes from coal burning power plants. and testimony at one field hearing that we had from richmond power and light suggested a 40% increase in home electric utility rates overnight if the cap and trade bill became law. >> speaker plosei has said that consumers will not have to foot this bill. in her words, that the consumer will be made whole. if that's the case, how can you claim that there will be this big increase? >> well, again, the president said utility rates would necessarily sky rocket. i'm not putting words into his mouth. and i think he's right. because to understand cap and trade as near as i do, it is a regime that is intended to increase the cost of particularly electricity that is generated from traditional folve fuel sources in order to

drive the economy in the direction of alternative energy. that's kind of the point of cap and trade. now, they try and mitigate that by creating a marketplace where people can swap credits and allowances. but the point is to raise the cost of producing energy in the utilization of traditional resources. so, but again, there is dispute to your point, david, about the number. and i want to grant that. buzz there's really not much dispute about the fact that in will cost million of american jobs. the bill itself, the democrats included an enormous amount of money to go to americans who would lose their jobs as a result of the cap and trade legislation passing into law. i can't remember in my eight and a half years in congress any other legislation that actually included a fund to assist the americans who would be out of work for, if the

legislation passed, at least of this magnitude. >> if we could move on to other topics. health care is being discussed in the senate as we speak also. we'll soon be the major, major legislation discussed in july of 2009, congressman. everybody is for health care for everybody. but how do we get there? >> well, i think it's the right question. and also, let me also say, i think everybody in congress is for health care reform. i have to admit to bristling a bit at recent television commercialses that say that some people want to do these things but then there's other people that want to do noggetteds. and the white house has been a little notorious at characterizing republicans as wanting to do nothing. and we hear a lot of that and it's just not factual. republicans have been champning fundamental reform of our

private health insurance system for as many years as i've been in congress. health savings accounts where individuals and businesses could purchase high deductible policies, create a fund for their first dollar benefits, could be greatly expanded. also, something called association health plans, which is a truly cooperative idea where you would allow associations of, say, restaurants or various groups, to pool their employees on a national basis so they could have fauferedable insurance and a risk pool that would be actuarial competitive. what we don't need is to introduce a government-run option into our private health insurance system. i know there's a lot of talk about competition, and americans love competition. and i do, too. but the federal government

competes with the private sector the way an alligator competes with a duck. it consumes it. and i think most americans -- and i saw this at my town hall meeting in richmond monday. most americans understand that if the federal option became available to all americans, that millions of americans would lose the health insurance that they have right now. not because the government would manned thate that they would lose it but because millions of employers seeing an available public option would simply inform their employees, we're no longer incurring the expense of offering health insurance. you can call the government. and frankly it would be accelerated by the fact that we believe many health insurance companies, seeing the inability to compete with uncle sam, would simply invest in other types of businesses. and there would be even less private health insurance than today. we believe the answer is to strengthen our private health

insurance system, to encourage wellness, to focus on cost, affordability and accessibility, but not take us down the road of essentially socialized medicine where the government becomes the insurer of last resort for every american. >> in the senate there is a bill that's looking promising. it's sort of bipartisan. right now it's got at least one senator, a republican, senator grassley working on it. it would establish a cooperative but it's a national cooperative for health insurance. and that seems to be gaining popularity. would house republicans go for a plan like that if it had a cooperative that is nationally run, 3 to 4 billion in startup money from the government, has a government board overseeing it? is that something you could go for? it's not government run, it's a cooperative but starts with the help of a government. >> the worry is it sounds an

awful lot like the way fannie mae and freddie mac got started. the question is what is the federal government's ultimate obligation? you said there's a proposal that billions of dollars would go in as a startup for a co-op. but really, there's no barriers in the law today with the exception of state regulation of insurance laws, there's no barrier to americans pooling resources and creating association health plans as we proposed for many years. i have to tell you, with the horrendous experience the american people have had with fannie mae and freddie mac, i think the last thing we would want to do is model insurance reform by creating some sort of a hybrid between the federal government and private nurens that would probably ultimately end up at the same place of a government run option. >> talk about -- i want you to talk about the government run option in this light. when i mention this to people,

they say, well, medicare works. medicaid generally works. so why not some kind of program that's more expansive? isn't medicare a model for what you would want to do? >> well, it is. and let me say if you think medicaid and medicare are working, i really encourage you to go sit down with a hospital administer anywhere in the country today. the reality is when the government takes over an area, health care or any other area, ultimately it's operating with scarce resources, and rationing is the natural consequence of that. hospitals, at i heard at reed memorial hospital at richmond, indiana this week, hospitals have been for years struggling with what's called reimbursement rate that comes through those very same public systems today, where the hospital says the procedure

costs us this much and the federal government says, well, that's fine. we'll pay you this much. and with regard to medicare, one of the reasons why i think the overwhelming majority of seniors who are on medicare also have supplemental policies is, again, because of the limited benefits that are available in a rationed government system. we really believe that it's in the best interest of taxpayers and in the best interest of our health care economy to preserve that private health insurance. >> but even in your district do you hear seniors say i wish we didn't have medicare? do you hear lower income say i wish we didn't have medicaid? >> gosh, know. i hear several tell me they would like to be a contion shs objector to medicare. until you get as much gray hair ooze i do, you don't have a choice. when you reach the age of

enrollment, you're enrolled. so, no, people want us to support these systems and i've supported these systems. but they also recognize that we're running a $2 trillion annual deaf sit they year alone. we've doubled the national debt under the last administration. we're scheduled to triple the national debt in the next ten years. most americans that i serve know that we can solve these problems not on the backs of the treasury and on the backs of taxpayers, but by bringing greater competition, greater choice to the private health insurance companies. >> if people think medicare works, why not use that model to offer coverage to everybody? >> i'm not sure that medicare has a lot of boosters among the seniors that i talk to. i think the fact that the

overwhelming majority of seniors in this country purchase supplemental health insurance policy gives evidence that the marketplace is saying that what medicare offers is fine but it's not enough. and -- but i really do believe that most americans know, and you look at the experience in canada and great britain, most americans know that if the federal government, even as an option in the beginning, injects itself as a force into the private health insurance economy, that very soon that will be the only option americans have. and that once the federal government is your only option for health insurance, then you're going to find yourself being told what procedures the government will or won't pay for, what doctor you're going to see, what health care institution you're going to be able to visit. that's the kind of rationing that i think is anets ma to the american people. and it's unnecessary. we're we can close the gap of

the uninsured in this country, and we can address the issues of cost and accessibility of health insurance through strengthening the private marketplace, not by strengthening the government's hand. >> this is c-span's "newsmakers" program. house g.o.p. conference chairman mike pence is our guest. congressman, you are also the ranking member on the foreign affairs middle east sque. are you satisfied with the u.s. response to what's happening in iran? >> let me say i very much welcomed the president taking to the podium earlier this week and expressing the very strong denunciation of the united states of america for the violence being perpetrate d by the government of iran. and i also appreciated the president, his words now, bearing witness to the courage of the people of iran who have

taken to the streets on behalf of their own freedom and free and fair eleckses. i was privileged to work with my democrat colleague on the foreign affairs committee, the chairman, howard bermen, in autsdzurg a house resolution that garnered 405 votes on the previous friday. and it very expressed the sentiments that the president expressed at the podium tuesday. i just, i truly believe that what we're seeing happening on the streets of iran is extraordinary, that people that are taking to the streets, risking their liberty and their lives, on behalf of freedom. and the american cause is freedom. always has been, always will be. and in that cause we must never be neutral. we must never hesitate to provide moral and rhetorical

support to people who are taking a stand for their fundamental freedoms and fundamental human rights. and i was pleesed to take the president take that much stronger stand tuesday. >> what is the effect of a resolution? >> our hope was that the resolution, it unanimously passed in the senate, the same language and almost unanimously passed in the house, that that resolution, in combination with coincidently, a resolution that passed the european union the same day last friday, would give encouragement to people that are on the streets in iran to know that the world as the president has said, the world is watching. and taking note. and my hope is indirectly that it would have stent same message to the tirntse in tehran who have used vilents and what has been the horrific images that have made their way out of the country, brutality

against their own people to effect what clearly was a fraudulent outcome of the election. i'd like to see the u.n. security council be prompted to take action. i would like to see further economic sanctions. but i thought it was important that as the president took a posture in the first few days of, to use his phrase, not medling, i thought it was important that the people's house step forward and unambiguously express our support for the dissidents in iran and unambiguously denounce the violence. and my hope is it was an encouragement. >> there's a lot of news this week, but one of the big stories was mark sanfrd of south carolina. he is in a lot of pressure to step down. should he resign if? if not, why not?

if so, why? >> i was in south carolina about a year ago speaking to a large republican gathering there. i know the governor as a friend, and i know a great number of leaders there. and i'm sure he and the leadership in the state legislature will all do the right thing at the right time. >> congressman, you've been known no say that you will not be alone with a female staff member just for proprietary sake. has this damaged the republican party along with senator ensign's admission? >> well, i think the old book tells us righteousness capaults a nation. so the opposite is probably always true when we see disappointments by people in either political party and local offices or national offices. i know it grieves the heart of the nation. america is about family.

we are a nation of devoted husband and wives. we hold up the ideal of the american family. and any time we see that ruptur it grieves the heart of the count rifplt as to how that bears upon one political party or another, i have to believe that the american people are fair minded. they know that people in public life in both parties can make fundamental human error. and i don't know that they draw conclusions about political movements or political agendas or parties based on the errors of one individual or another. >> and just to follow up on susan's question. do you think that governor sanford should resign? >> as i said, i have every confidence that both the

governor and the republican leadership in south carolina will do the right thing. if that means governor sanford can continue his duties as governor, then so be it. but if it is apparent that it would be more appropriate for the people of south carolina to do otherwise, i just have every confidence knowing mark sanfrd and knowing the republican leadership in south carolina that people will do the right thing at the right time. >> take you to another topic. earlier this month the senate voted to apologize for slavery. the house took a similar vote last year, voice vote. do you agree, should government apologize for slavery? should there be reparations? >> well, i don't believe there should be reparations. i say with a heavy heart as a student of american history

that reparations were paid as lincoln said, in the lives of 600,000 americans who fell on both sides in the civil war. lincoln's stirring words, that if the horrors of war had to continue until every drop of blood drawn by the slave master's lash is matched by one drawn in battle. may well have been precisely true in terms of the justice that was served in the civil war. but, you know, i understand the great sensitivity of many in the african american community about that time. but i also -- i have great confidence that african americans, like all americans, looking no further than the

oval office of the united states of america, looking at the opportunities that have been provided to african americans on a widening basis over the last 50 years in this country, would see the wisdom of moving on from dwelling on those moments in the past. and i think that discussions of reparations are apologies that don't acknowledge the extraordinary sacrifice that was made by americans to end slavery is not productive. should the government apologize? well, again, i believe that the willingness of americans to lay their sons down in the civil war and the grief that ensued for virtually every american family with 600,000 american lives that were spent in ending

slavery on this continent was probably recompence enough. >> that means no. >> final question. >> first to follow up on that. if it came to the floor for a vote, you would vote for or against it? if the same resolution came forward just with the apology similar to what's already gone through? >> well, look, i am a supporter of -- and i supported the reauthorization of the voting rights act. i think the civil rights act of 1964 was the greatest legislative accomplishment of the 20th century. i even support the d.c. voting bill, which was -- and continue to support extending representation to the largely minority community of the district of columbia. i have, as the community in my district knows, i have a heart for the african american community. i would like to see the

republican party win back the affection and the confidence of black america. before the new deal, in between reconstruction and the new deal, just about every african american in this country was a republican. jack kemp taught me that, and i became very close friends during the course of his life. and i'm a jack kemp republican. so let me say i would not -- i would want to see language on a resolution. i would not want to ultimately do anything that would suggest that i was insensitive to the historic plight of the african american community in this country. but i do believe that the but i do believe that the looking backwards, the