about u.s. housing. >> i asked congress to pass a law that tells 1 million students they don't have to pay more than 10% of their income toward student loans. about 1.6 million americans could see their payments go down by hundreds of dollars a month. host: good morning. it is thursday, october 27, 2011. that was president obama in denver yesterday before a crowd of college students announcing his executive order on student loan debt restructuring and in some cases debt forgiveness. we will open up our phone lines to talk about this program and whether or not you think it is appropriate for the many millions of people who have a standing college debt. here are the phone lines.

good thursday morning to you. we are going to be here for just two hours today. house of representatives in early trade later on, two members of congress, fresh mint tea party member diane black and a longer term member of congress, part of the blue dog the coalition, dennis cardoza, who has announced his decision to leave the congress. two different points of view about their terms in congress and we will talk about them about major issues and their thoughts on the economy. speaking of the economy, before we get to your calls about the student loan program, the european debt deal was announced overnight. "wall street journal" has the story on their front page.

"private investors to take 50% haircut. firepower of bailout fund increased. european leaders labored over night and into thursday morning on an agreement that they billed as a blockbuster package. french president nicolas sarkozy said that after the marathon negotiating session, leaders had reached agreement with private banks on a voluntary 50% reduction of greece's debt in the hands of private investors. he also said they agreed to expand the firepower of the european financial stability facility, the eurozone's bailout vehicle, four- or five-fold. leaders also agreed on a plan that would boost the capital offers of the strike goes among the continent's 70 biggest banks but 106 billion euros, although they did not say where the money

would come from." our question to you is a domestic one, the president's executive order yesterday on the student loan debt restructuring. we will tell you some of the particulars of the plan and we will talk to you, we would especially like to hear from me if you are a current holder of student debt -- hear from you if you are a current holder of student debt. front page of "the denver post," where the president made the announcement yesterday. "young people, i need you to be involved" is the headline. "new york post" -- their headline on the story, "obama the loan ranger." front page of "washington post,"

all of offers plan to ease student loans -- "obama offers plan to ease student loans. the plan is aimed at addressing a sector of the credit market that has become increasingly problematic in the bad economy. the initiative was also an effort to reach out to a voting bloc that was crucial to obama's winning 2008 coalition, a block that he will need it next year as well." "washington times" this morning. "monthly payments after the end of college will be limited to 10% of the student's discretionary income, and all loans will be forgiven after 20 years. the program was scheduled to take effect in 2014, but the administration has decided to pump up the starting gate. the average college student graduates with about $24,000 and college loantotal

debt topps $1 trillion." "some education specialists think the administration's plan might even go farther in the future." let's get to telephone calls. wisconsin. stephen is a republican and there. you are on the air. caller: good morning, and thank you. is just showing again, "i need votes," i will tax the regular people more often. i had to pay off my loan. these people don't want to pay off their loans. these people in the occupy are nothing but a pretty little people -- host: now, steve -- caller: yes. host: college tuition costs have gone up enormously. how much did you know when you graduated? caller: i am not really sure, ma'am. that was a long time ago.

host: if today's students graduate because of the increased college costs with a higher percentage, much higher percentage of their income in outstanding loans and then you did, do you think there should be addressing of that? caller: well, if he wants to address it, why doesn't he go after the liberal colleges that are costing them so much? he relates to the other people. them?esn't he bully how about that one? host: steve's comments are reflected in a reaction from senator lamar alexander. "of the real way to reduce the burden of student loan debt is to slow the growth of tuition, and the way to slow the growth of tuition is to reduce health- care costs and mandates that are soaking up state dollars that in the past have gone to support colleges and universities." new york, nicklas is a democrat.

caller: i was going to comment on my own student loan experience, with a piece on a lamar talking route reducing costs, and my 3% loans in the 70's, which i paid off, if you reduce health-care costs in, youe a medicare by uy- can reduce health-care costs and get people into the medicare system that are younger and healthier. all the costs are the older people. i don't understand why c-span and everybody else isn't talking about getting younger, healthier people into medicare, charging a monthly premium, and offsetting the costs of -- host: ok, our next guest, congresswoman diane black, is a particular health care expert, came from the health-care field into congress. we will ask for once she comes on. caller: i had 3% loans in the

mid-1970s. they gave a nine-month grace period after i graduated from college to interest rates for 15, 16%. 3% was at a bargain. now the rates are so low, money is so expensive today, i don't understand why students cannot get near or at 0% financing. you can get it on a darn car. get it on au student loan? we had nine months. they could up the grace period to a year, two year, and reduce the interest rates. there has got to be a better way than the the white they are handling it now. host: do you support the president's program? caller: i support it.

as in obamacare, which i support, it doesn't go far enough. we need a medicare buy-in program. host: mark, you are on the air. caller: i don't see how we can look at this as anything other than a ploy to get votes. you asked callers about their -- i paid back by loans. my wife and i saved diligently so that our children don't have loans. it seems to me that the plan is just inviting people just cannot pay their tuition -- just to not pay their tuition. it does not make sense to me, logically. host: i am hearing a bit of the same theme when people talk about taking out larger mortgages than they can afford. you say you have done your work

and save for it but other people might be getting a break while you are following the girls and economizing to send kids to school -- following the rules and economizing to send kids to school. caller: i can see you saying that, except that when people did it with the mortgages, i don't know how many people went into the situation planning that they were going to allow to be -forgiven and remained in the house. here the president's plan invites it. concededly i have not read all the particulars of the plan, but what does 10% of discretionary income mean? who figures that out? is that all we are going to pay back for 20 years and we don't have to worry about it anymore? i don't see how that works economically.

to what your last caller spoke to, in terms of getting a lower interest rate, that to me makes sense. there is no reason why, with rates so low, student loan rates it shouldn't be zero. that i would support. i don't see this as anything other than a ploy to get votes. host: thank you, marc. let's listen to the president from yesterday. >> i ask congress to pass a law that tells of 1 million students they one have to pay more than 10% of their income on student loans. we won that fight, too. that law will take effect -- that is scheduled to take effect by the time freshmen graduate. but we decided, let's see if we can do a little bit more. today, i am here to announce we are going to speed things up. [applause]

we are going to make these changes work for students who are in college right now. we are going to put them into effect not three years from now, not two years from now. we are going to put them into effect next year. our economy needs it right now. your future could use a boost right now. here is what this is going to me. because of this change, about 1.6 million americans could see their payments go down by hundreds of dollars a month. that includes some of the students who are here today. host: for those of you who are interested in the particulars, in the business section of "the new york times," there is a half-page q&a at the particulars of the student loan rule. oakleigh they will answer the detailed questions about timing, eligibility, and consolidation,

clearing up confusion about the new student loan rules. the theme of the cost of college -- huffington post. heroes when they filed yesterday. "as president obama announced new measures to ease the burden of the student loan debt, new figures painted a demoralizing picture of college costs. average fees rose an additional $631 this fall, or 8.3%, compared with a year ago. nationally, the cost of a full credit load past $8,000 in all- time highs. throw in a room and board, the average list price for state schools is $17,000 a year, according to 20 annual reports for college costs and student aid published by the college board. the large increase in grants and tax cuts on top of the stimulus dollars that had greater state has helped keep the average

tuition and fees much lower, just $170 more than five years ago." talking what the president's student loans the plan a. new jersey, a.j., good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is an interesting topic and it hits home for me. my son went into the marine corps after graduating high school, and when he got out, he went to college. all of them had large amounts, unable to find a job to start paying off the loans. one of the things that also affects him is the change in the housing allowance for students who are veterans. a housing allowance was cut. i don't have a problem with paying off loans are assisting in paying off loans with government programs, but it is not helping our veterans at this time.

it is really an unacceptable to me. host: north carolina is next. democrats' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: absolutely. you there, willis? caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. host: would you turn down the volume of your tv? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. in 19 -- host: willis, i am going to put you on hold. you need to keep your volume down so you don't hear yourself on the phone. plainfield, illinois. lyle, republican. caller: i want to mention the fact that i worked my way through school, i ate cereal for breakfast every morning, did a lot of things to keep costs down.

i went to a state school. i did everything i could to keep costs low. i went to my first -- i when my first two years at a school that was cheaper and ended by last two years at the university of illinois. today, these kids start out and get the loans and live very comfortably. they don't do much in terms of work. toomey is a matter of just -- to me it is a matter of the president just trying to buy more votes and give away money we don't have. we just had the head of the cbo telesat we are going to be in deep trouble if -- heado f the cbo tell us that we are going to be in deep trouble if he keeps spending money we don't have.

thank you for your time. appreciate c-span. host: thanks for watching, lyle. cbs news has this story, "who will benefit from obama's student loan plan. another group left out are those struggling to pay off their private student gets, which are provided by private lenders like sallie mae and citibank. private lands are subject to fewer protections than federal loans and have variable interest rates." next is a call from exeter, nebraska. chris, an independent there. caller: i just want to say that i don't understand why everybody is saying this is giving away money when all he is doing is cutting down the interest rates. people are still going to be paying their loans. i also want to know -- i support

this because we worked in a factory when president bush was in, and his answer was "go to school or something else." i did. now i am in a position where i am competing with people in india and i can barely pay my bills. having help with my student loans and lowering interest rates is by to help tremendously, especially since my daughter is going to a state school. we need financial aid. she -- we don't have a problem with paying. it is just that the interest rate just about kill you. this is going to help a lot and is going to help a lot of people, and people are not not paying their bills. i don't understand. it is cutting the interest rate. i wish people would think about. host: thanks for your telephone call. another chris, from alabama, has a similar sentiment.

next call is columbia, maryland. brad is a republican. caller: i wanted to echo the sympathies of your first caller. i am a 1978 graduate of the university of wisconsin. when i graduated, my starting salary was about $16,400. the starting salary for a new engineer, which i am. now it is in the mid-60's. the starting salaries have gone up about fourfold. briefly i went on line and i checked to the costs of an education at the university of wisconsin on a semester-by- semester basis, and comparing what i paid it versus what they currently pay, but the tuition has gone up about 18 f-fold.

we need to have a national discussion about why we are getting charged so much more for education in this country, whether it is at the secondary level or the public schools, and the results are so much worse. host: thanks for your call. we will be back to this conversation in a minute. on the phone with us is a reporter who covers tax policy. today the house of representatives is going to be dealing with two tax-related ventures. good morning. guest: hi. host: tell us about the twin measures before that house and the seemingly bipartisan cooperation on them. guest: probably the more notable one, or the one that is more well-known, is the 3% withholding bill. basically, republicans have described this as a jobs measure, an alternative to some

of the things that democrats have put forward. it repeals an earlier law that both republicans and democrats had agreed to that was an attempt to improve tax compliance, but that small business groups had said would be a real burden on them, as well as state and local governments. basically, what that law would do, although it has not gone into effect yet, is require federal, state, and local governments to withhold some money that they paid it to government contractors and send that money to the irs, and after 2 ensure tax compliance -- host: the way it works is it would be an automatic withholding, whether or not you had a history of noncompliance. guest: right, and then the irs would to determine at the end of the year whether you are deserving of a refund or not,

kind of like the white individuals pay taxes right now. they would be withholding 3% of payments regardless of what the tax liability is. it doesn't relate directly to how much money they owe. host: this rule has not gone into effect yet, but the idea is to eliminate it. guest: it was originally supposed to go into effect in 2011, but kept being delayed. the administration proposed delaying it again until 2013 -- 2014. this bill would repeal it altogether. host: how would it create jobs? guest: basically, republicans argue that small businesses have to plan for the future, and this is one of many uncertainties that is hanging over their head.

democrats are also concerned that local governments and state governments are already having to prepare for the administration of this and are having to update their technological capacity, and it is hard for them. house of representatives is in at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. sam goldfarb telling us about one measure on the house today. thank you for being with us this morning. we're talking about the student loan program announced by the president yesterday, which he has instituted or will by executive order. we have the statistics about student loans. we would like to tell you a little bit more about those statistics. this is from "the wall street journal." they s.a. that outstanding federal and private student loans averaged $829 billion, then number getting close to $1

trillion $605 billion in private, -- federal, $605 billion. private $167 billion. we are talking with you about what you think about the president's plan. here is the huffington post's take on it. "obama student loan plan is too little too late for graduates." "while the new plan will help current college students who take out loans beginning at 912, obama's plan falls short of providing relief to the millions of debt-strapped borrowers who already struggle to make their monthly loan payments." let's go back to phone calls. maine. democrat. caller: i am a college student and i'm looking at the job market right now, and when i get

out and most of my friends get out, it will be a tough place. the defense that most of the republicans calling in don't get is that college students want to pay back their debt and do it quickly and are working two or three jobs just to get through school board when they get out into the job force and are looking to get some kind of employment, if they don't get something right away, they have a high risk of getting saddled with debt and defaulting. it is better for job creation and better getting folks working and contribute into society if they can get that right away to senator alexander's point that all we need to do is lower the cost of health care, he is right that it affects tuition but look at what we had in maine. we had pensions that were driving up the cost of tuition. it is not an overnight thing. republicans want to wait for economic recovery and kick the

can down the road. we can do something now to get students out of debt and into the workplace contribute into society. host: so you're loans when you graduate? caller: somewhere between $25,000 and $30,000 guest: ho what is. host: what is your major? caller: political science. i hope there will be jobs down there. host: thought from twitter. talking about the president's student loan plan. georgia. nadia, an independent.

caller: i have a master's in marine science. my undergrad was completely paid for for a scholarship. i used to work for the department of natural resources in charleston, south carolina. what i found out is that under bush, they cut science jobs. they cut them so dramatically that my alternative was to go back to school to make myself more credible. people with ph.d.s are being offered jobs at $36,000 a year. can you imagine somebody investing so much into their education only to thenistration todeny even growth of those jobs? it is said to me that so many republicans say "i got myself by the bootstraps." i worked two or three jobs as an

undergrad. i had a child. these people did not have children. these were adults, both working, asking me how i was able to continue to be happy in my field and work at a job that i love it, that i dreamt about since i was a child. we are watching all of these cuts in science. you hear people say all the time that they don't believe in global warming and things like this. and "you are not willing to work for this country, you are not willing to provide and wanting to pay back your student loans." people are really, really struggling, and i wish that people would open their eyes to see that every time you say no, they me to do something better, it is going to come back on new -- host: thank you so much. long a comment, but we got your point and we have a lot of

callers on the line. the debt commission's deadline is november 23, which is getting very close. they had an open meeting yesterday and you saw coverage just before the program started this morning. here is some coverage about the gatt panel in the morning newspapers. "gop, democrats clashed over taxes, but offers lay groundwork for further talks." that is in "the wall street journal." "the washington times" -- "super committee stays opaque." "new york times" -- "democrats made their first offer to republicans based on earlier budget talks that ultimately collapsed. in majority of the six democrats on the 12-member panel threw their support behind a plan that

they said inc. some ideas discussed over the summer by president obama and the speaker. it would trim much more, a total of 2.5 dollars trillion to $2 trillion -- to $3 trillion." "washington post" -- "deadline -- one month away." we're talking about the student loan program announced in denver. washington -- susan is a democrat there. caller: i think a lot of people are bypassing the interest. i graduated with a two-year engineering degree. in 1995. i have given them $54,000 for any thousand dollar loan in interest. -- four and $8,000 loan in trust

until barack obama allow me to pass this loan back and be consolidate it, it is still at a whopping 8%. pay 120. what i graduated 4, they immediately dismissed it, because bill gates invented new software, and now they client they are going to reinstate that but they don't have people who are trained. i am trained to do computer manufacturing. it is a scam. host: year 8% rate -- your 8% rate -- we're not able to do better in the marketplace? caller: no, i can't. my income is so low that there is no way out of it. you cannot go chapter 7.

it is a bill i will pay for the rest of my life. $54,000. i have got it down to a $5,000 loan. it is ridiculous. now that they and switched it over, it is better. there is people you can talk to because it is out of the credit- card companies. sallie mae doesn't own it. if you make a payment early on of the 29th, for example, the last day of the month, there is a six-day window that you have to get your payment in. it is before, with sallie mae, if you don't get that in they apply it to the principal and did you this huge $125 late fee and they don't tell you. you are working all the while. your phone goes dead talking to them. it is like six hours on the phone. this is really overdue. it was 1995. this was years ago. the jobs aren't out there.

americans have been working two and three jobs straight through this and have not been using their degrees. host: dan, republican in connecticut. caller: good morning. listen, i just wanted to understand -- i worked 40 years of my life, i raised a couple of children, i had both of them go to college. what is happening today, compared to what happened 40 years ago, is the government taking over a lot of things where people expect a handout. the fact is, they have to be more responsible for their own actions. if they want to go to college and stuff like that, it is like when my kids went to college pr. i provided for them to go to college, but i worked two jobs. there is jobs out there.

i worked in a factory my whole life, and i worked part-time mowing lawns, and my kids worked part time. in a lot of this is just -- a lot of this is just more of a handout situation where they are making it easier for people to expect that and handout. i was a democrat my whole life until this administration started doing some of the things they are doing, which is ridiculous. i am on social security. people on social security did not get a cost-of-living raise the past two years. what we did was ended up -- i am 66 years old g i. i'm working a little bit on the side to make up the difference that i lost. people have to start acting towards their own

responsibilities to pay their student loans off. host: we have a facebook conversation going on and it will continue after we finish on television, if you are interested. next iscall from neva --

a call from nevada. zachary is an independent there. caller: i'm a veteran who started school after i got out of the vietnam thing. i understand some of the 1970's and comments. i think what president obama is doing is the right thing. i paid out several student loans over the years, taking loans out while i was working full time and trying to get an associate's degree and then a bachelor's degree. at 52 years old, graduated with a larger student loan bill then i will ever be able to pay off. things are not the same as they were back in the 1970's. in the 1970's, you could be guaranteed that he would be a go -- that you would get a good paint job that would cover the cost of student loans, plus homes and cars, but today that is not the case. the salaries have not increased in a lot of the fields the same way they had in the 1970's.

making comparisons, and i paid at the student loans of myself, it is difficult with the 8% loans and the reductions brought in some way they to get amnesty, but we are not getting a free pass. we still have to pay the student loans. they will be there for ever. i agree with what he is doing. i don't think it is just a political move. there is a lot of students out there that really need the help. the income rates have to go up for people who are going to be getting out of colleges and going to work so that they can take them off. they need assistance like everybody else in the world. host: we had a marine corps vet who called in earlier. here is a store he was referencing. "rains upset by slashing -- tuition -- marines upset by/tuition assistance."

"the three active-duty marines are upset about a recent change to a tuition assistance program. the department of defense allows enlisted soldiers to spend $35,000 a year for their education, but according to the marine corps website, starting october 1, the figure was cut back and would allow the marines' to only take one class a year. one marine said, 'one of the reasons i joined the marine corps was for education. this is a big hit for the enlisted ranks.'" talking about student loans and the president's plan to restructure the loans. frank is on . a republican -- frank is on a line. a republican. caller: i paid for my daughter to go to college, she graduated

in the top 15 of the college, about 1400 graduates. she finally got a small scholarship that paid about $500 a year. they don't have to go to the state colleges. they can go to college that is reasonable on the prices. as far as the interest rates, i had at home -- i built a home when the interest rates were 14%, i sold a home when they were 10%, and now i cannot afford to buy a home. every time i noticed the interest rates go lower, people don't buy them and get in debt, paying three times as much for the car. these things i don't understand. i am a press first republican. -- i am a grass-roots republican, have been for the last five, six years. i was a democrat before then.

finally, i could even voting, they got so bad i change to republican. i am not sorry, i am glad. host: this viewer writes -- >> is winchester, virginia. richard, democrat -- next is winchester, virginia. richard, a democrat. caller: if he does this with an executive order, sit back and wait. you have to remember who is controlling the congress. if the president can do this much on his own, give him some time and whenever you do, vote. thank you. host: "the atlantic" as a big

piece on this. "obama's student loan order states the average graduate less than $10 a month -- saves the average budget of less than $10 a month." "of the many long term problems the u.s. economy faces, student loans are a big one. education costs are rising quickly, incomes are not. students want to borrow more and more money to obtain university degrees and will have a tougher time paying their loans. president obama seeks to respond with an executive order. the president's part might be in the right place, but his efforts are not likely to have much impact. the last two orders are moving up the timeline of the legislation, said to go into effect in 2014, but the president will order they go into effect at 2012. how much wood in interest rate reductions affect payments?

for the average borrower, the impact would be a small. the average has blown from just $17,600 over the past decade. using these and values as the high end up on the average student loan debt, the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would between $4.50 a month and $7.75 a month. clearly, this isn't going to save the economy." this is from "the atlantic." louisiana, republican. caller: i am for square against what the president is doing. i a-- in a nutshell, i'm retired. i live my life under the premise that if you cannot afford it, don't buy it. i could only go to college when i got enough money, then i had to stop and work and get more

money. i am one of those 53% of americans who actually play federal income taxes -- pay federal income taxes, and it just using executive power and bypassing congress, a man running for president again is using my tax dollars to forgive loans for people in exchange for hopefully getting their votes. that is what it is. if people would just understand the idea that he cannot afford it, don't buy it -- it may take 76 or eight years to go to college. they cannot expect a $60,000 job if it is not out there. you have to get what you can get. is like we are creating an entire generation of irresponsible people who think they bank instantaneously stop the top -- who think they instantaneously start at the top when they get a college degree what's next? do we forgive car loans? is there no responsibility left among people in america?

host: ben in maine writes -- and this from sue in new jersey -- finally, thispaul writes -- virginia beach. robert, you are on the air. caller: i support obama's plan, but i don't think it goes far enough. i think we just need to forgive

the debt. it would stimulate the economy. me being a college student myself, is ridiculous the way the tuition goes up 8, 9% a year. you can only borrow a certain amount in loans. it is really hard for the students out there, especially when if you come from a working family, you don't get any help. students that come from unpunemployed families get all these telegrams, and it is almost like if you try to work or -- get all these pell grants, and it is almost like if you try to work or your family tried to work, the government refuses to do anything. host: what you're are you in school and what are you studying? caller: i will be a senior in

january and night study political science -- and i study political science in norfolk, virginia. host: we have just a two-hour program today. our final test will be congressman cardoza in a few minutes, congresswoman black. toi don't want every story be 1800 words. >> last month, jill abramson became the first woman to be executive editor of "the new york times." she envisions a few changes.

>> there is a certain lack of discipline. sometimes a point is repeated too many times in a story, or there are three quotations making the same point where one would do. i would like to see a variety of the story lens. will discuss her career, her new book, and "the times", "q&a." on q& >> this week on a "the contenders," follow the career of thomas e. dewey, influencing national politics in the careers of eisenhower and richard nixon. friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. every weekend, let the c-span network to be your source for public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. on c-span, politics and public

affairs events. c-span2 as booktv, with the latest nonfiction books and authors. american history tv on c-span3 showcases the people and events that shaped our country. all of our programs are available any time at the c-span video library. the c-span networks, washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: need congresswoman diane black, -- meet congresswoman diane black of tennessee. she is part of the tea party coalition in congress. we have lots to talk about this morning. guest: good morning. good to be here with you. host: i want to start with an issue you are involved in, the discussion about the budget and the budget deficit, and that is that medicaid spending.

you have a proposal by now -- right now regarding medicaid eligibility. talk to us in broad terms about how much money this country spent on medicaid and what is an issue you are concerned with. guest: if you look at the cost drivers of where we are in the total budget right now, we know that medicaid is one of the top cost drivers. we want to be sure that we do take care of people who are the neediest of the needy. if dollars are limited, you want to make sure you are using dollars where they are meant to be used. that is what my bill does, taking care of those who truly are in need. host: let's look at state numbers about eligibility. the number of people and rolling in medicaid has gone up dramatically. medicaid enrollment, according to the kaiser commission, increased 7.2% between june 2009

and june 2010, exceeding 50 million enrollees for the first time in the program cost to history. interestingly, it looks like the only state that has not seen growth in enrollment is your home state. is that true? guest: we now medicaid goes up in times when the economy is that and people lose their jobs. the income levels go down and people can qualify for the program. we have not seen a significant jump in medicaid in our state. people relate to the possibility that we are a volunteer state, where we help one another in ways besides people applying for state medicaid assistance. churches, neighbors, and so on are taking care of one another. we have not seen a sharp increase in medicaid in our state. host: walk us through your thinking on this.

if more people are enrolling because they don't have jobs and find themselves in a more anxious state than in the past, and you are coming at this from eligibility, does that mean there will be more people without jobs without access to health care as a result? guest: no, we're coming at this from a point where there was a glitch in the law, whether intentional or unintentional. it does place people that are at a much higher income level than in most other federal assistance programs, such as food stamps and housing and ssi. we want to make sure there is an element in these programs. if someone is at an income level of middle-class where they don't need the assistance, not getting that money, because as i say, if they are getting the money, we know the money is not going to be there for people who are the most needy. host: this is a portion of the president's health-care law. guest: this is.

host: your overall position on the president's health-care law has been pretty critical. guest: as. -- it is. the purpose of the health-care law was to give greater access for lower cost. we are finding that more and more that 2700-page document is being rolled out, it is doing neither of those things. i have been critical and i would like to see -- it was my first vote, to repeal the patient affordability act, commonly known as obamacare. i believe today that that is the thing to do. there are very good ideas out there to make health care more accessible at a lower cost. host: representative black comes to the discussion from a professional point of view. before coming to congress, she began her career as an emergency room nurse, and served as a long-term care nurse and work as part of the outpatient surgery

team in her home state. she is a graduate of belmont university, with a bachelor of science in nursing, and served in the tennessee state legislator as a representative and senator before coming to the u.s. house of representatives. we would like to get phone calls for her pretty quickly. you can also send us a tweet or e-mail. we will put the communications mots on the bottom of our screen so you can join us. let me move to the topic of the committee in congress. the deadline is weeks away. the theme sounded the same as we heard this summer, that the banks seem to be echoing the stalemate over no new taxes on your side of the aisle and cuts with taxes on the democratic side. how you see this ending up? guest: i am hopeful that something will come out of the committee that we can accept. knowing that we have a for a

$14.70 trillion debt in the country -- i don't want to leave that for my grandchildren. i hope that there are things that both sides of the aisle can say yes and we can move forward. host: if the committee does not meet the target, are you willing to support it rather than see it sequestration? guest: i don't talk about what i will and will not support until i see it. i have not read the details of this plan. it did just come out. the devil is always in the details. host: sure. guest: i want to reserve my opinion on that until i get further into the details are. host: how important is the dollar figure as the target? guest: it is important that we get to as much as we can get to. we got much more than we were even asking the super committee or special committee to come up

with. we had a plan, and it was passed bipartisan in the house. unfortunately, it went to the senate and was voted down without much discussion. there are, as i have recommended before, other good options out there, and those were in the plan's key to prosperity. oakleigh they looking at those options for what they come out with at the end of the day. host: missouri -- john is a democrat there gues. caller: good morning. you keep talking about the rising costs of medicare and medicaid. the government does not set the price for health care costs. the private-sector are the people who sets the cost. every year it goes up 13, 14, 15%. why? i don't know that there aren't

that many doctors or hospitals going bankrupt because they are treating people for nothing. sense.n't make any there has got to be some sort of controls over health care costs. you don't control it by controlling the amount of money the government pays for medicare and medicaid. you control it at the source, the hospitals, the doctors, pharmacies. what are you going to do about these people? they are the ones who keep the costs of health care going up. guest: john, you are right, the costs of healthcare it does go up even quicker than the cost of living and other areas, and there are things that can be done at that level. let me talk about a few of those that are not a part of the healthcare plan that the democrats put forward. one of those is to be able to have a more systematic approach, an approach where we have doctors that are talking to other doctors, that are talking to the pharmacist, where we have

case management. systematicre approach so we do not have as many duplications in services. an example might be that you go to your own doctor, and your primary-care physician says "i am going to do some tests," and they find there is a problem they have to pass to someone else to look at a little closer. that information does not necessarily get on to the specialist. what do they do? they repeat the tests again, and there is a duplication of services. having a more systematic approach is one of those things that really does work well. we see that work well in places like mayo clinic, cleveland clinic. that is one of the ways that we can help to control costs, by having less duplication and having a more systematic approach. but there are other good ideas that are out there as well. host: story from "new york daily news" this morning.

we have heard a lot over the years about medicare fraud numbers, and estimates for the amount are really high. i am wondering about the medicaid system -- if it is also subject to fraud and a significant level, and what your thoughts are on addressing it. guest: there are absolutely cases in medicaid and they have been addressed in the past. we need to continue to make sure that our dollars are best used. those cases that have been fraudulently brought forward should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, so that others understand that if you are fraudulently on medicaid, you are going to be held accountable for using services that you don't really qualify for. host: we have asked the justice department folks about this and that they often tell us that they don't have enough investigators. guest: well, obviously you are alalways going to let

investigators say there are not enough people to do the job. we do not use technology that is used in other ways, like in the banking industry or other industries where they used technology. we are behind in using that technology. we are finding that out in my human resources committee, when we asked about how you -- are you cross-referencing when someone says they don't have a job, or here is how many family members they have? are you ccross- referencing that with something else? the systems in the federal government are woefully behind. breathing that two current technology -- bringing that the current technology would be able to help match that with each other, so that when there is good research being done, they are the leading qualifications. host: do you think that congress would appropriate the capital expenditures necessary to

guest: there are a information technology systems that are being updated even at the state level. even in tennessee. medicaid is not just paid with federal dollars. 30% of medicaid is paid by state dollars. so states want to make sure that when people qualify for medicaid, but they are qualifying truly. so they have a stake in this as well. technology really does need to be brought up to standard where we can make sure that is being done. host: there's another article from the state of virginia, the cost of medicaid swells for that state.

that reform is what your legislation held to address. guest: it does. host: pennsylvania, eleanor online. good morning caller:. i am very angry because my husband is on medicare. as of 2012 the is going to be in the hole for seven years. he is getting less money than he did seven years ago and it is basically because medicare raises his pavement by more than he gets a raise. yet the people out there getting the access card and all this stuff for free get to keep their raise. well are you going to start making the people that get all the stuff for free to start paying premiums on their health care? one more question, your student very good, but these don't children have never paid a

bill in their lives or pay taxes. when are you going to have a senior citizen cam and a middle- class cam? host: we have a student documentary contest for high school students every year. we listened to seniors and others every day seven days a week with our phone lines open, so we'd think we hear a lot from them. technology is the way to get done people involved in the discussion. guest: she is exactly right in that we have to be sure that the people who are the most needy are getting the services that they need. that is the whole reason for this bill. actress found out about this bill and it was brought to my attention actually by the media that someone who except to stick thousand dollars could qualify for medicaid. again, that is not the best use of our dollars. low-income is what we want to be making sure that the people at

, the neediest rathe people get the services. that is what my bill is out there to do, to make sure the neediest people get taken care of. host: what is the white house reaction to the bill? guest: when i testified before the rules committee on tuesday i did get a note from one of my staff members that the president had put out a statement of support. . again, i love it when we can work bipartisan and when we all agree that this is something that needs to be done. the president is solidly behind this bill. host: we have a tweet about the fraud aspect from mary. guest: i am not sure what she is referring to.

host: the medicaid system, how was the private sector involved in the way it is set up? guest: i guess what she may be talking about is those who do provide the services. host: is it a large problem? guest: i would imagine we could find there is fraud there as well. i cannot really speak to that because i don't know exactly equity is referring to. i certainly will take a look at that since that is something she has brought up as an issue. host: our guests wrote an opinion piece that was printed. the "pillars of obamacare are crumbling." guest: as we look at the bill, we see the more the bill is rolled out and even ms. nancy pelosi said behalf to pass the bill to know what's in the bill, we are now finding there are pieces in the bill that will be very difficult.

again, not doing what the intent was, which was to lower the cost and increase the accessibility. as we continue to look at the bill, this is one example, my bill, bill was not going to meet all the standards by which the bill was supposed to as it was passed. host: a front-page story this morning about the person who might likely represent this issue in the supreme court. a lawyer opposing health-care laws --

we are taking calls with representative dyer and blacks who is involved in health care debate and the cost of health care in this country. next phone call is from illinois, good morning steve, a republican. caller: there's a lot of fraud in medicaid. i got run over with 100,000 pounds forklift when i was 44 years old. i moved to a small town in southern illinois. a lot of the mothers with children go to psychiatrists and send their kids do psychiatrist to get ssi and then take the

medication and they sell it to make money and that's to use other narcotics and drugs. i just want to hear what you have to say about this. thank you. guest: first of all, i want to say i wish you the best. you are the kind of people we need to take care of when you have a situation that was something that was brought on that had nothing to do with what you were doing but put you into a a very difficult place may be for the temporary time and even for the long term. we want to be sure those dollars are there for people who need it the most. unfortunately, we will have people that fraudulently use the system. we need to continue to find ways to route those out and make sure those very limited dollars are there for people who needed the most. host: this is her second appearance on our program.

the first was on the opening day of the new congressional session when we did our program live from the house office buildings. we have a clip of the brand-new congresswoman black from that time. guest: democrats and republicans have spent time together during our orientation. the crop of folks coming in are very diverse, which is wonderful, because i love attorneys and i worked with them in the general assembly in tennessee, but i am happy to be able to see we have people who are pizza shop owners and come from all different business perspectives. i think what we have seen here are people coming with a real hard. they love the united states, they love america, they love the founding principles of america, and they want to see this country through this difficult time and get back to prosperity and be the greatest country on earth.

host: that was a very optimistic brandon congresswoman. you still people still have a lot of heart? guest: absolutely, i do. i am proud of my freshman class. the more i get to know them, the more impressive i am. we have people that come from every walk of life that are here as new members of congress. i am even more impressed today than i was the first day in congress. host: a person who has a different view of how congress is functioning as the president. let's listen to him on monday talking about congress. >> we cannot wait for an increasingly dysfunctional congress to do its job. where they will not act, i will. in recent weeks we decided to stop waiting for congress to fix "no child left behind" and decided to give states the flexibility they need to help our children read by standards.

we took steps on our own to reduce the time it takes for small businesses to get paid when they have a contractand without any-- and without any help from congress we helped outpatient issues. these steps are not substitutes for the bold action that we need to create jobs and grow the economy, but they will make a difference. so we are not going to wait for congress. i have told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government mortician and responsive, and helped to heal the economy. we will announce these executive actions on a regular basis. host: that was the president on monday. congresswoman black, he was talking about a dysfunctional congress. in a latest public opinion polls, people agree with him. 9% approval rating right now of

congress. what's the difference between what the public sees and what the president has criticized? guest: congress probably will never get a 100% approval rating. that is part of the way congress is set up by constitution, that we would have a house of representatives and a senate and a presidency. but i want to talk about what we have done. and we have been doing things in the house that really will help our economy. here is a card that we are all carrying around with us today and will be carrying to say what we have done in the house and passed over to what i think is a very dysfunctional senate. it is a way that it we have passed 15 bills, significant legislation, that really our job creators to what i believe our dysfunctional senate. also, the president could get behind many of these. some of these we agree with.

here's where i have a concern. you have a president that make a decision that he will just go out and bypass congress in what he does. that is not the way our constitution is set up. i have a concern about the president instead of working with congress is going out and saying that he will take these issues into his own hands and by executive order or beyond or however economists decisions that should be coming through congress. host: next is a phone call from hollywood's, florida, william, a democrat. caller: thank you. it's nice to meet you both. ifit seems you have things a bit out of perspective, congresswoman black. i am a recipient of medicare and social security. everything you guys speak about, taking things that i worked hard

for. i started working when i was 13 passing out fliers for my older that he used to work with. i kept working all the way up to 39 when i had my first heart scare. that took me out of the job market. all of these social places that are dependent on when i was younger and started working, and now everybody wants to talk about we want to fix this and we want to fix that. you guys are not fixing anything. more and more people are coming out on these programs. the more they come, the more they are taking away. what you call trying to fix the situation is taking money that is from these people and raising the top 1% situation even higher. you are talking about core well

care. what about the rich well care? congress does nothing. when you talk about our children, you're not talking about america's children. you are talking about republican children. a lot of american children out here are struggling, suptry to t an education. host: william, let me jump in. we are running out of time. guest: you have a lot you want me to work with and i'm not sure i have time, but let me go to the issue of medicare. and what will happen for medicare. medicare trustees tell us that medicare will go broke in eight

years to 10 years. we do have to fix medicare. we have a plan, the plan for prosperity. 55 years or older, they would stay in the plan does as the plan is today. but for those 64 years and young girl, the plan is not going to be there for them if we don't change it. the plan gives a choice. choice.want cho it gives us a choice through program like federal employees have where you have a group of programs from which you can choose and it does help them to put parameters around medicare so that medicare is sustainable. matter whether you are republican or democrat. the case is there will be nothing left for anyone. so there do need to be changes. we cannot put our head in the sand and say this is not going to happen. it is not republicans or

democrats, but the medicare trustees saying this. it is the truth of the matter, so there are changes that need to take place or sustainability. host: no question from twitter .- now s a question from twitter are you raising the dual- eligible federal poverty level, for medicaid eligibility? guest: i think they are talking about are going to raise the dual-eligible. those are people 65 or older and they are at an income that is low enough that allows them also, not just to have medicare but also to have medicaid. this is to be able to help them to sustain their health care conditions under medicare. you're not touching that. that is not part of our plant. host: the next call in our few minutes, louis, missouri,

darnah, independent. caller: good morning. >> we should not hawe should not all. they filibustered against that last year during the health care debate. second, in missouri you have to prove that you pay car insurance, or you cannot drive. we should keep this mandate that everyone has to pay a part of their health insurance. one -- and i don't see how can be constitutional and not the other. third, your neighbors should take care of you. we could save money by not paying for any of any member of congress' health insurance, especially the ones that block it for everyone. guest: there are a number of

pieces in there. many of the callers, i wish i had more time to answer every piece of this. let me just focus on a piece about mandatory health care. and whether that is constitutional. why is constitutional to have insurance for drivers of the state level and why that is constitutional as opposed to whether it is constitutional and at the federal level for healthcare and demanding that someone woodbine peter a product or service. there is something called the 10th amendment and states' rights. states do have a right to be able to do some things the federal government cannot do. the supreme court makes the decision about whether the matter toward peace as the federal level. here's the danger when the federal level takes a position where they can tell someone whether they purchase a product or service, is where a dozen stops? if the federal government can tell us that we must buy health care, do they also tell us we must buy a certain kind of car

or a certain kind of another product or service? this is going to be something that will be decided that the supreme court and they will make the decision. i think it is a very dangerous position of trust to be in when we have the federal government getting into people's personal lives throughout the country. whereas insurance or whatever the state level, you have all better opportunity to lobby and talk with those making decisions at the state level than you do at the federal level. if we will see what the supreme court has to say. host: joseph has sent this spo thought. i promised to call earlier this program that i would ask you the question on why would not be helpful to allow younger people to buy into the health care program, thus changing the healthy ratio in the pool?

guest: you have to be careful when you start doing something nationwide like that. these are programs i believe should be at the state level. they should be something in the private marketplace. you do much better when your dollars are spent in the private marketplace than you do buy a big program like medicare making those decisions are what you can and cannot qualify for. so i believe that you get a whole lot better bang for your buck and a lot more knowledge of what you can and cannot do, at a private level than and what you could with the federal. host: would you like to see all of medicare privatized? guest: i would like to see their be much more choices with medicare. once you turn 65, if you are getting close to security, you must take medicare. if you want another type of insurance, you are prohibited from having another type of private insurance. i believe there should be a choice everywhere. just because you turn 65 does

not mean you should not tax choices. why should the federal government tell you if you cannot have choices. i want to open this up to as many choices as we can possibly give them, which is what our plans for prosperity does, gives them choices of what is best for them. what's best for you may be different from what is best for me or my neighbor. i may want a program that offers me up more opportunities for presented medicine -- preventive medicine, where as someone else may need other things in their insurance. opening up choices is always the best thing. host: our time was short today. please come back and see us again. guest: i will. thanks for having me. host: congresswoman black of tennessee. we will take a quick break. we will be going to the house soon. congressman dennis cardoza of california will be joining us.

>> although this headline proved false, craig huey's defeat by truman was iconic anti continue to impact political history. this week on the contenders, follow the career of thomas dewey, a dominant force in new york state politics as three- time governor and influence in national politics in the election of dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. the contenders, the roosevelt hotel in new york city, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> from the texas book festival last weekend -- this strategy is going after the head of the snake and the rest of the animal dies. that has been the idea. the reality has been very different. >> while almost all the other founding fathers are thinking primarily a couple of the colonies on the eastern

seaboard, tempers and is already dreaming of his empire for liberty that will go all the way may be to the mississippi and maybe up the missouri river and even up to the great harbors on the pacific, san diego, monterey, and san francisco. >> i had covered the military and the cia after that's in the years before and after 9/11. as a reporter on those pieces, a scene of things grow up around me that i was not sure what they were. people i had no longtime disappeared into world that did not exist before or that had no titles, four agencies i never heard of. after 10 years of working in that realm you sort of say what is going on? >> decided to call if the ripple effect finally, which was a chapter title, because i realized that every time we use water except offer triple effect. a series of consequences that most of us are not aware of. >> watch every event from "book

tv covets last weekend of the texas book festival online at the c-span video library. archived and searchable, watch what you want, when you want. washington journal continues. host: let me introduce you to congressman dennis cardoza, democrat of california. his sixth term in office, part of the blue dog coalition. his district in california is the 18th district, which will be greatly restructured after the census. he has just recently announced that is leaving congress at the end of his term. you have told other people, but tell our audience the reason. guest: a number of things. first, i have come to be sort of frustrated with screaming and yelling in congress rather than cooperation. that is the frustration that is built over the years. in the last election the american people were looking for

moderation in congress. 60 of my colleagues lost in the house in the last election. i decided because i think it's gonna be tough to get things done the next few years, so i will work in the private sector to try to accomplish those things. and some other personal and family issues. finally, you mentioned redistricting. one of my good friends, we both voted for it to other for speaker in the last time we had the opportunity to do that. jim wanted to stay in congress. i was at a point in my life where i was ready to do something else, so i decided about - to bow out. host: how can you work on housing without a vote? guest: having to be compelled to go to the floor every day, spend

a lot of time doing things other than what you are focused on, to come away from what you care about the most. many have been devastated by the foreclosure crisis. if we are very committed -- i am very committed, my wife is very committed to try to see if we can get the word out that more needs to be done. host: we have some statistics that looked at the highest foreclosure rates among states in the third quarter. if you see the list of them, three of the towns that you represent, stockton, modesto, merced, all ranking in the top six in foreclosures in the u.s., what will it take to help people so far under water in their region? guest: a lot more focus by the obama administration on this problem. the proposal that came forward this week does almost nothing to

increase the number of people who qualify for government assistance. i believe this should not be the people who are not paying their mortgages that received this. but all americans who have a house right now should be able to refinance at the crime rate. i put a bill in 2009 to do that called the home act which facilitates refinancing across- the-board. people in trouble and their neighbors as well. anybody should be treated the same. the equivalent of an $85 billion tax-cut stimulus to the national economy without really costing the taxpayers a whole lot. we on the vast majority of the loans financed through fannie mae and freddie mac. the bond loans.

then you add the loans and guarantees that have been put in place over the years, and we have a stake, 75% of the loans in america. having known that, we already have a liability, let's figure how to restructure them, extend the term. instead of a 30-year mortgage, make it a 40-year mortgage. reduced interest payments from 7% down to 4%, give a break the bourse, and let them pay the principal. i believe that principle reduction is the most important thing. that has some other problems that come with it. moral hazards. what i would like to do is get americans who want to pay their mortgage to be able to achieve their goal. the responsible taxpayers and

homeowners, pay their mortgage, pay their commitments down, just give them a little assistance. >host: is there anything preventing commercial banks from doing this restructuring? guest: they want to make money. one of the lobbyists was in the hallway the other day or the commercial banks and they told me they wanted to see my bill go away because they felt they had made a big miscalculation, that they could lose more of the foreclosures, people could be thrown out of their house rather than reducing interest rates. they would make more money by keeping the interest rates high and losing a few mortgages -- they told me they had no place else where they could put the money we give them, according% or less interest rates, there was no place they could invest that and get a higher rate than those mortgages at 7% or 8%. host: what about the number of foreclosed properties the bank's

s own and are not able to liquidate? guest: i spoke with a person in charge of trying to liquidate a lot of these mortgages. he said they are going to try to start moving up to 400,000 mortgages for the foreclosure they hold, over the next few months. host: that is federal. if you go back to the commercial banks, you talk about them taking a risk with foreclosures. if the properties, to the market and they cannot move them, they have assets on their books they cannot move. guest: i'm afraid they would have to declare them. there's a lot of games being played by the big banks in this area. the president, i think, will get tough with them. it's time to get some action done. host: we would like to welcome your telephone calls. the congressman mentioned edward demarco, the acting director of

the federal housing agency, which regulates fannie mae and freddie mac. he is our guest on this sunday morning at 10:00 eastern time. we invite you to hear more of its perspective on fannie mae and freddie mac and their roles and the housing crisis and what relief species might be possible. florida, a republican named vaughan. caller: i just wanted to see what has been his interaction with fannie mae and freddie mac, because really i worked with them and i prepare getting a lot of false blame in this. i find that we have not systematically and forced the agreements that we have with the banks. no one has gone after the banks to say you are supposed to check every loan you sold to those

particular entities. now that they have sold those loans, no one is going backwa on the clawback clause. the treasury is preventing fannie mae and freddie mac from taking all those loans and selling them back to the banks, 100% on the dollar, which would mean taxpayers get their money back, plus fees they were supposed to pay for not doing their fiduciary duty to check the loans. congput that in and the banks had a fiduciary possibility. they never removed the down payments or everything everyone is accusing them of. the banks did that and said the loans or goods, and then sold them and fannie mae and freddie mac. why are we not getting our money back at 100% on the agreement? guest: you brought up a lot of

good points. with regard to the refinancing, i believe fannie mae and freddie mac programs have been much too complex and slow to get regulations. my office sees hundreds of people that have a very difficult time working through the process. a group of about 20 members of congress have gone to gather a few times and mr. memarco is pursuing suing the banks and try to get some of our tax dollars back. you are absolutely right. very few of the fannie mae and freddie mac clones were of the subprime provided that caused the crisis. area i represent is a hotbed of subprime lending. there was a lot of fraud, the so-called wire loans were prevalent. i have had realtors --and i used to be realtor -- before i came to the state legislature -- there are calling me up and

giving me the first warnings about how bad this was in late 2007 and early 2008. they had this concern that the loans had been given to people that should never have had them. for the most part those were private lenders. then there were selling off assets. there were chopping bamboo up. they were stopping them -- chopping them up. we needed to figure out how to get control. if he needed more legislation to do that, he needed to come back to congress where we could unwind the thing. we will not get the economy under control until take care of the housing crisis. 20% of the national economy is dependent on construction and housing. when you have that whole sector flat on its back, you are going to have a tough time getting the

economy back on track and moving again. host: an inside view of the mortgage crisis, a professor of finance at columbia business school. he is a research associate at the national bureau of economic research. this is in the opinion section of "the wall street journal." he writes this --

here's how he concludes -- guest: i totally disagree with the last part. it is very difficult to get a loan these days. that is if it is not totally secured. the government is about the only people still in the loan market. a private market is just about gone away in many parts of the country. i heard a statistic the last few weeks in my area, 96% of the

loans that are actually being made on homes in may my area-- in my area are with an unmanned freddie mac backing. regarding underwriting standards, there was an effort to try to get people into homes, but while i was in the real- estate market prior to that, everybody had to qualify. there was a shift for the bondholders or the people buying the bonds wanted them. there was a situation would carry trades and there was a cheap money available. a number of people are pushing this. it was not all about just trying to get people into homes. it was about financial institutions packaging these mortgages, selling them off, and making profits. you have to go below the surface, not just blame one entity. we need to really understand what happens and that will take a long time for the american people to get the right answers.

host: the next call is from elaine, a democrat in upper marlboro, maryland. caller: i am calling about what you are talking about and the woman before you. i am 63 years old. i raised my two children by myself. i bought a house i could afford. i am now at the point where i will pay the house of when i am 68 years old because i did not fall into traps of wanting a bigger and better house. if i keep hearing every time i looked at c-span about this and 55 magical age of social security being okay -- 65. as a woman, i have done what my parents taught me. i am 0 all upset because i wanted know what's lulz security will do for me when i'm in a place where i don't have a mortgage payment because i have paid off my house and i'm

looking forward to the money being part of my retirement. both of my children are doing very well, a cpa and a nuclear engineer, because i raised them the right way. it is upsetting to me because i see people buying homes they cannot afford. i put the blame on them and i put the blame on people selling those homes. i was told i could buy a home that was much more expensive than the one i bought and i told them i cannot. i knew what my income was. have to say. it bothers me because i'm a hardworking american that has done everything the right way. guest: i applaud you for that. you and i are somewhat neighbors. my family back on the east coast lived in maryland and we also have a home in california. i have homes on both coasts that are somewhat under water, based on what i purchased them for. the reality is this crisis was

caused by a bubble in the subprime clone market -- loan market. it has affected everyone. prices have come down while their equity has been reduced. i made a joke about having an underwater mortgage, but i really don't. i bought my house in california in 1992. my wife and i put a significant investment in to those homes. we have equity in both of our homes. if we sort of live our life the way you have. i think the vast majority of americans actually are trying to do the right thing and doing like you and i are. but there's enough and have not, that have either been encouraged to get into bad situations or have just fallen on bad luck, that has come

together and caused this crisis to precipitate. there are more than 11 million at risk mortgages in america. if you take the average family that lives in these units, we have over 40 million americans that are living in situations where they are at risk or likely to be foreclosed on in the next few years. it is a serious, significant problem. the contagion from that will affect all of us, not just the homes being affected directly. host: we have been waiting for the numbers on the economy. the u.s. economy grew 2.5% in the third quarter as consumers rebound, on this story. the u.s. economy grew modestly over the summer after stalling in the first of the year --

host: any reaction? guest: i'm glad we are able to start digging out a little. i am afraid that if we don't deal with some of the overhang on the housing market and construction area, that we are not going to be able to pull ourselves out. the economy is one where certain areas of the country are doing well and other areas of the country are not doing well, in fact they are still having declines. what we have to try to figure out how to do pick is build confidence, put people back to work, and expand on these numbers. it is much better than the alternative, which would be a decline. i think we still have a long way to go to get the economy in a place where we are creating a significant amount of stops and getting to where we want to be -- creating a significant amount

of jobs. host: despite recent declines, application stuck above the 400,000 level -- we are talking to congressman dennis cardoza about the economy how it is tied to the housing crisis. this chart shows a graphic picture of the housing market. the states that are in red, nevada, arizona, florida, are states with 46% or more of their homes that have negative equity in the second quarter of 2011. those with dark brown color, 31% to 45% the of the houses in

negativetes have equity. basically almost every state in the u.s. affected. what will it take for homeowners with negative equity and is this a long-term thing, or will the housing prices ever rebound to the levels they obscene? guest: what we have seen is there are 22 million americans living with a relative. they cannot afford their own place. one of my colleagues said the other day this is a nightmare on elm street where families are coming back together just to survive. the reality is those folks, many of them need a job to have their own home. we have to increase employment and get the economy moving in order to make that happen. in california, you have a situation where along the coast

the economy is relatively healthy and you have a higher level of income. that is what brings our number down. but in my area we have communities with up to seven the% people under water. nearly 30% of my folks in some communities have lost their home. the great depression, only 27% of people lost their home. in some communities we have had a situation worse than the average in the great depression with regard to home foreclosures. host: will the numbers ever recover? guest: ip they will. i am hopeful. this is america. we have always had our turn alwaysns and have come back robustly. -- i believe they will recover. host: the next call is from st. petersburg, florida, apparent is an independent -- aaron is an

independent. caller: you were involved in the bailout process. my question is why was the decision not simply to allow homeowners directly and accomplished the exact same thing instead of throwing people out of their homes? i hope you can bypass the argument of moral hazards, because that is rewarding businesses. guest: i totally agree with you. thanks for your question. tarp discussion was coming forward, my district was one of those most heavily affected, so i had the most experience with what i thought would work to fix this. i put on the table -- in fact senate republicans for a period of time early in the discussion put on the table the equivalent

fixing the cancer, i think that would have been the best way to do it. i put my bill on mr. bush's desk , but i obama's desk could never get any traction. i explained earlier why i thought the banks wanted to people locked into the higher interest rate loans. i thought it was the better way to do it. but we went a different direction. a lot of people criticized it and i understand why. but the reality is the vast majority of tarp moneys have been paid back and i think that's a good thing. i voted against the second round of tarp because i did not believe we were doing enough for homeowners. it was not i thought the program

was a failure. it was i did not think we were doing it the right way for the right people. so i understand your question and i agree with you. host: a member of the twitter community tweets -- we have 12 minutes left with congressman dennis cardoza. michael is a republican in massachusetts. caller: good morning, thanks for your coverage. for the past couple years i have been assisting home owners navigating through the hemp program. i believe the program was designed correctly, but implementation has been horrendous. having said that, if a bank is going to lose approximately and 40% of the loan amount if they go through foreclosure, why then would the government not have

every fannie, credit, and va cologne written down by 20% and then a fixed interest rate at 4% across-the-board? -- and va loan. if someone had a lot of 200 pit thousand dollars at 6% interest, their payment would be $1,498. if they reduced that principle by 25%, the loan amount would be 187 cows and dollars and the payment would be $625 per month. the banks would cut their losses from 40% to 25%. you are not going to be able to save everyone, but at least you will be able to establish a floor in the housing market. i agree 100% with you pick insofar as the housing task

comeback in order to have a recovery. -- i agree with you in so far as the housing has to come back. i started out by assisting friends to go to the application process. just by word of mouth it exploded. i am very happy that the government came down on the banks. i think it was sometime around february of this year. i believe that the programs are designed quite well. implementation has been. -- has been horrendous. you can originated a loan in about 30 days. i have had homeowners go through the merry-go-round's with the

banks pullover a year in the hamp program. guest: i think you are right in and respect. the distance between your area in massachusetts and my area in california is my folks are 50% or 60% under water and the banks have been much less willing to cooperate in my area. while the programs were effective in areas like yours where they are 10% or 20% under water, in my district it has been devastating and we get almost none of them worked out. it has been a year or 18 months before they actually get resolution. by the time that comes along, they are so far behind in their statements and the rest, but there's no way for them to work out. the current program that is in place has had 800,000 worked out

by fannie mae and freddie mac. on the 40,000 of those have loan to ace over 105% on t value ratio. people go to the federal central and their papers are lost and these folks are falling into foreclosure. that is what is happening in places like florida and nevada, the central valley of california that i represent. that is what is so devastating and so unfair. host: north carolina, arlene, democrat. caller: hello. let me turn this down. the comment i have, i was going to apply it to a wounds bleeding, but usage cancer. looked at the cancer as adjustable-rate mortgages.

why is obama, pinocchio, not -- or congress not focusing on getting the adjustable-rate mortgages to a core fixed-rate mortgage soda these enormous amounts of houses that people are threatened of losing their homes because of the adjustable- rate as they get older cannot afford to pay them, those are the people who pay their mortgages, who need help to get rates down. it would not hurt anybody if they add a couple years on the end and the family could inherit the house with the mortgage. but the fact is everybody is going after the bleeding instead of the cause of the bleeding. because of the bleeding is adjustable rate mortgages. guest: thanks for your question.

blame the president for much predict for the type of mortgage people get. i am critical of the president in that i believe his lack of attention to the mortgage crisis is one of his biggest failures as president. i think that he's done a lot of things right and i will support him in the election. but i think it's the number-one failure of the obama administration not to come to grips with this crisis. i want to tell you a story that which epitomizes everything going on in the discussions we're having this morning. there was a lady in stockton, california, who said she was 80 years old. she came to one of my seminars and started crying and stood up and started telling her story. she was home at night watching jeopardy and someone called on the phone, and offered her a 250

to thousand dollars mortgage loan. they said, would you not like to go visit your children in florida? they said here's what you can do, the payments will only be $280 a month. that was a teaser rate for six months. that is deductible kind of thing you were talking about. after about six months back rates adjusted --- that rate adjusted. her social security check was $980 a month. there were foreclosing on her house with an another six months. as she told the story, she said, congressman, i was defrauded out of my house. i should've known better, but i was 80 years old and there were talking about me being able to go be with my family and i said i should probably do that. the reality is a lot of folks

are not very sophisticated. they are hard-working, good americans who have worked throughout their lives. they never should've been talking tuo her. host: frank in atlanta. caller: i love the usa. what is the difference between people borrowing money for mortgages they cannot pay back and the government borrowing trillions of dollars that they know they cannot pay back? guest: i agree with you, sir. i love our country as well. i have put so much into running for office in the state legislature, my local town council, or in congress here. the reality is people are to be able to pay back what they commit to taking. my grandfather was an immigrant to this country from the

islands off portico. he did business on a handshake. he said to me a number of times if you cannot pay your debts, son, don't engage in taking them out. he always did business on a handshake. sometimes he got bilked and sometimes heated better friends. but he always had the honor of doing the right thing. you have to do the right thing when everybody is watching and also when no one is watching. host: lee on twitter gives us this thought -- lenny in brooklyn, a democrat on the air. caller: good morning. i have a mortgage to the bank's 1985. -- since 1985.

$8,446. i applied for a home improvement loans on the same banks and are presently pay them once thousand 300 or so dollars per month. -- $1,300. citibank is giving me the hardest time to get a loan. i have sent them all kinds of documentation. i told the man, you have my records, i have been with you since 1985 and i've never missed a monthly payment. why do you think i cannot pay half of what i have been paying? guest: based on my knowledge of real-estate, if you have the same mortgage since 1985, you

only have five years left on that loan, you should be able to have enough equity to go out and get a third-party lender to give you a new mortgage, pay off the old one. you don't need a home improvement loan if you don't want. you can take out a new mortgage and pay off the old one and do it for a seven or 10-year period with a lower interest rates and you would be much better off. you should talk to a legitimates mortgage broker and get yourself a better deal. host: we are out of time and waiting for the house to come in session. secretary clinton will be there today. how concerned are you about this attrition on the ground in afghanistan? guest: afghanistan and pakistan are very much to gather in the concern that secretary clinton will share. we have had our third crisis

this year with pakistan. she will talk about perhaps and they will have questions for her. she was recently there in the country. we look forward to hearing what tsa and what she thinks is happening. i would just like to conclude that we are lucky to have secretary clinton. she is a great leader. i think she's doing a great job as secretary of state. i have tremendous confidence in her and cannot wait until we did to your chance to say today. host: thanks for being here. on the house floor today, two measures. one account would repeal the position of a 3% three closing on payments to government contractors and the other would amend the irs code to modify the calculation of adjusted gross incomes for purposes of determining eligibility of health care related programs.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] steve womack to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. compassionate and merciful god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as this house comes together at the end of the week, bless the work of its members. give them strength, fortitude and patience, fill their hearts with charity, their minds with understanding, their wills with courage to do the right thing for all of america. in the work to be done before the end of this session, may they rise together to accomplish what is best for our great nation and indeed for all the world for you have blessed

us with many graces and give us the responsibility for being a light shining on a hill. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: will you join me, please? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. johnson: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. this week the president adopted a new campaign slogan, "we can't wait," in efforts to get his $447 billion jobs bill passed by congress, even after the senate's rejected it already, two or three times. the president continues to promote his more of the same failed policies like higher taxes and increased spending and we can't wait for the president to get behind policies that will help the american people. families and small businesses across the country continue to struggle in this economy. that's why republicans have passed bill after bill to get our economy moving in the right direction. today, the house will vote on repealing the i.r.s. 3% withholding rule in order to reduce uncertainty for our businesses and allow job creators to do what they do best, create jobs. i urge the president and my

colleagues in the senate to follow our lead, get our economy moving forward. americans want, need and deserve no less. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, for americans who are disgusted with the obstructionism of the republican-controlled house, yesterday, president obama cut through the morass issuing new rules for student loan assistance, implementing a law that was passed by the last congress, the democratic controlled congress, the student aid and fiscal responsibility act. mr. courtney: this program will allow millions of americans to consolidate their student loans, lower their interest rates and also cap loan payments, again, for millions of americans and anyone listening can go to studentaid.gov/ibr to find out the new rules of eligibility which, again, will save thousands of dollars for people who are drowning in student loan costs.

rather than trying to build on that accomplishment, this congress passed a ryan budget which would butcher the pell grant program and do nothing for people, again, who are racking up human amounts of student loan. from the university of connecticut's district, go huskies, congratulations, mr. president. thank you for moving forward for addressing the real needs of america's middle class and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. paul man has sent the following letter to me. we don't need or want more government spending. cut regulation, cut taxes, repeal the 2010 health care law and let businesses do what it does best, create jobs based upon demand, not government dictates spending and attempts

at market manipulation. well, mr. man has, you're absolutely right. ms. hayworth:: the house passed 15 bills that lay dormant in the senate because the senate refuses to take action, lift regulations, create new environments and new opportunities. we are working nonstop in the house majority for awful our american citizens and you, mr. manahan, to make sure you have the opportunity you deserve and the prosperity you need. please urge your senator and all senators across the country to free those 15 bills and get this economy going. and i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maine seek recognition? mr. michaud: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. michaud: i call attention to the american people last

friday the president signed the free trade agreements for colombia, panama and south korea. the american people don't support more flawed trade agreements, so the president signed them into law quietly. the white house issued no press releases or statements, no photos were taken, no signing pens were publicly handed out. if these agreements are job creators that the president promised us would be, then why wouldn't he have a public signing for signing the p.t.a.? it's because these f.t.a.'s aren't going to create american jobs. they might create jobs in korea and china but they won't create them here at home. if i were the president i'd want to keep these agreements quiet too. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of the congressional prayer caucus to note the importance of fate in our nation's history and his first inaugural address in 1789 george washington said it would be improper to emit the rules over the universe who preside in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect. mr. forbes: no people can ignore the invisible hand that conducts the affairs of men more than the united states. everything seems to be distinguished by a token of provocation. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: thank you, madam

speaker. i ask to -- rise to ask my colleagues to co-sponsor the appropriation spending act. sometimes we give the executive branch the freedom to spend without oversight. the constitution anal obligation to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely lies with congress. my legislation would anything over $1 million be explicitly approved by congress. had my bill been approved a year ago, they would have to stop solyndra from happening. it happens after things go wrong and things are lost. congress needs to reassert itself and make sure all programs are properly vetted. measure twice, cut once. i ask all of my colleagues to help me end wasteful spending by co-sponsoring the reclaiming

the overspending for the executive act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. womack: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. womack: i rise to remember arkansas native hairy harrison who died august -- harry harrison who died august 2, at the age of 95, and who will be buried tomorrow in arlington national cemetery. a distinguished naval aviator, he commanded the jeep carrier in support of allied forces during their fight against germany in southern france in august of 1944. he was awarded the navy cross for extraordinary heroism during low-level reconnaissance missions over enemy concentrations. like most of america's greatest generation, he became president of a metal firm, was active

volunteer of the leewood fire department. preceded in death by his wife, shirley, to whom he was married 70, the captain will always be remembered by his family and friends for his courage, leadership and self-less service to his country -- selfless service to his country and fellow man and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask to speak for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. far too many americans hurt today. mr. tonko: they hurt because of unfair tax policy. they've witnessed as more and more reports are issued that the top income strata has seen its income grow more than 275% while those of more modest means have seen a growth that perhaps is some 15% to 20% and far too many have seen no growth with a flat outcome.

they also witness no meaningful jobs agenda coming from this house over the last 10 months, throughout the course of the 112th session of congress, they're waiting for a jobs agenda. so, madam speaker, as the house drags its feet, america struggles. many struggle to find a job. many struggle to keep a job. many struggle to make ends meet. many struggle to make student loan payments. many struggle to pay those mortgages. we need to go forward with the progressive agenda that responds to strengthening the middle class, strengthen the purchase power of the middle class. without a strong middle class there isn't a strong america. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, during the texas war of independence,

the enemy tried to remove a cannon from the town of gonzalez. the defiant texans flew a flag which stated, "come and take it." now in montana a radical anti-religious group wants a statue of jesus taken down from the mountain. the forest service is under pressure not to renew a lease for the 58-year-old statue. the statue is more than a religious symbol. it was erected as a memorial and tribute to montana freedom fighters during world war ii for their bravery, dedication and patriotism. what's next? is the anti-religious crowd going to demand the government chizzle off the crosses, the stars of david and other religious symbols on the tombstone of the war dead at arlington cemetery? as those early texas settlers were successful in preventing the enemy from taking that cannon in the right to bear arms, i hope the people of montana are successful in

keeping the anti-religious bunch from taking the jesus statue and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 448, i call up the bill h.r. 674 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 169, h.r. 674, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3% withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 448, the amendment printed in house report 112-261 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 674. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. camp camp mr. speaker -- mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i rise in strong support of h.r. 674. while this legislation has 269 co-sponsors, i'd like to acknowledge the leaders on the bill -- ways and means health committee chairman, wally herger, and our democrat ways and means colleague, congressman earl blumenauer. in addition to these advocates, we have 25 members of the ways and means committee supporting this legislation, a clear signal of the strong bipartisan support for repeal of this 3% withholding rule. . this provision like many efforts to increase federal revenue and tax compliance is lined with paperwork, complexity, and cost, all of the things that hinder rather than help promote a climate for job creation. by considering and passing this bipartisan bill, we will unlock

new opportunities for hiring. job creators have told us just that and that's why this legislation has the support of a diverse coalition of more than 170 groups, including the government withholding relief coalition. like those job creators, others recognize the need for repeal. including president obama. in the statement of administration policy in support of h.r. 674, the administration noted that, and i quote, the effect of the repeal of the withholding requirement would be to avoid a decrease in cash flow to these contractors which would allow them to retain these funds and use them to create jobs and pay suppliers, end quote. mr. speaker, i couldn't agree more. supporting the repeal of the 3% withholding law is a demonstration that washington can work together with a strong bipartisan vote we can reduce the uncertainty facing america's job creators and we can free up valuable resource businesses -- resources businesses can use for

hiring. i ask my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 674 and urge the senate to swiftly take up and pass this legislation. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have the gentleman from california, mr. herger, control the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i rise in support of this bill. it should have happened earlier. i think most of us if not all of us agree that this provision should be repealed. it is not nearly targeted and it would indeed impose significant and costly burdens on federal, state, and local governments. i think we should all remind ourselves it was passed some years ago and it was, i think,

misguided when it was enacted in 2006 when we in the minority here did not control the congress. indeed, the ways and means committee when we were in the majority approved a repeal of the provision in 2009 and the congress ultimately delayed its effective date. i do want to comment on the title of this bill that refers to job creation, and it should be noted that this is really not going to address the need for creation of jobs in our country. we have been here now nine months. there is still no effort by the majority here in the house to bring up any meaningful job legislation. and when the president brings up proposals to create jobs, they

are thwarted by the majority here and by the republicans in the senate. so let's support this bill but not pretend that it will create jobs. and in this respect i refer to a recent statement by mark zandi, the chief economist for moody's analytics, who said this about this bill. i don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. it's more trying to clean up something that needs cleaning up, end of quote. and indeed this needs to be cleaned up and therefore we need to pass it. let me also comment and we'll talk about this later on the second bill, the pay for. i went before the rules committee to ask that there be consideration of a different pay for. what we'll be considering later,

and i just want everybody to understand the facts and each can judge on his own or her own how they'll vote, that the impact of the pay-for that came through the ways and means committee majority could cause up to 500,000 individuals to lose health care coverage. i offered an amendment in the rules committee that would have offset the cost of a business tax provision by closing a loophole on the business side that's properly enjoyed by oil and gas industry -- improperly enjoyed by oil and gas industry giants and unfortunately my amendment was ruled out of order. we'll talk about that later. we are now on this bill. i urge its support. let's not pretend it's a job creation bill. let's get busy here on bills that will, indeed, help to promote jobs in the private sector of the united states of

america. as our president has proposed and he has pleaded that there be consideration by the house and the senate only to be responded to with deaf ears. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: thank you, mr. speaker. i i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in strong support of h.r. 674, the 3% withholding repeal and job creation act. the american people have repeatedly called on congress to work together in a bipartisan way to encourage job creation. that's exactly what we are doing here today. h.r. 674 repeals a tax that requires government agencies at all levels, federal, state, and local to withhold 3% of all

payment for goods and services beginning at the end of next year. this will affect everyone from manufacturers, to road builders, to physicians who treat seniors on medicare. many of these businesses operate on margins of less than 3%, meaning that this provision will harm their cash flow and effectively force them to give the federal government a no interest loan. even though it doesn't go into effect for another year, the 3% withholding tax is holding back job creation right now. coming from a small business background, i can attest that businesses look several years ahead when they are deciding how to invest. this week the associated general contractors of america released a survey finding that nearly half of all construction firms would be forced to hire fewer

workers if the 3% withholding tax takes effect. as one a.g.c. member put it, quote, the way the economy is now we are very lucky to make 3% profit. this could put us out of business along with other 300-plus employees, close quote. now is the time to eliminate the barriers that are standing in the way of jobs for american workers. h.r. 674 has the support of businesses, state and local governments, and 269 bipartisan co-sponsors in the house of representatives, as well as the obama administration. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the government withholding relief coalition signed by more than 150 businesses, health care, education, and local government

groups supporting passage of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. herger: with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield now as much time as he shall consume to mr. blumenauer who is a lead sponsor of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate your courtesy, mr. levin, as i appreciate the opportunity to work with my friend, mr. herger, no moving this bill forward. -- on moving this bill forward. it was only a couple months ago we were having a press conference in the triangle with a bipartisan group of members of congress, representatives from some of the coalition members that my friend, mr. herger, referenced, to be able to focus on the need to repeal this legislation. mr. speaker, i think it is important to mark this critical step today. it will pass on the floor of the

house in a strong bipartisan vote. reaffirming the bipartisan cooperation that got us to this point. i think that this is an example of what potentially we could do because a number of the members of the coalition that mr. herger referenced and that he's entering into the record are likewise people who have a vision about how congress and the federal government could help rebuild and renew america. the contractors, the engineers, the architects that we have heard from would also like us to step up in a bipartisan manner to deal with that. the references to people who are dealing with health care. we are facing -- we still face sort of a health care crisis in this country. we may be able to deal with much of it with health care reform bill, but many of the provisions that are embedded in law now have their core as bipartisan

ideas, and i hope the same bipartisan spirit could help us accelerate bipartisan reforms so that the american public benefits in the health arena as well. you're going to hear a little spirited exchange in the floor of the house about how we pay for this legislation. because it has a c.b.o. score that's attached to it that suggests that this will raise revenue. well, i have two observations that i think are important to note dealing with pay for. first and foremost, the sad fact is that this bill actually would cost more to implement than it would ever raise for the federal government. but we have a quirk in our scoring rules where they credit revenue, they don't deal with the cost of compliance. and this complicated piece of legislation were it ever enacted

would require the department of defense, the general services administration, up and down the federal government, there would be mechanisms to try and impose on it. it wouldn't just cost contractors, hospitals, state and local government. it would actually cost the federal government far more than we would collect. i think one estimate was for the department of defense, it would be $17 billion, which would dwarf what would be collected. and we need, mr. speaker, as we move forward, to do a better job of thinking about this -- the scoring rules. it's not c.b.o.'s fault, but that's how we play the game. and i find it troubling. it also, i think, speaks to -- volumes about how we operate in the legislative process. this was passed in 2005, kind of

dropped in in sort of a backroom negotiations. it was never part of regular order. there was no hearing before our ways and means committee to talk about this, because the elements that have been documented in our committee and on the floor about the unworkibility of this would never have survived a regular legislative process. well, i'm pleased that the democratic side has at least tried to delay and to try and fix this. i'm pleased that we have worked with mr. herger in a bipartisan fashion to bring this legislation forward. and i think mr. camp and mr. levin are committed to regular order. we have been having, i think, some very productive discussions on major issues. i hope we can keep this commitment to regular order to be able to make sure we don't have something like this in the future that has massive unintended consequences.

mr. speaker, this is an idea that never should have been advanced in this form. it's been a long road to try and correct it, but today we are making an important step towards that correction. but i would add a note of caution. the same spirit of cooperation and focus that has gotten us to this point with what will be an overwhelming vote, i hope it's unanimous, we need to keep going so that this isn't a casualty of the back and forth process between the house and the senate. the senate played a large role in giving us this in the first place. we need to make sure that it is not caught up in the larger dramas that occur around here where we can keep our eye on the ball and we can fix it. and i do want to say just one brief word about the pay-for. as i say it's illusory because it would cost far more than we'd

ever collect, but we have to deal with the scoring rules as they are. there are two proposals, one would tighten some eligibility for the health care reform, the other would take away some unnecessary tax benefits to large oil companies that long ago ceased to have any impact on oil exploration or reducing price. . while i actually think that the pay-for from our side of the aisle dealing with the oil tax adjustment is superior, i think as a practical matter we are going to have to do both of these in the months ahead if we're going to deal with our budget problems, reducing expenditures. so i am hopeful that we don't allow the debate over the pay-for to obscure the need to move forward, and as a

practical matter, we have big challenges ahead to get our deficit under control. and i think frankly that both of these are items that we should enact it into law, will be enacted into law. while there will be a spirited discussion and i respect people on both sides and i think they will be making good points, i hope it doesn't get in the way of the big picture. i appreciate the gentleman from michigan permitting me to speak on this, his leadership in this, salute my friend, mr. herger. i hope we can mark this step today for what it is but keep our eye focused on how we deal with these larger issues going forward so we're not back in this situation in the future. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may

consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. herger: and i want to thank my good friend from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for your support for the lead co-sponsor on the other side of the aisle. thank you very much. i'd like to take a moment to read a few of the comments that the ways and means committee received from businesses and organizations across the country demonstrating while repealing 3% withholding tax is critical to laying a stable foundation for job creation. buffalo ply, incorporated, of boulder, colorado, writes, we are a 20-year-old small business that sells high-volume medical equipment at a low margin with a very significant part of our sales going to the federal, state and local government. the 3% withholding tax will exceed our company tax viability which will destroy cash flow and ultimately hinder our ability to grow the business and add new employees.

closed quote. ian frost, principal and founder of e.e.e. consulting in virginia says, quote, if enacted the rule would mean the withholding of approximately $130,000 of revenue, using our projected 2011 revenue. this 3% withholding would essentially be a loan to the government for the year until our taxes are filed. worse still, it might require our company to secure a loan to help us cover operating expenses at a time when cash in the bank is limited. the withholding could limit our ability to make payroll each month and limit our use of profits to give bonuses to our employees, expand our business and hire new employees. $130,000 each year would deplete our cash reserves by about 30%.

closed quote. the university of illinois notes, quote, this will add expenses at a time when our university, like many others around the country, is facing reduced state support. we would have no choice but to pass these expenses on to our students, many of whom are also struggling to make ends meet, closed quote. the american medical association states, quote, in repealing the 3% withholding provision altogether, h.r. 674 will help medicare beneficiaries maintain access to care while assisting government agencies, physicians and other health care providers avoid substantial implementation costs that will outweigh the benefits. closed quote. and i'd like to add that at a time when many of us are concerned about fixing the s.g.r. that threatens massive cuts to physicians

participating in medicare and a loss of access to physician services for many seniors, the last thing we want to do is add yet another potential cut to physicians' payments. again, this is a few of the dozens or hundreds of letters and testimonials that the committee received from businesses across the country. we need to pass h.r. 674 and repeal this harmful tax today. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield as much time as he shall consume, a most active member of our committee, mr. pascrell from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pascrell: i come to the floor today to support h.r. 674 which will repeal a burden on government contractors,

particularly small businesses. i oppose the enactment of the 3% withholding when a republican congress and a republican administration enacted it. of course, i knew it would hurt the economic engines of our economy. the repeal of this requirement will free up small businesses' cash flow, increasing their ability to add jobs and to bid on new projects. this is only a very small part of a jobs plan that could help to reduce unemployment. the majority, the infrastructure bank or funding for our first responders and teachers, they did not support. so i imagine that's not very important, those items. the majority has decided to promote their false 15 bills

that attacks clean air, safe water and consumer safety. be prepared, america, to eat poison. not only do independent economists think that these bills do not create jobs, a recent report found that the so-called economically stifling regulatory atmosphere is not as bad as they say. the report says this -- the obama's white house has approved fewer regulations than george w. push at this point -- bush at this point in their tenures. and the cost of those rules haven't reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under president bush's father, president bush i. you would never think that by listening to the propaganda on the other side of the aisle.

we've overregulated, supposedly, and we've spent -- cost businesses to spend so much on these regulations when again when we look at the facts, this is not true. eat your words. even former reagan treasury official, bruce bartlett, quoted "the wall street journal" saying the main reason u.s. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand. rather than the uncertainty over government policies. so you can grow as many horns as you want around the president and onto the president. once again, look at the facts and the statistics. more regulations at this point when former president bush was the president, bush ii. it is ironic that the majority's adjusting health reform to pay for this

legislation. you condemn the health act and then you take the money from the health act to pay for this act. that is a ponzi scheme if i ever heard one. the majority already voted to repeal health reform. yet, to pay for this legislation, which is a separate piece of legislation, health reform must be in place for 10 years. how do they do that? they get rid of the health care act. well, they're trying to, anyway, and they use the dime for the first 10 years to pay for the first bill. how do you do that? i'm anxious to see how you do this. just as their 2012 budget was paid for by health reform savings -- we've discussed this in the budget committee -- this bill is again paid for by the health reform which they want

to annihilate. if the majority is against the health reform bill, perhaps they should stop making their agenda so dependent upon it. while i support h.r. 674, we cannot pat ourselves on the back and claim victory, that this is a victory for jobs. congress must do much more. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulson, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i rise in favor of h.r. 674, a bill that would repeal this 3% withholding rule for private contractors including hospitals that accept medicare and medicaid payments and even those who provide lunches for schools. this is a bill where

republicans and democrats are working together as president obama singled out this provision as burdensome to our nation's job creators. he proposed delaying this rule. you know, the fact that this rule continues to be delayed, has not been implemented since first created in 2005, shows how truly a bad idea it is. can he should not delay it. we should repeal it immediately. i've spoken with many small businesses in my district that have been -- that will be negative impactly by this law because the profit margin for many of these companies that have government contracts is right around 3%. one minnesota company, valley paving, says withholding 3% -- the new 3% withholding law would be catastrophic on their balance sheets mean covering costs, paying bills and just covering operating costs would be a challenge. and as they point out, during these hard economic times, withholding more money from small businesses like themselves that they most likely will not be able to

update their equipment, not grow as fast and not hire more people. mr. speaker, this goes against everything that washington should be doing, giving our employers certainty to create more jobs. this law needs to be repealed. another contractor in my district, hard drives, incorporated, pointed out the federal government does not need to be playing banker with our earned income. this law may sound like a good idea on paper but this will be disastrous. implementing it for the department of defense alone is estimated to cost about $17 billion over five years. and here's the irony, mr. speaker. the program is going to -- is forecast to bring in a little over $11 billion across the whole spectrum of government, so the program is going to cost more to implement than it will take in. i strongly support this commonsense approach and bipartisan support to adopt this. i ask for support. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i don't know if the majority has any further speakers. mr. herger: i'm prepared to close. mr. levin: all right, i'll close. mr. herger: happy to reserve. mr. levin: i support this legislation. it should not have been passed in the first place. it was not vetted effectively by the then majority. it's time we support this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. herger: and i request unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the president and executive office of the president. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. herger: in this letter from the president, the administration -- just to quote from it -- the administration

supports passage of h.r. 674 which would repeal a 3% withholding on certain payments made to provide contractors by federal, state and local government entities. the effect of the repeal of the withholding requirement would to avoid a decrease in crash flow to these contractors which would allow them to retain these funds and use them to create jobs and pay suppliers. mr. speaker, jobs are the number one priority of the american people and jobs should be the number one priority of this congress. many initiatives that are built as, quote, creating jobs, are controversial. this is not. we're repealing a tax that hurts small businesses, and that will cost the government more to implement than it collects. this is a win-win-win for businesses, workers, local

public services and taxpayers. i urge all members to vote to repeal the 3% withholding tax and create new jobs now. with that i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant it house resolution 448 the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3% withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of the bill is postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 448, i call up the bill h.r. 2576 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 170, h.r. 2576, a bill to amend

the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain hbling -- health care related programs. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 448, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 2576. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i'm pleased to come to the floor today and share my time with one of our committee's newest members, representative diane black. in taking the lead she's taken steps to save the taxpayers $13 billion. i'm happy to support her and this legislation.

h.r. 2576 modifies the income definition for determining eligibility for exchange subs days, medicaid, and the children's health insurance program. the legislation conforms the definition of income in the democrats' health care law to the standards used by other federal low-income programs such as food stamps and public housing. by aligning this definition with other federal subsidy programs, the legislation ensures that taxpayer funds will not be used to encontrol middle class individuals into medicaid, which is an adduce of the program's mission, to provide targeted assistance to those who are in most need of help. one of the most encouraging outcomes of representative black's legislation is it has garnered bipartisan support, including the support of president obama. in its statement of administration policy, the obama administration affirms its support for passage and goes so far to say that, i quote, the administration looks forward to working with the house to ensuring the bill achieves the

intended result, end quote. today i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 2576. i encourage our colleagues in the senate to quickly follow suit. i ask unanimous consent that mrs. black be designated to control the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield as much time as he shall consume to a very distinguished member of our committee, mr. crowley, from the state of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from michigan and the ranking member of the committee on ways and means for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. as we look at this redefinition of terms under the affordable care act, let me take a minute or two or three and go to the facts on the health care law as it exists today. some people on the other side of the aisle and in the media

continue to refer to this provision that we are talking about today as a glitch. as we learned from the nonpartisan joint committee on tax from the markup of this bill on the ways and means committee, this provision was not a glitch. again the other side will make the report that this was a glitch in the law. it was not a glitch. it was written into the law deliberately. and anyone who actually read the bill would have known that. this language was deliberately put into the health care law to expand affordable health insurance. and will particularly help early retirees between the ages of 62 and 64, as well as americans on disability. but again for those of us who support this law and support the passage of this law, we have not -- we have heard a lot of

distortion, a lot of falsehoods, and outright lies about what is in this bill. that is why i encourage all my colleagues, democrats and republicans, especially those of you who are new to congress who were not here when the bill was passed, to read the bill. i think if you did so you'd like a lot about what is in the bill. there are no death panels in this bill. no government takeover of health care in this bill. and bureaucrats will not be in the operating room with your surgeon. these are all falsehoods spread about the law. and again people who read the law know that these claims simply are not true. but here is what is in the law. i think we need to be reminded. no longer will insurance companies be able to decide whether or not you or your family deserve care based on

cost or profit making. no, these decisions will be made by doctors and patients. that's no glitch. children can no longer be denied coverage on their parents' private health insurance because of a pre-existing condition like asthma, which is very prevalent in my district in the bronx. this was no glitch. children can stay on their parents' private health insurance until the age of 26 which has led to over one million more young adults being covered this year. it's no glitch. no mandates on any employer with under 50 employees, none. zero. no mandating, to any employers with under 50 employees. also deliberate by the writers of this bill.

prescription drugs for seniors are being made more affordable and this year seniors get deep discounts on their brand name drugs if they call into the prescription drug coverage gap. a black hole that seniors fall into if they need more than a few thousand dollars worth of medications annually, which millions of our seniors do. it was no glitch. no glitch. and finally, something else in this bill. people will know if they read it. young families with private health insurance can no longer be denied coverage or care under the disgusting term known as lifetime limits. if a young mother gives birth to a severely ill child, no lifetime limits. if the practice of telling young parents that not only is their newborn severely ill, but that their private insurance company won't pay for anymore hospitalization care because it's too costly, that's over.

that's no glitch. those parents will be able to get their sick child the care that he or she needs without selling their home, without declaring bankruptcy, and without having to fight their health insurance company tooth and nail to provide for their child. rather, they could focus on their child's well-being. it's no glitch. it's in the law. democrats put it there deliberately. what i can't understand is why my republican colleagues will continue to work to rip away health care from private insurance to medicare and medicaid. but they refuse to even acknowledge that they themselves benefit from taxpayer funded health care in this congress. i have a bill that would require every member of congress to publicly disclose if they are receiving the taxpayer

subsidized health care benefits that's provided to all federal government employees, including members of congress. my bill has not been brought up for a debate or vote yet. even though it's a simple bill to make more information available to the american people about the benefits that we in congress enjoy. finally, i want to address another serious issue about this bill and how it could affect tens of millions of middle class americans. during the committee debate on this bill, it was certified by the nonpartisan joint committee on tax and social security benefits. generally are not -- the benefits are generally not added back in determining one's modified adjusted gross income for other benefits that they receive such as i.r.a. contributions, student loan interests, and adoption tax benefits. but we are changing that

definition today for consideration of who can obtain tax credits to purchase private health insurance. i argued and no one corrected me during that debate that this bill could be the republican's first step on a slippery slope to limit middle class americans' ability to claim certain deductions for retirement security, college tuition expenses, and even adoptive assistance. yes, the first step on the republican plan to raise taxes on working class families. and this morning my fears are being proven correct. right now the oversight committee is discussing a report they wrote, questions to tax cuts provided to working families to afford health insurance in the affordable care act. they don't argue that the tax cuts are too limited or too weak. they actually argue that the tax cuts are too generous to working families. and that for too many americans,

too many americans will benefit from tax cuts that will make obtaining private health insurance cheaper. the oversight committee report states that the health care law will, quote, take millions of people off the tax rolls, unquote. and let me continue for the report that said, americans receiving these tax cuts in the health care law will have their taxes reduced and i quote, will no longer pay the cost of government by contributing federal income taxes. end quote. what that means is because the tax cuts in the law will lower taxes for people so they could afford health insurance. amazing how tax cuts for millionaires are sacrosanct. but tax cuts for working people so they can get affordable health care coverage, so the kids can see a doctor, are somehow evil. the hypocrisy with respect to health care and medicare for our

constituents, and then the lies about the affordable health care and let's not pass this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the customary one minute to the gentleman from virginia, the majority leader cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, it is clear that many businesses across this country are feeling the ill effect of the regulatory and tax burdens placed upon them by continued policies coming out of washington and this administration. small businesses in particular, the backbone of our economy, face a cloud of uncertainty. this uncertainty prevents entrepreneurs from taking a risk, from starting a business, and from creating jobs. but, mr. speaker, house

republicans want to work with our colleagues across the aisle, and we want to help empower these small business men and women to once again begin the engine that drives our economy. this is the focus of the house republican plan for america's job creators, mr. speaker. this is about jobs. there are some who repeatedly claim that they want to vote on a jobs bill. well, we passed one yesterday on a bipartisan basis. and today we'll have another chance. and we will pass another. currently the house has passed 16 bills focused on job creation that are sitting idly in the u.s. senate. mr. speaker, the president has traveled the country telling americans, quote, we can't wait to pass some job bills. well, we aren't waiting. we continue to pass job bills.

perhaps it's time for the president to deliver the we can't wait message to the other body in the capitol. today the house will take another step in solving our jobs crisis by repealing the 3% withholding rule. under this rule, federal, state, and many local governments will be required to withhold 3% of all government payments made to contractors and suppliers. the impact of this rule will be huge accounting burdens on governments and potentially harmful cash flow disruptions for suppliers, contractors, and subcontractors. those are dollars, mr. speaker, that could otherwise be used to grow a business or hire more workers. the cost of this law would then be felt by state and local governments, universities, like virginia commonwealth university, that told me it is an unreasonable burden on an institution of higher