here to question him, the washington examiner newspaper and long-time political reporter here in washington david lightman. congressman pence, as we tape this, the house is in the midst this, the house is in the midst of debating the energy bill.

>> do the republicans have an alternative? >> we do. i was privileged to charity working group that formulated the american energy act. it is available at gop.gov. we travel the country and unveiled the bill a number of weeks ago to generally favorable reviews. it is and all the above strategy that says yes to more domestic exploration for oil and natural gas. it creates a trust funds 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. we create a whole range of conservation incentives with in the tax laws that will encourage individuals and businesses to conserve energy in their use. it's the kind of all of the above strategy we believe is not only much more appealing to the american people but will serve the interests of our nation in the long term. >> most republicans are expected to vote against the bill today. if that is the case, do you run the risk of this major bill passing and getting a lot of press and republicans appearing as an obstructionist or following -- falling under the label of the "party of no." is there a risk of that? >> principled opposition always carries the risk of being misunderstood. but on this one, i had a town hall meeting in richmond, indiana this week.

it was a packed room with several hundred people. there was a broad understanding that this cap and trade legislation represents an national energy tax. in this difficult economic time, most americans know it is not the right course for the nation. they want to see congress deal with our energy challenges as much as health care and other issues. but they want to see a split policies toward that will make our economy stronger and weaker. is there a risk? yes. we will try and combat that by making our opposition based on principle and on the american economy. but we will also be articulating our alternative which is our all of the above strategy. 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 to a cleaner environment, to energy independence, and even create jobs, and it is by doing all of the above. >> one of the ongoing debates in the house and senate is cost to the average american household. you and i and other reporters have discussed this at that press conference. you continue to use this figure of $3,100 per household. the non-partisan congressional budget -- congressional budget office came in last night and said at $140 per household. your figure comes from a source at mit, although he has raised reservations about it. the congressional budget office is a credible source. how is the constituents opposed to sort this out? how can you explain how much this is going to cost without

sounding rapidly partisan? >> you can do that by quoting the president of the united states. president obama said in january of 2008 to the "san francisco chronicle" and i think i have it memorized -- he said if my cap and trade bill becomes law, utility rates would necessarily skyrocket. he said that will cost money and today, referring to utility companies, they would pass that along to consumers. so there is a debate over the amount of money. the congressional budget office said the gross increase to households would be $1,400. but they mitigated by the expectation that the government programs and revenues that would offset the. we have stuck with $3,100.

the heritage foundation projected more than four thousand dollars. but i prefer to stay where the president is -- utility rates would skyrocket, to use his phrase, and that would be passed along to consumers. my sense is most americans understand that and they know that, particularly in the midwest where we rely on more than 90% of our electricity in indiana coming from coal-burning power plants. testimony at one hearing 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. >> the speaker of the house has said repeatedly that consumers will not have to foot this bill. the consumer would be made whole. if that is the case, how can you claim there will be a big increase? >> the president said the utility rates would necessarily skyrocket. i am not putting words into his

mouth. i think he is right. to understand cap and trade, as near as i do, it is a regime intended to increase the cost of electricity particularly generated from traditional fossil fuel sources in order to drive the economy in the direction of alternative energy. that is the point of cap and trade. they tried to 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. again, there is this view, to your point, about the number and i do want to grant that. but there's not much dispute about the fact that low-cost, millions of american jobs, in the bill itself, 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 cannot remember in my eight and a half years in congress and the other legislation that actually included a fund to assist the americans who would be out of work if the legislation passed, at least at this magnitude. >> if we could move on to health care -- is being discussed in the senate as we speak. we will also soon see a major legislation discussed in july 2009. everybody is for health care for everybody. but how do we get there? >> i think that is the right question. i think everybody in congress is for health care reform. i have to admit to bristling a bit at a recent television commercials that say some people want to do these things, but

other people want to do nothing. the white house has been notorious since the first year in characterizing republicans as wanting to do nothing. we hear all lot of that and it is just not factual. republicans have been champion fundamental -- have been championing fundamental reform for his many years as i have been in congress. health savings accounts, where individuals and businesses could purchase high deductible policies and create a fund for their first dollar benefits. that could be greatly expanded. something called association health plan, which is a truly cooperative idea where you would allow associations of restaurants or various groups to pool their employees on a national basis so that they could have affordable insurance and a risk pool that would be

actuarial and competitive. what we do not need is to introduce a government-run option into our private health insurance system. i know there is 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. i think most americans, and i saw this at my town hall meeting on monday in richmond, if most americans understand that if the federal option became available to all americans that millions of americans would lose health insurance they have right now, not because the government would mandate that would lose it, but because millions of employers, seeing an available public option, would simply inform their employees we are no longer incurring the expense of offering health insurance. you can call the government to

get your health insurance. it would frankly 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 insurance and other businesses, so there would be even less private health insurance available today. we believe the answer is to strengthen private health insurance to encourage wallace and focus on cost, affordability and accessibility -- to encourage well less, and focus on cost, affordability and accessibility. >> in the senate, there is a bill that looks promising. is sort of bipartisan. it has at least one republican senator working on it and it would establish a cooperative, like when you're talking about. it is a national cooperative for health insurance, and it seems to be gaining popularity. what house republicans go for a

plan like that if it had a cooperativexjk[í;kkç[kuk+ozyn dollars establishing it? it starts with the help of the government. >> of the worry about that kind of a program is that it sounds an awful lot like fannie mae and freddie mac got started. the questions we would have is what is the government's ultimate obligation? he said the proposal is that billions of dollars would go when as a start up for a co-op, but there are no barriers in the law today with the exception of the state regulation of insurance laws, there is no barrier to americans pooling resources and creating association health plans as we proposed for many years. with the horrendous experience the american people have had with fannie mae and freddie mac, i think the last thing we want to do is model insurance

reform by creating some sort of hybrid between the federal government and private insurance that would probably alternately end up at the same place as a government-run option. >> talk about the government-run option. when i mention this to people, they say medicare works, medicaid generally works. so why not some kind of program that is more expensive? isn't medicare a model for what you would want to do? >> it is. let me say that if you think medicaid and medicare are working, i encourage you to sit down with a hospital administrator anywhere in the country today. the reality is when the government takes over an area, health care or any other area,

it is ultimately operating with scarce resources and rationing is the natural consequence of that. hospitals have been struggling for years with what is called the reimbursement rate that comes through this very same public system today where the hospital says the procedure costs this much and the federal government says that is fine. we will pay you this much. with regard to medicare, one of the reasons i think the overwhelming majority of seniors on medicare also have supplemental policies is because of the limited benefits available in a russian government system. we believe it is in the best interests of taxpayers -- in a rationed government system. we believe it is in the best interest for taxpayers not to do that. >> and you hear taxpayers say i

wish we did not have medicare to hear low income people saying i wish we don't have medicaid? >> no. i have the occasional senior tell me they would like to be a conscientious objector. until we have as much gray hair as i do, you don't realize you don't have a choice. he reached the age of enrollment and you are enrolled. so people want us to support the systems and have supported the systems, but they also recognize that we are running a two trillion dollars annual deficit this year. we have doubled the national debt under the last administration and scheduled to triple the national debt in the next 10 years. most americans i serve know that we can solve these problems not on the backs of the treasury and taxpayers, but by bringing greater competition and dynamism, greater choice to the private health insurance companies. >> if people think medicare

works, why not use that model to ensure to offer coverage to everyone? >> i'm not sure medicare has a lot of boosters among the seniors i talk to. i think the fact that the overwhelming majority of seniors in this country purchase supplemental health insurance policies gives evidence that the marketplace says what medicare offers is fine, but it is not enough. i do believe that most americans know, and if 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, index itself as a force to the private health insurance economy, and every cent it will be the only option americans have and once the federal government is your only

option, you will find yourself being told what procedures the government will or will not pay for, what dr. you are going to see, what health care institution you will be able to visit, and that is the kind of rationing i think is anathema to the american people. it is unnecessary. 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 "newsmakers" on c- span. our guest is congressman mike pence of indiana. you are the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee. are you satisfied with the u.s. response to what is happening in iran? >> i very much welcome 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 perpetrated by the government of iran. i also appreciated the president and his words bearing witness to the courage of the people of iran who have taken to the streets on behalf of their own freedom in free and fair elections. i was privileged to work with my democratic colleagues on the foreign affairs committee, the chairman, in offering a house resolution that garnered four hundred five votes on the previous friday. it expressed the sentiments the president expressed at the podium on tuesday. i truly believe what we are seeing happening on the streets of iran is extraordinary.

people are taking to the streets, risking their liberty and their lives on behalf of freedom. the american cause is freedom. it always has been and always will be. in that cause, we must never be neutral, never hesitate to provide moral and rhetorical support to people taking a stand for their fundamental freedoms and human rights. i was pleased to see the president take that much stronger stand. >> what is the effect of a resolution? >> our hope was the resolution that unanimously passed in the senate with the same language and almost unanimously passed in the house was the resolution, in combination with a resolution that passed the european union on the same day, would give encouragement to people on the streets in iran to know that the

world, as the president said, is watching and taking note. my hope is that indirectly a it would have sent the same message to the tyrants in iran who have used violence in what has been a horrific brutality against their own people to affect what was clearly a fraudulent outcome of the election. i would like to see the united nations security council be prompted to take action. i like to see further economic sanctions, but i thought it was important that, as the president took a posture in the first few days, to use his phrase of not meddling, 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. my hope it was -- my hope is that it was encouragement. >> one of the biggest stories this week was mark sanford of south carolina. he is under a lot of pressure to step down over the admission he had an affair and was traveling out of the country to visit his mistress? should he resign or not and if so why? >> i was in south carolina a year ago speaking to a large republican gathering there. i know the governor as a friend and i know a great number of people there. i am sure that he and leadership in the state legislature will do the right thing at the right time. >> you have been known to say you not be alone with a female staff member just for propriety sake. has this damaged the republican party along with the admission from senator ensign?

>> the old book tells us that righteousnesses exults a nation so the opposite is probably true when we see disappointments by people in either political party in local office or national. been agreed to the heart of the nation. america is about family. we are a nation of devoted has been some lives. we hold up the ideal of the american family and any time we see that rupture, it grieves the heart of the country. as to how that bears upon one political party or another, i have to leave 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. >> do you think the governor 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 the governor 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 sanford and knowing the republican leadership in south carolina, that people will do the right thing at the right time. >> let's go to another topic. earlier this month, the senate

voted to apologize for slavery. the house took a similar voice vote last year. do you agree? should the government apologize for slavery and should there be reparations? >> i do not believe there should be reparations. i say with a heavy heart as a student of american history that preparations were paid, as abraham lincoln said, in the lives of 600,000 americans who fell on both sides in the civil war. his stirring words that if the horrors of war had to continue until every drop of blood drawn by the slave masters lash is matched by one drawn in battle may well have been precisely true. in terms of the justice served

in the civil war. and i understand a great sensitivity of many in the african-american community about that time, but i have great confidence that african- americans, like all americans, looking no further than the oval office of the united states of america and looking at the opportunities 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 of the past and i think discussions of reparations or apologies that to not acknowledge the extraordinary sacrifice made by americans to end slavery is not productive. should the government apologize?

again, i believe the willingness of americans to lay their sons down in a civil war and the grief that ensued for virtually every american family of 600,000 american lives spence -- spent in savings of this -- >> the final question. >> if it came to the floor for a vote, would you vote for or against it? it with -- if the same resolution, just with the apology came through? >> i am a supporter -- i supported the react -- the reauthorization of the voting rights act. the civil rights act of 1964 was the greatest legislative accomplishment of the 20's -- of

between century. i supported the d.c. voting bill and voted on extending representation to the largely minority community of the district of columbia. as any community in my district knows, i have a heart for the african-american community. i would like to see the republican party when back -- the republican party win back the affection and confidence of black america before -- between reconstruction and the new deal, at just about every african- american in this country was a republican. jack kemp top that and i became very close friends with him during the course of his life. i am a jack kemp republican. let me say that i would not -- i would want to see language on a

resolution -- i would not want to ultimately do anything that would suggest i was insensitive to the historic plight of the african-american community in this country, by a i do believe looking backwards, the discussion of reparations and apologies, without acknowledgment of the sacrifices that have been made to advance the interests of african- americans both legislatively and in the civil war, the extraordinary costs don't necessarily contribute to the better angels of our nature. i think we have a long way to go to achieve the ideal of equality of opportunity in this country, we have come a long way toward a more perfect union and we ought to always acknowledge

that. >> the house gop conference member, mike pence has been our guest this week. we will be back with our reporters. >> which political position are the republicans and right now? >> frustrated. if they don't have the numbers. democrats in congress and the white house know they can get things done without him. if it was very telling last week when the senate majority leader was asked to define bipartisanship on health care because four weeks we have heard the democrats want 70 or 80 votes to pass health care because it is so broad and all encompassing. but he said i will call a bipartisan if i can get 34 republicans. after all, democrats control 59 senate votes and 258 house votes -- you will have to check me on that -- they don't need mike pence the republicans at this mike and others know it. they're