C-SPAN/NEWSMAKERS

Host: Peter Slen

Guest: Mike Pence, House GOP Conference Chairman

Reporters: Susan Ferrechio, David Lightman

PETER SLEN, HOST, CSPAN NEWSMAKERS: This week on Newsmakers, House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence is our guest. He’ll be here to talk about the Republican agenda and other issues that are being confronted in the House of Representatives.

Here to question him, Susan Ferrechio, of the Washington Examiner Newspaper, and long-time political reporter here in Washington David Lightman, now with McClatchy Newspapers.

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?

MIKE PENCE, (R-IN) HOUSE GOP CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN: Well, sadly – and thank you for having me on – sadly, I think 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. They want us to set a course for energy independence for a cleaner environment, but they want us to do it in a way that will make our country and our economy stronger, not weaker. And unfortunately this bill amounts to a national energy tax that will raise the cost of energy to every American household. And while that – the number of how much impact will be – per household is disputed, there’s really very little dispute that this bill will cost millions of American jobs.

SLEN: Do the Republicans have an alternative?

PENCE: We do. I was privileged to chair the working group among House Republicans that formulated the American Energy Act. It’s available at GOP.gov. And we’ve 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 natural 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.

SUSAN FERRECHIO, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: If I could follow up on that. Most Republicans are expected to vote against the bill today, Friday. And if that is the case, do you run the risk of you know this major bill passing, getting lots of press, and Republicans appearing as obstructionists or falling under the label that the Democrats like to us every day, which is the party of no. Is there a risk in that for you all to vote against this bill?

PENCE: Well, I think principled opposition always carried the risk of being misunderstood. But on this one I have to tell you, I had a town hall meeting in Richmond, Indiana, Monday this week. Packed room, several hundred people came out. And there was a – 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 most Hoosiers and most Americans know it’s 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 opposition based on principle and on the American economy. But we’ll also be articulating our alternative, which are all of the above strategy, which I – every time I talk about that, in Indiana or elsewhere around the country, it is met with overwhelming approval. The American people how we can steer a course through a cleaner environment to energy independence and even create jobs. And it’s by doing all of the above.

DAVID LIGHTMAN, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: One of the ongoing debates in the House and Senate – and you've addressed this quite a bit – is cost to the average American household. Now, we – you and I and other reporters have discussed this at press conferences. You continue to use this figure of I believe 3,100 per household.

PENCE: Right.

LIGHTMAN: OK. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office came in last week – and granted it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, but close – and said, no, $140 per household. Your figure comes from a source at MIT, although he’s raised reservations about it. 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 rabidly partisan?

PENCE: Well, I think you could do that by quoting the President of the United States. President Obama said as a candidate in January of 2008 to the San Francisco Chronicle – and I think I’ve about got it memorized, but forgive me if I don't – and the President said if my cap and trade bill becomes law, he said utility rates would “necessarily skyrocket.” He said that will cost money and they, referring to the utility companies, “they would pass that along to consumers.”

So, you know, there is a debate over the amount of money. The CBO actually said the gross increase in energy cost to households was $1,400. But they mitigated that by the expectation that there would be government programs and government revenues that would offset that. We’ve stuck with a $3,100 number. The Heritage Foundation projected more than $4,000. But I prefer just to stay where the President is, that utility rates would necessarily skyrocket, to use his phase, and that that would be passed along to consumers. And my sense is most of Americans understand that, they know that particularly I may say in the Midwest where we rely more than 90 percent of our electricity in Indiana comes from coal burning power plants. And testimony at one field hearing that we had from Richmond Power & Light suggested a 40 percent increase in home electric utility rates overnight if the cap and trade bill became law.

LIGHTMAN: Speaker Pelosi has said repeatedly that consumers will not have to flip this bill, that – in her words I believe – that the consumer will be made whole. If that’s the case, how can you claim that there will be this big increase?

PENCE: Right. Well, again, the President said utility rates would necessarily skyrocket. 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 of electricity that is generated from traditional fossil fuel sources in order to drive the economy in the direction of alternative energies. 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. But there’s really not much dispute about the fact that this will cost millions of American jobs. In 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 at this magnitude.

SLEN: If we could move on to other topics. Health care is being discussed in the Senate as we speak also. Will 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?

PENCE: 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 commercials that say that some people want to do these things, but then there’s other people that want to do nothing. And the White House has been a little notorious since the first of the year in characterizing Republicans as wanting to do nothing. And we hear a lot of that, and it’s just not factual.

Republicans have been championing 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, you know, various groups to pool their employees on a national basis so they could have affordable insurance and a risk pool that would be – that would be actuarially 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 what’s wrong – 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 – 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 mandate 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 to get your health insurance. And, frankly, it would also 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. And there would be even less private health insurance available today.

We believe the answer is to strengthen our private health insurance system, to encourage wellness, to focus on cost, on 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.

FERRECHIO: Speaking of that. In the Senate there is as 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. And it would establish a cooperative like the one you're talking about. It’s a national cooperative for health insurance. And that seems to be gaining popularity in the Senate. Would House Republicans go for a plan like that if it had a – a cooperative that’s nationally run, it’s got three to four billion in start-up money from the government, it’s got a government board overseeing it. Is that something you could go for? Because it’s not government run, it’s a cooperative, but it starts with the help of the government.

PENCE: Well, the worry about that kind of a program is it sounds an awful lot like the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got started. The questions that we would have is what is the federal government’s ultimate obligation. We said there’s a proposal that billions of dollars would go in as a start-up for a coop. 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.

And 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 insurance that would probably ultimately end up at the same place of a government run option.

LIGHTMAN: 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? I mean, isn’t Medicare a model for what you would want to do?

PENCE: 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. I mean, the reality is when the government takes over and area, whether it’s health care or any other area, ultimately it’s operating with scare resources and rationing is the natural consequence of that. Hospitals, as I heard at Reed Memorial Hospital in Richmond, Indiana, this week, hospitals have been for years struggling with what’s called a 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.

LIGHTMAN: But even in your district, do you hear seniors say, gee, I wish we didn't have Medicare? Do you hear lower income, elderly, et cetera say I wish we didn't have Medicaid?

PENCE: Oh, gosh, no. I mean, I have the occasional senior who tells me they'd like to be a conscientious objector to Medicare. You know? Until you've got as much gray hair as me you generally don't realize you don't have a choice on Medicare. When you've reached the age of enrollment, you're enrolled. And so, no, people want us to – people want us to support these systems and I’ve supported these systems. But they also recognize that this you know, we’re running a $2 trillion annual deficit this year alone, we’ve doubled the national debt under the last administration, we’re scheduled other triple the national debt in the next 10 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 dynamism, greater choice to the private health insurance economy.

LIGHTMAN: If I could just ask. If people think Medicare works, why not use that model to ensure – to offer coverage to everybody?

PENCE: Well, I think – I'm not – I'm not sure that Medicare has a lot of boosters among the seniors that I’ve talked 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 when 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 anathema to the American people. And it’s unnecessary. We can close the gap with 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.

SLEN: This is CSPAN’s Newsmakers program. House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence is our guest. Susan Ferrechio’s with the Washington Examiner, David Lightman with the McClatchy Newspaper Group.

Congressman, you are also the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Middle East Subcommittee. Are you satisfied with the U.S. response to what’s happening in Iran?

PENCE: Well, 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 perpetrated 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 elections. I was privileged to work with my Democrat colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the chairman, Howard Berman (ph), in authoring a House resolution that garnered 405 votes on the previous Friday. And it very much 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. People that are taking the street, 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 that are taking the stand for their fundamental freedoms and fundamental human rights. And I was pleased to see the President take that much stronger stand Tuesday.

SLEN: What is the effect of a resolution?

PENCE: Well, our hope was that the resolution that – it unanimously passed in the Senate, the same language, and almost unanimously passed in the House – that that resolution in combination with coincidentally 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 sent the same message to the tyrants in Tehran who have used violence in what you know, what has been the horrific images that have made their way out of the country, brutality against their own people to affect what clearly was a fraudulent outcome of the election.

I’d like to see the UN Security Council be prompted to take action, I’d like to see you know 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 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. And my hope is it was an encouragement.

FERRECHIO: I'm going to change the subject. There’s a lot of news this week, but one of the big stories was Mark Sanford, of South Carolina. He’s under a lot of pressure right now to step down over the admission that he had an affair and was traveling out of the country to visit his mistress. Should he resign? If not, why not. If so, why?

PENCE: I'm – 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.

SLEN: Congressman, you've been known to say that you will not be alone with a female staff member just for propriety sake. Has this damaged the Republican Party along with Senator Ensign’s (ph) admission?

PENCE: Well, I think you know, the old book tells us righteousness exalts a nation. And so the opposite is probably always true. When we see disappointments by people in either political party, in local offices or national offices, I know it grieves the heart of the nation. America is about family. We are – we are a nation of devoted husbands and wives. 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 believe 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 – based on the errors of one individual or another.

SLEN: And just to follow up on Susan’s question. Do you think that Governor Sanford should resign?

PENCE: Well, as I said, I'm – I have every confidence that both the governor and the Republican leadership in South Carolina will do the right thing. If that – 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 – 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.

LIGHTMAN: Let me take you to another topic in the time we have left. Earlier this month the Senate voted to apologize for slavery. The House took a similar vote last year, voice vote. Do you agree? Should the government apologize for slavery, should there be reparations?

PENCE: Well, I don't believe there should be reparations. I say with a heavy heart as a study 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 I 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 – on a widening basis over the last 50 years in this country, you know, would see the wisdom of moving on from dwelling on those moments in the past. And I think that discussions of reparations or apologies that don't acknowledge the extraordinary sacrifice that was made by Americans to end slavery is not productive.

LIGHTMAN: Should the government apologize?

PENCE: Well, again, I believe that the willingness of Americans to lay their – 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 is probably recompense enough.

LIGHTMAN: That means no.

SLEN: Susan Ferrechio, final question.

FERRECHIO: Well, a follow-up. The first follow-up on that. Does that mean that if it came to the floor for a vote, I would – you would vote for or against it. If the same resolution came forward, just with the apology, similar to what’s already gone through.

PENCE: Well, look, I you know, I'm 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 20^th century. I even support the D.C. voting bill and was the – and continue to support extending representation to the largely minority community of the District of Columbia.

I have a – as the community in my district knows, I have a heart for the African-American community. I’d like to see the Republican Party win back the affection and the confidence of black America. You know, 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. He 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 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 looking backwards, the discussion of reparations, the discussion of apologies, without an acknowledgment of the sacrifices that have been made to advance the interest of African-Americans, both legislatively and in the Civil War, the extraordinary cost, don't necessarily contribute to the better angels of our nature. I think we’ve got a long way to go to achieve that ideal of equality of opportunity in this country, but we’ve come a long way toward a more perfect union. And I think we always ought to acknowledge that.

SLEN: House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence has been our guest this week on Newsmakers. We’ll be right back with our reporters.

David Lightman, what political position are the Republicans in right now?

LIGHTMAN: Frustrated. They don't have the numbers. Democrats in Congress, and for that matter the White House, know they can get things done without them. It was very telling last week when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked to in effect define bipartisanship on health care. Because for weeks we’ve heard that Democrats want 70-80 votes to pass health care, because it’s so broad and it’s so all encompassing. And Senator Reid said I’ll consider it bipartisan if I can get three or four Republicans. That’s it. And after all, Democrats control 59 Senate votes and I believe 258 House votes. You have to check me on that. They don't need Republicans at this point. Mike Pence and the others know it, they're putting out proposals, to their credit, they're putting out detailed ideas. But I'm not sure anybody’s listening.

FERRECHIO: But they also have the strategy of handing it all to the Democrats saying you own this bill. So if it falls flat, they can later use it as a political weapon when the 2010 midterm elections comes up. Now that is exactly what they're intending to do with the energy bill and with potentially health care as well. With the energy bill, if it does raise energy rates and people are still without jobs and the economy is still not doing well, that can be a really, a really powerful thing for the Republicans to harness to use against the Democrats and maybe recapture a few seats. And that’s really how the political machine works. You you know every election you try to pick up a few more seats. This could be a strategy that really works for them, by not participating in voting for any of the Democratic initiatives.

SLEN: Any chance that 2010 could be 1994 again?

LIGHTMAN: Tell me what the gross domestic product is in the second and third quarter next year and I’ll tell you how many seats Democrats are going to win or lose.

SLEN: Really?

LIGHTMAN: Go back to 1982. Ronald Reagan at this point, June/July of 1981, was riding high. He would end up getting his 25 percent tax cut just before the August recess. The recession kept on going. In fact, it got worse. Unemployment I believe hit almost 11 percent later that year. 1982 midterm elections I believe Democrats won 26 House seats. Republicans continued to control the Senate. But people vote their pocketbooks, and I think that will be true again next year.

FERRECHIO: And that’s one of the reasons why the White House has put such a huge emphasis on passing a health care bill this year. Is that they know that the economy – it’s predicted anyway that the economy will not be fully recovered when the election cycle begins. So they need something that they can show Americans that they've done to help them. Well, maybe there aren’t enough jobs, but we’ve helped give you health care. So that’s why it’s become front and center.

And I would argue that Reid is lamenting not having the Republicans that he needs to move the bill because he needs them somewhat. They can move a lot of the bill without the help of Republicans through the budget reconciliation process which allows a simple majority vote and not the 60-vote super majority. But there are parts of that bill that will be subjected to a 60-vote threshold. So they're going to need at least one Republican. And for health care to be sustainable over the years and not be rolled back by future Republican administrations. That would be a major embarrassment if they move a bill that doesn't last. And so they do need Republicans somewhat.

SLEN: And finally, Mike Pence is a political leader. Quick assessment and what kind of future does he have?

LIGHTMAN: Oh, I think he has a tremendous future in the Republican Party. He’s articulate on issues, he knows where he stands, he’s personable. Democrats would argue, well, he’s too rigid, he’s too doctrinaire, he’s too conservative. But I think within the party he’s an up and comer.

FERRECHIO: I agree. And for years reporters on Capitol Hill have looked to him as an up and comer. And that was before he took on an actual leadership position. He’s generally well liked, he’s well spoken. He once referred to himself as Rush Limbaugh on decaf, which I think is a fair assessment. And he’s – he really does kind of stick to the conservative principles that I think are what many in the base are looking for right now. So I think you're going to see more of him in the future.

SLEN: Susan Ferrechio, Washington Examiner, David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers, thank you.

END