eastern. will look at the demonstration's efforts to help home buyers. ♪ host: good morning, everyone. this is tuesday, november 15, 2011. we begin this morning with the supreme court decision to hear about the health care law with a decision coming in june of 2012. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can start dialing in now.

we will get to your phone calls in a minute. the supreme court correspondent from "the wall street journal," is joining us this morning to talk to us about what the supreme court might do or might say. welcome. guest: thank you. host: why is this a landmark review of federal powers? guest: because the patient protection and affordable care act, the formal name of the overhaul that the president signed last year, included a provision the federal government has never tried before. it is requiring most people to carry health insurance or carry a penalty of with that their taxes. some said the this exceeds the power that congress carries to regulate state commerce. does this represent a new

frontier of federal power? if so, where does the frontier and? or have they gone a step too far? host: how does the court decide what to hear them out or were there several different appeals? guest: there were several last year. there were cases that came from atlanta, but all of the issues are really the same period in a sense, it does not matter which of those that they took. it all boils down to the same thing. the big one is whether or not this individual mandate is going to be constitutional. there are smaller, subsidiary questions, like is this a lawful way to expand the medicare laws. should the case be heard at all? one possibility is that we will have a tremendous anti climax

in june with the court says that this is the kind of law that can only be challenged after it is implemented. and the challenges would have to wait until 2014. host: so, three options for the court. they uphold it. they strike it down. or, as you said, they delay some sort of decision. guest: those are the most likely options. but since we are talking about the supreme court, i do not want to limit the options and outcomes. host: what will we not hear? guest: one case that got a lot of attention that the court will not here was brought by the attorneys general of virginia. that state basketball declaring in impermissible to require residents to carry health insurance. the clear that there was a conflict, bringing the suit to

court. he won in a trial court. the fourth circuit court of appeals declared that an impermissible effort and the supreme court was not interested in hearing that case. host: when will the supreme court here this case? what will be the process? caller: we -- guest: we expect that it will be heard in late march or early april. the accord did something extraordinary. they said the five and a half hours over the various cases. they have not had that kind of argument let -- argument length. today almost every case it's an hour for both sides -- gets an hour for both sides. five and a half hours over two days indicates how seriously the justices take this issue.

host: two hours on whether the individual mandate is constitutional, and 90 minutes on whether the last vote -- the rest of the law can stand if it is a struck down, one hour challenging the mandate, and one hour on the constitutionality of expanding medicaid. by the calendar, the decision comes in june? guest: the supreme court takes pride in many things. one thing that they are particularly proud of, they always finish their job on time, unlike other branches of government that we will not name. they will -- they will almost surely deliver their decision by the end of june. host: inside the store this morning, on the cover, -- inside of the story this morning, on the cover, who will be arguing the case?

guest: there may be several people are doing. five and a half hours, that would be like a dance marathon from the depression. we expect that the principle advocates will be two of the most prominent litigators in the country. representing the solicitor general of the united states, donald verilly. no surprise. we expect that the principal lawyer on the other side will be a former solicitor general from the bush administration, who has argued over 50 cases before the supreme court. both men are well acquainted with the supreme court. host: who is paul clement representing? there are 26 challenges by

states. which case is being brought before the supreme court? post -- guest: the principal one that they agreed to hear is the one that the government lost at the 11th circuit court in atlanta. the one that this group of 26, mainly republican controlled states, filed. since the government lost that case, they have the privilege of appearing. -- appealing. mr. clement represented those in the lower court. we expect that he would represent them again at the supreme court. host: who was the judge in the atlanta case bell? guest: it was a three judge panel. the panel voted, two-one, that

the individual mandate exceeded the authority that congress had in the constitution. interestingly, the government did not lose everything. as a result, the national federation of independent businesses are filing an appeal for the aspects of the case that they did not win. the 11th circuit ruled that even if the mandate provision falls, the rest is a very ambitious and complicated statute that will stand. they want the rest of all thrown out as well. if the individual mandate goes, so do -- so does the sequence that it represents. the 11th circuit court ruled that the expansion of the medicaid program, which serves poor americans, states want to block that because they say it will cost them more money than they are prepared to spend. host: you are looking at a

graphic of the different challenges in lower courts to the health care law. and how the courts ruled in those decisions. our guest is with us for the next 30 minutes or so. newman, republican, maryland. go ahead. caller: i want to say that justice k and should recuse herself -- kagan should recuse herself from this, she was in the administration when they wrote this fall. she should not have anything on this case at all. i want to say that president obama should stay out of the airplane long about to come back and sit down with the house and senate. thank you very much, c-span. host: we will take that comment on the elena kagan.

that was the cover of "the washington times." guest: judges of the supreme court, all judges, are supposed to avoid potential conflicts of interest. the supreme court is different from other courts. if one of the members disqualifies himself or herself, no one can replace him or her. therefore, the number of justices hearing the case would go down. the supreme court is the judge of its own qualifications. it being the supreme court. neither of those two justices and be forced to recused themselves. elena kagan was the solicitor general before being appointed critics are saying that she was too close to the legal strategy

that the administration designed to defend bill ball. therefore, she has some sort of stake in the of -- the federal law -- defend the law. therefore, she has some sort of stake in it. justice thomas, the issue with him, a critic on the left has raised this, the role of his wife, virginia. she has been a prominent tea party conservative activist, working in organizations that are seeking to overturn this lot today -- law today. his wife's activities, as well as his appearance at some of what -- some events, indicate to some that he would not be partial. host: any indication that they will refuse themselves?

guest: no. host: is there any precedent? guest: for judges disqualifying themselves from cases. generally, however, judges, for financial reasons, like they have stalked in a company before the court, or a relative represented on one side, those are cases where they will refuse themselves. it is true that justice taken sat out of half of the cases last term because they were brought by the united states government. critics said how can you not have been involved in this case? the general thinking was that she might have had a hunch that she could have been on the court sunday. therefore, she took precautions to avoid entangling herself. host: tony, democratic line, richmond, va. caller: how are you this morning?

host: fine. question or comment? caller: by think that justice thomas should be -- caller: i think that justice thomas and justice scalia should be taken off of this case. they have all been at this little fund-raiser in washington, d.c. you can go into a fund raiser, but you cannot be a guest speaker. they have been guest speakers at republican fund-raisers. host: are you familiar with this situation? guest: it is true, both justice scalia and justice thomas did appear last week at the annual convention of the federal society, a conservative legal network. they gave some speeches there. i have not heard anyone suggest that anything about the activity of justice scalia, in a legal

sense, would disqualify him from doing that. we need to step back and look at why people are making these accusations. of what is going on here? the attempt of people that want to change the outcome, they have a strong view on how these justices might go on to vote in the case. most people with 50 cents on the matter would suggest that justice cajun and the justice thomas would be on opposite sides. and justiceeychaagan thomas would be on opposite sides. is there any reason to think that either of these judges would have a different opinion on this case if they had not been married to someone or work in the administration? do they have a conflict of

interest in the legal sense? i cannot judge. but this does not seem to be the kind of situation where their personal interest or outcome for financial or personal reasons would skew their judgment. host: the other justices, have they been on the record in some way, dealing with the issues of this case, like the commerce clause, which "the new york times," called "necessary and proper for carrying over the powers vested by the constitution of the government in the united states -- host: any of these justices on the record of the law? guest: the commerce power underlies many of the most

significant federal laws that we have. the fat -- the civil rights act of 1964, the controlled substances act of 1970. almost any major law that involves a federal regulation of some kind moves on the authority of regulating foreign commerce. yes, pretty much every justice has had occasion to think a great deal on the commerce power. but we would call this a novel financing method adopted by the comment -- congress. there is not anything on this specific issue where we can say to the judge's that they will come up. think about what this case really concerns. what that clause of the constitution really means.

host: let me ask about that. the commerce clause which, according to some, was not intended in this way. guest: i am glad that that tweeter was there in philadelphia, when it was drafted. host: [laughter] guest: the supreme court has, over the decades, had to ponder that very issue. the definitive, as it is the prevailing lot over generations, came from the chief justice -- soaring, from justice robert jackson in 1942 in a unanimous opinion. in that case, he traced the history and origin of the commerce clause in its early interpretation by john marshall in the early 19th century,

saying that it was drafted to correct the flaws in the articles of confederation, which hobble the federal government, intended to give the national government the power to address national problems. that economic issues in a national, global economy are quite broad. it falls to the elected branch to make judgments on which regulations are proper. since that case, in 1942, only twice has the supreme court held that the act of commerce exceeds the commerce power. -- that the act of congress exceeds the commerce power. another law that involved giving people, people that were victims of domestic violence, the right to sue for damages in federal court, the supreme court held

that was not sufficiently related to commerce. regulating the health-care industry on its face has a lot more to do with commerce than those two laws. big question is, if the decision by an individual -- the question is, does the decision by an individual override commerce? therefore, there is no power for regulators. host: we are talking about the supreme court's decision to look at that health care law. we will keep talking about it with all of you this morning. first, let me give you some other headlines. yesterday, we let you know that the house is considering a state reciprocity law when it comes to carrying a concealed weapon. the editorial page of "usa today," weighs in on that this morning.

and a republican from arizona, a member of the house, writes the opposing view if you are interested. the money section of "usa today," has a piece on the extension of the payroll tax. "putting up to $120 billion out of the consumer pockets, cutting the tepid forecast for spending in 2012." many of you remember the battles over the federal aviation administration. from "the washington post," "it seems unlikely that congress will resolve a bitter deadlock over long-term federal funding." that is according to the chairman, john rockefeller, on monday.

mulberry, florida. we are talking about the supreme court hearing of the health care law. what do you think? caller: well, that mandate is truly -- if the mandate is truly constitutional, why is there a mandate under medicare part d? you had to belong to a qualified plan. i know. i had a plan for my company. when it came out, the company abandoned it. i found out that the va was a qualified plan. there is a mandate in medicare part b with everyone on medicare having to belong to a qualified drug plan. host: i do not know if that issue has come up? the legality of it.

guest: i am not an issue of medicare. -- i am not an expert on the issues of medicare. but the type of constitutional power at issue, there are certain clauses that reflect a fundamental rights, things that neither the state nor the federal government can impose. things like free of some expression or religion. those are rights that an individual has that no government can impose on them beyond certain, limited ways. this issue is different. a structural question regarding the way the government is organized. therefore, many critics of the health care law might say, and you can put it this way, that the affordable care act goes too far and not far enough. they say that it goes too far in that the power that the government asserts to require people to purchase this from a

private supplier exceeds their commerce power, but not the power that the states have. in fact, one state has something just like this. massachusetts. there is no argument that prevents the state from doing this. in theory, all 50 states could adapt identical plans. that would not be subject to this kind of constitutional challenge. they argue that they should. alternatively, and this gives some relevance points, there is little that the government could use in terms of a different power for taxing and spending on the general welfare of the country. if the government simply decided to raise taxes to pay for universal health insurance for everyone, putting a private

insurance industry out of business, the government could of course impose taxes and spend the tax money, doing exactly that with medicare. medicare is a universal health insurance program that covers every eligible person over a specified ages. expanding medicare to cover everyone, they would not be open to this kind of constitutional challenge. not to say that the affordable care act does not go far enough. host of this twitter message -- host: this twitter message -- guest: once again, i defer to the tweeters wisdom on who will be the deciding vote. it is true that justice kennedy in most of the divided cases over the past few years, usually sides with conservatives, but on

a narrow number of issues he joins the liberals in those five-four cases. on this issue, it is hard to say how close a call a bill before him. he has been someone who has been particularly interested in the ideas of states' rights. we should look closely at him. but we should also look closely at the chief justice and the kinds of questions he asks when this case is argued next year. last year the chief justice was joined by most of the liberals on the court involving another provision in the constitution. the necessary and proper clause. sometimes considered to be a force multiplier. not only does congress have specified powers, they also have the power to do whatever they consider necessary and proper to exercise the power.

one opinion read the power quite broadly. the chief justice joined justice prior, on liberal side, to say yes, the government has that power. justice kennedy agreed to the opposite, but he wrote a separate opinion saying that he does not know if it goes as far as the briar opinion. host: this message -- host: peter, democratic line, west palm beach. go ahead. caller: when you go to a hospital emergency room, you are automatically covered if you can pay or not. they have to service you. when i went, my bill was a large. they told me that because i was in the emergency room, i paid for people that did not have coverage.

it is a problem of the health plan. there are 50 million people using the emergency room. that is not fair for people that have coverage, like me. host: happy to be retired. houston, texas. go ahead. caller: the fact that you are using the word liberal, i will let you know that the supreme court is not impartial. the only reason they are taking this up right now is for political points. we have to live by the rules of nine people on this earth. it is a shame. the u.s. should be ashamed. host: byron, republican, louisiana. what do you think? caller: trying to compare

justice kagan with justice thomas, working in the oval office and his wife, and him for getting to put that on his income tax, i think i know who really needs to be disqualified from this decision. we have either got to have someone from "the wall street journal," on every morning, they keep pushing it. host: that is not true. we have people from "the new york times," "the wall street journal," people from different think tanks and all kinds of opinions on this show. maryland, you are next.

caller: what the american people do not understand is that with everything happening, they're going to need this health care law. these judges, they do things for their own benefit. every one needs health care. everyone needs health care. they really need it when a disaster happens. host: major changes in the health care law are not likely to last according to this. "there may be no going back. health care in america has changed in ways that will not easily be undone."

house - host: dad is a lengthy piece in "the new york times." -- host: that is a lengthy piece in "the new york times." ken, independent caller, your next. caller: thank you. i just wanted to comment on the fact that i think that the supreme court considers any decisions on health care, they should come to an even understanding on tariffs. at the age of 62, i believe that there is no longer health care insurance in this country. we have prepaid madison.

the actuaries and insurance companies have gotten a tether to decide how much it will cost for the next 20 years and that is what they are charging you, point-blank, month by month. with that major consideration, the moment that you hit 50, it drops down to a 10 year analysis and why it is not affordable any longer for the average person. the only basis of ever resolving any of this is to come to an understanding that we no longer have health care insurance in this country. host: all right. news, this picture of gabrielle giffords and mark kelly, sitting down with abc news for an interview. we want to show you it little bit of that. >> oh, um.

>> she wants to get better. >> better. >> you want to get better. >> you think yourself that you will go back to congress, if you get better? >> yes, yes, yes. >> gabrielle -- host: gabrielle giffords, saying that she wants to get better and will return to congress. colorado, next. democratic caller. caller: i just want to make the comment that if it is required of us to have a driver's insurance, why not health care insurance? if that is true, it opens the floodgates. i will not pay driver's insurance anymore. guest: an important point that

we talked about earlier. the question is, do you have a fundamental right to not carry health insurance as much as you have the fundamental right to freedom of religion, rather it is a structural question about which arm of the government's forces you to carry insurance. it is not a federal requirement to carry auto insurance, it is a state requirement. the state is not bound by article 1, section 8 of the constitution. that is the issue here before the court. i wanted to answer a couple of questions brought up by the collar. peter s. about emergency rooms, maintaining that it was not fair for him to have to pay extra for the uninsured people in the emergency rooms. peter pretty much expressed the view of the u.s. government and

courts that have already considered this. one of them dismissed the challenge as premature. two sided with the government and agreed that the issue is not forcing an individual to buy insurance, so much, as the government's judgment over the best way to pay for a service that everyone will leave at some point or another. regulating the way that health care is financed in order to make sure that the costs are covered and that people pay their share of nl while they are healthy and do not wait until they are hit by a car and then pay for it. some were disappointed that the supreme court would hear this case at all. there was a split amongst of the lower court. one side said that the court is

not constitutional. others calling a constitutional or not able to be challenged at this point. you cannot have a lot that is constitutional in most states, but not in the 11th circuit. the supreme court did need to step in to clarify. as far as whether or not we have a private or public insurance system at all in this country, that is exactly the kind of question the supreme court is not going to get into. the supreme court does not make policy judgments about the wisest solution to the problem. that is for congress. the court will tell you solely the balance of permissible choices that policy makers can get into it and whether this is a good idea or bad idea. the accord will say that it will

not decide. it will only decide if it is a constitutional idea or if the program does not violate the limits set by the federal government. host: this is a tweet from mary. guest: they have not heard the case, and i do not know if it is a question of market ideology. the question does not come down to, again, whether or not this is the best solution or even a good solution to the problem identified by the congress and that the president campaigned to solve. the only question is whether or not this program falls into one of the specified powers to congress as. -- has. does that fall under one of the

other powers? imposing taxes and spending money? the government argues that it does because those that do not carry health insurance as required will carry a penalty with their taxes and it falls under that power. those other questions that they will ask not -- that they will ask. not if this is a good idea. host: chicago, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i have enjoyed the conversation. i have a question. i was wondering, you mentioned earlier that if there was medicare for all, this case could not be raised. i was wondering, conversely, if there had been a public option included, could this issue have also been brought before the supreme court?

guest: i do know. i do not know what it would have looked like. the question is, what is the government doing? is it spending money that it legitimately collected in order to promote general welfare in its judgment? then it is a difficult program to challenge. some of these programs were challenged when they were brought for exceeding federal powers. the supreme court rejected those challenges. if there was a choice about carrying from a private or public program, i guess the answer is -- i do know. there were probably ways that the laws could have been written to preclude the legal challenges is now facing. host: lou, democratic caller, illinois. we want to show you what john boehner had to say yesterday,

after getting the news that the supreme court would take up this health care law. caller: much of my taxes go to furnish health care for people that are not insured. if you take someone with a mild case of bronchitis and has the opportunity to go to a physician, winding up dead in an apartment, then is rushed to an emergency room, the cost of taking care of that person might be $30,000 to $40,000. if he had had health insurance, maybe it would have just been a couple of hundred dollars. i think that the health insurance law is a good law and it should be passed.

host: jason, as we hear your question and comments, here is the reaction from the white house yesterday. caller: i am calling to ask about the constitutionality of hospitals being mandated to provide health care. people may not have it. in the same breath, we need to look at that. we are getting into a dangerous tailspin there. government mandates asking for someone to pay for the cost of this thing, we all have bodies. all bodies would need health care. asking people to pay for their own health care would only be the greatest form of personal responsibility that i can imagine. that is what i am calling to

talk about. host: jason? guest: they have hit on and expressed the government's position. which is that health care is not like other types of product. challengers often say that this is the hardest issue for government to answer. if the federal government can compel people to purchase or carry private health insurance, is there anything that they cannot compel you to purchase? the government has had a hard time coming up with a theory that furnishes this, or something else, that is important for the economy. however, one point made by the government is that maybe, in theory, congress could do those things. but why would it? of health care is a particularly pervasive need for everyone,

potentially. from birth to what lies beyond without needing health care at some point. that this is a kind of thing that is so expensive and necessary, we, as a society, have decided not to let people die in the street if they cannot afford to have their wounds stanched. then it has to be paid for in a certain way, the universal insurance pool. to have the choice to expand or build on private insurance systems rather than expanding medicare, that was the decision that congress made. that specific method, which they chose, if it falls within their power, that is the question here. host: we have time for a couple of more help -- a couple of more phone calls.

from "the washington post," "a representative from the trans canada company will work with them on the grasslands and wetlands." in 2012 politics, "gloria cain, wife of herman cain, sat down with fox news yesterday to talk about her husband." faugh here is a bit of that interview. >> i know the person that he is. i know that the person that they were talking about, i do not know who that person is. we have been married for 43 years. if i have not seen part of that person in 43 years, i do not think that in that simple that i would miss something so significant. after about a week and half, i

decided that enough was enough. everyone has to continue. but they did not know hermine. host: in other news related to that, the latest accuser of sexual arrest and against herman cain, the ex-boyfriend came out yesterday and backed up her misconduct flameproof -- misconduct claim. illinois, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. a couple of quick points. it is not mandated that you purchase auto insurance. you do not have to. if you do not want to buy it, you do not have to buy a car and are not mandated to buy auto insurance. one of the supreme for me it -- rulings called it a taxation, not a mandate. why is this different than the boston tea party, taxation without representation? guest: nice to end with some

simple questions. one, getting back to the auto insurance analogy, the issue is not whether or not one of descartes, it is the arm of government that makes their " -- the requirement. the state has adopted mandatory insurance for automobile drivers. if they had adopted mandatory insurance for anyone that might ever to a doctor, that might not be an issue, as it was recognized as within the state'' power to do it. one state has already done that, massachusetts. the other, what is the mandate from the government? how is it the similar to the boston tea party? -- how is it dissimilar to the boston tea party? this, if it is taxation, is

taxation with representation, since it was adopted by the elected congress and signed by the elected president. the remedy is that if the majority does not like this plan, to let someone who will reveal it. -- repeal it. i understand that there are several candidates willing to do just that. this might be taxation with representation, which i do not believe was the cry of the boston tea party. host: thank you for being here to answer viewers' questions. guest: thank you. host: coming up, charles black, a former adviser to george h. w. bush. we will be right back. ♪

>> wednesday, book tv on line, watch live streaming coverage of the national book awards from new york city. the awards ceremony starts at 6:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend, live from the miami book fair international, with george mcgovern, randall kennedy, harry belafonte, and others. find a complete schedule online, booktv.org. >> c-span.org is no easier to

use. there is a section on the home page to access the most popular series and programs. and we have added a can be channeled-finder to quickly find where to watch our network on cable and satellite across the country. that is the only c-span.org -- that is the all new c-span.org. host: we are back with charlie black, former adviser to ronald reagan and george h. w. bush. also, former adviser to the john mccain's presidential campaign. i want to begin with the supreme court's position to take up this health care what and look at it. if they were to make a decision in june, can you look at what that means for whomever the gop

candidate would be at that time in the general election? guest: the fact that they will do this case next year guarantees that obama-care will be a huge issue in the 2012 election. unfortunately for the president, it is one of the most unpopular things he has done, and is not supported by a majority of the american people, independent swing voters in this country, they oppose obama on this two- one. those on the conservative side would love to see the court going down with the law, but whether they do or not it is bad news for the republicans. host: if it is of held -- upheld or struck down, the president can use that to rally his base against the supreme court.

host: he is going to -- guest: he is going to rally his base one way or the other. the key to the election is the swing voters. independent voters. the president carried them in 2008. they have swung back heavily republican. 60-40. 2010. the key is that they do not like obama-care. if it is front and center on the agenda, he will lose. host: this is from "the baltimore sun," this morning. "newt gingrich, the latest to be favored in the polls." they call it a field in flux. why is it? guest: the one person ever in flux, governor mitt romney. he has consistently been the front runner at the top of the

list. many other candidates have risen and fallen, the pending on their campaign fortunes, but that is the way these things work. the interesting thing is that these national polls that we go and read every day mean nothing in the presidential nominating process. it is a series of state contests. seven weeks from now, we will begin voting. iowa, quickly followed by new hampshire, then followed by south carolina. the winner of the contests will go down the calendar to see who will be nominated. i have never seen a poll in new hampshire where mitt romney was ahead of other contenders. he should win new hampshire. by what is wide open. i tend to look at those polls --

iowa is wide open. i tend to look at that more closely than the national polls. host: starting from the beginning, you are the chairman of the prime policy group. guest: a government relation lobbying firm. that is my job, working for corporate and other clients in washington. in the past i have been involved in many presidential campaigns. but not this time. host: you have not endorsed and are not advising any of the gop field? guest: some of them call sometimes, but it is informal. host: they themselves call you? guest: sometimes. host: what are they seeking from you? guest: i have been around for a long time. nine presidential campaigns. plus, i know all of these people. every single one of them.

i am friends with many of them. they know that they can call me to say -- what do you think of this? how about that c-span yesterday? whenever they might want to bounce off of me. most of them have full-time professional staff. host: friends with herman cain? guest: i have known him for many years. host: has he called you? guest: not yet. host: not seeking your advice? guest: no. host: steve schmidt, another advisor to john mccain, said that this campaign is essentially over for him. guest: given the difficulties he has had with these terrible acquisition -- accusations against him, he has shown great resilience. he is hanging in there. maybe not at the high levels that he once was, but he is still a contender. the jury is out of how they will

judge these charges against herman cain. host: what you think about the interview that he did yesterday where he asked about libya? guest: i did not look at the video, but i am led to understand that he stumbled around quite a bit in answering the question. one thing that happens in these races is when business people run for president, they have to learn hundreds of issues. they have to develop positions and be able to articulate them on dozens of important issues. because they have not been doing it their whole life. sometimes it is hard to come up with the answer. host: we have made little bit of that interview. i will show you and our viewers. >> do you agree with president obama of libya or not? >> libya.

president obama supported the uprising, correct? president obama called for the removal of gaddafi. i want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing before i say that i agree. i do not agree with it the way that he handled it for the following reasons. i have got to go back and see. it is twirling in my head. host: your reaction? after seeing that? guest: note to ways about it,

sometimes it is better -- no two ways about it, sometimes it is better for a candidate to move on to the next question, rather than appearing to be not able to remember the facts on the question. it is embarrassing. host: at one of the recent debates, rick perry said the same thing. he could not remember the third agency and felt embarrassed. what is the impact on these stumbles, long term? guest: it can hurt. people are trying to judge these candidates as to his best to be president. people want to vote for someone who agrees with them on the issues, but there is also a certain threshold of expectation that someone is prepared to be president. these kinds of moments do not help the candidates in that regard. host: as an adviser, how do you

prepare a candidate for debate? guest: you have got to sit down and devote a lot of time to go through the issues. letting the candidates decide where they stand. things that they have not been involved in before. it is very important, putting it in their own words, if the debate has dozens of important issues, it takes time and concentration. what the staff does is facilitate the candidate figuring out how they are most comfortable. host: on this latest poll from cnn, it reflects other polls we have seen in recent days. that former house speaker newt gingrich is on the rise again in

the polls. mitt romney holding steady, but now newt gingrich coming back from 11%. guest: there is a man that knows where he stands on all federal issues. he has been involved with those issues for many years. newt gingrich is known to republican voters as a reliable conservative. respected and appreciated for leading a revolution. he brought control of the u.s. house in the '90s. there was a question as to whether he was the right person to be the nominee. he is moving into this vacuum that you described about which one of these candidates will be in the final period host: a

quick phone call for you -- final. host: a quick phone call for you. caller: i am not very happy with the entire republican contenders. of all of them, newt gingrich's favorite. but all of them have baggage. could all of these people get together and draft tom coburn? i think he would be the most attractive all of them to everyone in the united states. i watched him for years on the floor of the senate. and he has this absolute confidence in what he is talking about. host: before we answer that question, what do you not like

about mitt romney? you did not mention him. caller: for one thing, i think he has a lot of trouble with the health care thing in massachusetts, which i do not think is the greatest thing in the world. all of the othersand the rest oo have something in their background, even newt gingrich, who i appreciate. but tom coburn stands out. guest: dr. tom coburn is a great u.s. senator. he would be a very good president. he has set himself more than once he is not going to be president. he will not run for president. naturally they do not want to stop what they are doing and go for someone else because they believe that they would be a good president and that they have a chance to win. let me say this, having been around this since 1976.

every candidate has some baggage. no such thing as a candidate that does not have something in their bagram. it might be a political liability. we are all human and people who have been around and served in business or government may have incredibly good public records or they may have a flaw in the record. you can debate about governor romney's healthcare program in massachusetts. but there is a much -- there's much difference in the national plan. president obama had to negotiate that with democrats and he tried to peak -- it tried to pull people out of the emergency room to get them on an affordable insurance plan. only 8% of people in massachusetts or uninsured. the national program is much more different and the president's solution as much more expensive. there's something wrong with all of them, but look at that debate and you have nine choices.

when you get to vote in the primary, pick any one of those nine, and several of those people would be in a position to beat president obama. host: rochester, new york. caller: as far as the field, the cost of health care is exorbitant but i think people are taking advantage of the system by not having insurance. host: ok, richard, anything else? caller: i find the republican field unacceptable. i am a democrat but i still in think that romney will get it. he is the least problematic person. host: let's take that, romney will get it because he is the least problematic. guest: governor romney as more than the least problematic. he is a strong leader, a successful businessman,

successfully turning around not only businesses but the salt lake olympics. he ended up with a $100 million surplus that went into future charitable uses. at a time when the american people are concerned about the economy, jobs, he may be exactly the right person at this time. again we have others on the stage with him. all of them will keep focusing on jobs. as far as health insurance, it is one thing to say that people should be required to be insured. i am not sure it is constitutional, but there may be ways to figure that out as we do with auto insurance. a that was discussed in the last hour if you're watching. the point is having a big government takeover of health care system, imposing tens of billions in cost on the states to push people into the states

to handle them. we talked earlier about obamacare being unpopular. and being a liability for the president in 2012. in the state of ohio last week, that referendum on the ballot on obamacare. to-1 against obamacare in this critical swing street. host: what would be your advice to governor mitt romney to get above this 24% which seems to be where he is hovering? guest: he does not need do anything about it your you have nine people in the field. what matters how the debt -- what matters is how he does in ohio and new hampshire. in new hampshire is higher than 24%. i believe he will win new hampshire by a very comfortable margin. and then the field will narrow. whoever is the front runner will be up higher in numbers. it is natural to have a diffuse

field when you have this many candidates. host: pros and cons of having so much attention paid to the other candidates romney becomes the nominee. pros and cons on not having attention on mitt romney right now. guest: it is the law of campaigns. the nominee will emerge in the spring. march, april time frame, we will have a nominee. maybe governor romney, and he has 67 months for the focus to be on him or her, should be michele bachmann. i have to say him or her, and the nominee has six or seven months to introduce themselves to the american people, injured his their views, contrast those views with president obama, and it all culminates in a debate in the fall. there's plenty of time for that. and it is good for the party to

have a wide-open contest for the nomination. you get more people engaged. if someone gets involved in a campaign in one of these contenders, they will stay involved in the general election. i think we have a great field, a good, the first field with congresswoman bachmann, with herman cain, the most prominent african american ever to run, so many people in the invasion our process. host: from louisiana, you are on the air with charles black. caller: i want to discuss his endorsement of newt gingrich. if you look back at his contract on america, that is one of the deregulation occurred, the pension plan protections, it was under the leadership -- and i would say that very aggressive leadership of newt gingrich. everything that is happening

today, you can plant squarely on the shoulders of newt gingrich and that congress that had the contract on america. guest: glass-stegall was after meeting bush left congress. believe it was in 20,001. yes, the contract with america contained a deregulatory agenda. the country now needs a dead regulatory agenda. if you go talk to any small business person in your neighborhood, you will find that they are overburdened and have to spend time and resources on complying with federal rules and regulations as opposed to being able to hire more people and create more jobs and produce more product. obviously some regulation is needed in different areas. right now we have too to much rather than too little. host: houston, texas.

caller: i am an newt gingrich supporter and i saw this coming. quite frankly as you look ahead to the debates between the presidential candidate and the republican side and mr. obama, mr. obama is very articulate expresses his position very well and we need someone who can do the same. i think newt is the guy that instead of very strongly to mr. obama and his ideological side, which moves toward socialism, versus whom i support, and gingrich, who stands very conservatively on the side of the free enterprise system and the values the republicans stand for, lower taxes, smaller government, and everything else. and i sing it is the only guy that can stand up there and get that -- and i see newt as the only guy that can stand up there and get the job done. but newt has a not of -- has a lot of baggage per his personal life can be overcome because

that becomes less and less of an issue. he has indicated some at redemption in that area on his part. what i do not understand is the problems that he got then that will come up over ethics. some book deal -- i do not understand what that is. could you explain the political baggage that newt may have, and also the fact that people say he may amplitude -- in imploded some time. could you explain to me where everyone is coming from n and their concern comingewt? guest: you are right that he is a terrific debater and an intellectual giant. peking duck tough to tell on the stage with present our obama with no problem. -- he could go toto on the stage with president obama with no -- toe to toe on the stage with

president obama with no problem. the economies will be the issues. i don't think you have to be a movie star to dramatize that in a debate. newt gingrich has been controversy over the years. i am not going to take the opportunity to repeat negatives about him. i do know them well and i know that everything a competitor might bring up, there is a good answer for. the problem is some time, if you are out there having to explain answers to these questions, there could be a problem. listen, he is searching in has the momentum he may well be the republican nominee. i think you will be able to answer those questions and we will have great debates with president obama. but he is not the only one that can take him unsuccessfully. host: has speaker gingrich called you and ask you for advice? guest: not in this campaign. host: florida.

caller: i wanted to know your opinion on supporting communist countries and dictators. guest: first off, i believe in free trade. i believe the more exports that u.s. businesses do, the more jobs it creates in the u.s. china, for example, is a communist country. but economically, we have a very important trade relationship with china and that relationship need some fine tuning. the manipulation of their currency in their failure on intellectual property sometimes, but it is a very important trade relationship. now you say dictators. there are situations in which regimes are so offensive, not just to us but to the world, that we should not trade with them. we should have economic

sanctions on them. i ran it is a presently good example. myanmar, better known as burma. right now we have economic sanctions on syria and probably should make them stronger. those of foreign-policy decisions that intervene in the economic relationships that we have around the world. but there may be millions of american jobs dependent on exports, but we need to increase that. host: john, your and independent scholar on the air with charles black. caller i agree with the caller that says that newt gingrich has his hands all over this. this being the economic doldrums that we are in and we will continue to stay and, glass- stegall was overturned in 1988,

not 2001. clinton had been hammered the whole time he was in office ease up on regulation and overturn that bill, doorway with -- change the futures thing which opened up the whole economic mess for swaps. as i say, that whole field would continue this mess that we are in now economically. so none of them are worth anything. host: that is john's opinion. he says he is an independent. guest: i will tell you that phil gramm and tom riley were the authors of the bill. if gingrich was still there, of course is supported it. but it change the rules on financial institutions. yes, financial institutions overreached and overextended and got us into big trouble in the financial crisis of 2008.

believe that, i felt that very much because i felt that john mccain had no chance to win after the financial crisis hit. but that said, the banks did that themselves. the rules did not cause it. they overreached and got into trouble in ways that were not consistent with good business practices. you're never going to have enough rules to keep it the financial institutions from making mistakes. if you do have that many rules, you would not have big financial institutions loaning money in providing capital to businesses large and small to create jobs. again it is a matter of fine- tuning. we have to make sure now in implementing the dodd-frank financial reform bill that we do not go too far on the over regulatory side. but that you leave the financial institutions in a position to loan money, help businesses

create capital and jobs. host: what was an import about september 15? guest: that was the day at lehman brothers when then, starting the chain of events that started the financial collapse of 2008. senator mccain was actually ahead of then-senator obama in the polls on september 15. the financial collapse happened and the american people became very afraid pretended to blame it on the president bush was dragged down the republican side. mccain lost 12 points and two weeks. not much to do with him. host: not the statements that he said at the time, and i'm paraphrasing, but that it was fine? guest: he said fundamentals or -- the fundamentals were ok. that proved to be true. but that was not caused it. the financial collapse and the fear it engendered in the american people was blamed on president bush, fairly or

unfairly. when bush went down in his job approval, mccain went down in the polls. host: birmingham, alabama. caller: if it comes between newt gingrich are romney, i would definitely vote for need gingrich. i trust him more with the economy. when it came ran, he lost so many votes and it was not -- and if it was not for sarah palin, he would not have gotten half of those the head. he would not tell us whether he was democrat republican. host: y do you not trust mitt romney? white you trust newt gingrich more? caller: is not something you can put your finger on. it is just something if it. i cannot tell whether he is democrat or republican. i would watch mccain on the floor and i cannot even tell the was a republican.

guest: john mccain is a proud conservative republican and he has been in congress in the house or the senate for 30 years. he is a lifetime -- his lifetime conservative rating is 88%. it may have changed the last couple of years but he is a good conservative and am sorry he left you with a different impression. i am guessing this caller is coming from a very conservative position philosophically. michele bachmann is a wonderful and articulate candidate for the conservative cause, or herman cain, running a conservative campaign, or newt gingrich, whom most people think is a strong conservative. gov. rahm may come on the other hand, is also a conservative. -- governor romney, on the other hand, is also a conservative. if you look at the things he has been able to accomplish as a

fiscal conservative it in massachusetts, dealing with a legislator that was 88% democratic, and look at his position in business and issues in the last campaign and his campaign. he is a very fine conservative. we just talked about the mall being conservatives. host: here is a tweet. guest: the world this change dramatically. what i was involved in president reagan's campaigns, we did not even had the internet or blackberry or computers. i remember the first fax machines that i ever saw was dragged out on the tarmac of the runway by the campaign out what, and then take it up to the plane so that you could send faxes. even as recently as 12 years ago, we did not have all the

social media. today, what happens on twitter, what happens on facebook, internet ads are just as important as the old television ads. and the proliferation of media. you know, when reagan ran in 1980, you had the three major networks, cnn was brand new, and you had major newspapers. that is to cover the campaign and where people got their permission. today there are literally thousands of places that people can get information about the campaigns. these campaigns have to really address a much wider field of media outlets than we ever had to in the old days. host: pros and cons of that? guest: it is good that the more knowledge you have, the more information people will get. i have always believed that the more people know about the candidates and issues, the better.

but that said, it makes it very difficult for the campaign to reach everybody and respond to all the media outlets. frankly, there is a big problem with the number of blogs out there and the tendency that what someone puts out to get into the mainstream media, they are not accountable and they sometimes put that information out there. it is a free country and we have a first amendment. but mainstream reporters have to be careful about asserting these blog opinions before putting them out. host: cleveland, ohio. caller: i listened yesterday to the former governor of utah jon huntsman. host: what about it? caller from the brookings institute yesterday on c-span? he seemed to have the right

direction to focus on what he wanted to do and he was not letting the side issues be involved. what you think of mr. husband? guest: he is a great candidate and very qualified to be president of united states. he was a great governor, but he has been an ambassador three times and served in the bush administration in a trade capacity. jon huntsman probably has more international experience than any of these candidates. he is a very fine candidate. you do not hear as much about him because he started later than most of the others, and frankly, he confined his campaign to new hampshire. he is trying to win new hampshire to of said mitt romney there and gain momentum from that. unless you are in new hampshire, you do not see as much of him. he is a very fast in canada and would be a very good president. host: joe, an independent college.

-- caller. caller: the president has said that americans are lazy. right now there are 18 bills that the house sent over to the senate. they are sitting there collecting dust. bill is lazy, the democrats in the senate? i do not think americans are lazy. they want to work. and how about the pipeline the president called off? until after the 2012 elections. the fact that this deal down in the carolinas, that was called off, because of the unions. i think between the unions, the epa, and the fact that obama had been campaigning in 57 states, he said, and he called people corpseman, i don't think there

is much to him. i think he is easy to be. guest: i do not think that he is easy to be. intellectually, he is very smart. i think he will lose because his governing philosophy, probably the most liberal president we have ever had, and his spending policies, obamacare, all the big government policies, have not work. the american people want jobs and he took a bad economy and made it worse. do not underestimate him. he is a good campaigner and he will have a lot of money. probably more than the republican nominee. host: a recent headline. what about this challenge for the republicans? guest: until our nominee emerges, it will be hard to tell how much money we can raise.

but independent groups and outside groups raise and spend more money than the campaigns themselves. what you have to look at is the principal campaign like the obama campaign of the republican campaign, the republican national committee in the democratic national committee, which will raise and spend a lot, and then how much the outside groups on each side spent. i suspect in the end that our side might spend as much as president obama's side that i do not think that we will be outspent in a way to decide the election. we cannot underestimate the president. he was saying that american businesses were lazy about not exporting more. he sat on free trade agreements for three years before letting them move through congress. the following decision, charles and south carolina, about the national labor relations board, it is our courageous.

-- it is outrageous. boeing will win that in court. the keystone pipeline, clearly it should go for it. it will help our energy independence but the environmentalist do not like it. the president has postponed until after the election. references made earlier to rally his base, that is what that is about. host: lee county, virginia. caller: all watch the last debate and i like what rick perry said about cutting foreign aid. getting back to the american people first. but you take newt gingrich, his first wife, he left her after she got sick and took up with another woman. herman cain, you know what is going on there. what really i like about it is that i watched the reporters

with their earplugs in and their papers piled up in front of them, remembering what to say, but then they talk about rick perry because he forgot something, isn't that funny? he has created jobs and we ought to vote for him. host: i want to show you the houston chronicle yesterday. food stamps hit record high in texas. they say that the rick perry miracle may have helped a million people, but more texans than ever are living off the federal food stamp program. caller: a look what obama has done. they need to get rid of him in both someone that will create jobs. he said he was going to create oil proved -- jobs for oil production and coal production. we need to get rick perry to create jobs.

host: he does not see this as a problem for the governor. guest: again, the economically disadvantaged has grown not just in texas but all over the country because of unemployment, underemployment, and we have a very bad situation in states that have relatively low average income. gov. perry is a great candidate and a great governor. he has done a terrific job in lowering spending and lower taxes. that has helped attract businesses there. he has a proven record as a job creator. we'll have to see if he can overcome the stumbles in the campaign to get back today first tier of candidates. but he is a very well qualified candidate and well qualified to be president. he needs to step up his game a little bit in terms of the campaign performance. host: mark, democratic caller, pennsylvania.

caller: i will make this fast. the one thing i have noticed in this republican primary is all of these debates. to be perfectly honest with you, as a democrat i've voted for h.w. twice so i do vote republican. i think the republican dates are doing more harm than good. these candidates like rick santorum are forcing mitt romney hit into right-wing positions like a tea party. is his only cost them the senate seat in delaware, the senate seat in nevada. they keep moving them too far to the right. the tea party is going to sink of republicans in the general election. guest: i believe that governor romney and all the other candidates on the stage decide their views on the different issues out of conscience, their

own opinions, and then defend them in these debates. actually the debates appear to of help cover running and speaker gingrich more than anybody else, if you look at the polls. let me say something about the tea party. there is no tea party, they are scores of local tea party organizations has sprung up and we hope they will continue to be active in 2012. yes, there were some situations where upsets and primaries probably cost the senate seats. the people and voters who identify themselves with the tea party in the exit polls, about 25% of the voters, what republicans 95-5 in the general election. they picked up house seats and other senate sees that we picked up, electing many governors and state legislators, and i believe

that the tea party bringing people out to the polls and the general election was a huge plus for the republican party. but there is no one tea party. it is different in local areas in leadership. host gary from columbus, georgia. caller: many years ago in 1983 as a lobbyist for the realtors, i was sent to washington to tout the free enterprise system. i was and senator carl levin's office topping that formula and he interrupted me. he said, we do not have a free enterprise system in this country. we have not had for many years. what we have is a cooperation between industry and government and it seems to be working pretty well. and i said, that means we are free to do exactly what we're told? and he said, that is about it. what you think about that?

guest: we do have a free enterprise system, the greatest economic system in the world. history has proven that. yes, government has become more involved in the economy over the years. right now government spending about 23% of gross domestic product, too high. that will be a big issue in the election next year, who can pull back the spending to reasonable levels. and yes there is some overregulation of the economy. listen, there is no job other than a government job ever created by the government. the government is supposed to be a referee to protect individuals from being abused by businesses and companies. but government does not create jobs. we have the greatest free enterprise system in the world. if we can get the government back to a balanced in the budget and a little bit less regulation, although fewer taxes, you will see the american competitive free enterprise

system take off again. host: charles black, thank you for talking to our viewers. coming up next, sheila jackson lee will be here to talk about the deficit reduction committee and its impact on homeland security efforts. first a news update from c-span radio. >> the husband of congresswoman gabby giffords, mark kelly, in remarks earlier today on abc said that she has no interest in running for her house seat if she is unable to do so. and that representative giffords is in his words still improving. he went on to say that his job is to make sure she can get better so she can go back to her career. the administration set to announce new programs today they say will further cut waste and fraud in medicare and medicaid. the white house releasing new figures showing the administration cut improper payments by nearly $18,000,000,000.2011. also facing spending cuts, the

defense department. in a communication to congress yesterday, defense secretary leon panetta said that the number of u.s. ground forces would drop to levels not seen since 1940. the navy would drop to the smallest number since since 1915, and the air force would be the smallest ever if they sue for deficit committee fails to come up with the $1.2 trillion plan by the deadline. and the automatic cuts trigger the across the board cuts. the pentagon would face $500 billion in cuts over the next 10 years, on top of cuts already enacted. you can hear live coverage of a hearing on c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> wednesday on book tv, watch live streaming coverage of the annual national book awards from new york city, red carpet

interviews with a non-fiction finalists, and the awards ceremony starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. book tv is live from the miami book fair international with defense and your colleagues, with george mcgovern, randall kennedy, harry belafonte, and others. find a complete schedule online at our website. >> the c-span.org home page is now easier to use. the newly designed page features 11 video choices, making it easier for you to watch today's events, live and recorded. there's a section to access our popular programs like "washington journal," book tv, american history tv, and "the contenders." we have added in a handy channel finder so that you can find where to watch our channels on cable, radio, and satellite systems across the country. at the all-new c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. texaswe're joined now by

congress, and sheila jackson lee to talk about defense spending and the super committee. i want to start with a super committee's work with eight days to come up with a plan before the november 23 deadline. the think there will be a deal by the super committee? -- do you think there will be a deal by super committee? guest: i wish them well. we would not be doing our job of we did not encourage our colleagues to do the best that they can on behalf of the american people. but it is a very tough challenge in many of us are not rigid, but we have viewpoints that i think our common sense. most americans, some 64%, agree that revenue must be generated out of any agreement that the super committee presents. and of course there needs to be reasonable cuts. but many of us believe that if one side of the super committee, our republican

friends, believe that the only cuts that occur in a major way in entitlements, and i do not like that term, i like to call the medicare, medicaid, and social security, those are safety nets. many of us look at those safety nets as being able to be reviewed over a long period of time. social security will not falter until the 2035. there is time to look at it in a reasonable manner. many are asking high and -- high-income individuals to pay more into social security, and that means millionaires. that is one way of looking at it. i would argue that any rush to judgment would not be welcomed by many members of congress, because they view this safety net as important as other aspects as cutting, as getting us to a place where we can look

to a reasonable debt and see the engine of this economy turning. there are many ways to do this other than draconian cuts that many of our friends are try to put into place. host: are you encouraged by some of the proposals put forward for tax increases by republicans? one proposal has $300 billion in new revenue. guest: it does not encourage me because of the directions that they have taken. is that enough, frankly? sub of my colleagues have written a -- some of my colleagues have written a letter asking for $4 trillion. we need to give them a forceful proposal. i encourage them to do their best but i want to say to the american people, one of the safety nets or stopgaps is that the the sequestration does not come until 2013. i would argue that congress has to do the work that we were set

to do here, regular order. let's do the appropriations, find a way to invest in american jobs, let's give our business community to come for that they need to spend the money on their accounts right now, and take up the challenge to do what we have to do along with finding ways to effectively cut our spending. in one of the subcommittee hearings, i heard that our overall deficit is 8.5% of gross domestic product. pretty small. host: i had always assumed that we're in the 60% range. guest: that number was heard in testimony in one of the committees, as i recollect. but i would argue that our debt problem can be fixed. it can be fixed by increasing manufacturing and increasing jobs, that jobs bill that has

been shuttled to decide, it would put millions of people were, firefighters, policeman, but more important, infrastructure work, construction workers, a national housing trust that could build affordable housing, who created hundreds of thousands of jobs. i'm an optimist about this country. i think we have a great future and i do not know if the committee can get there by november 23. host: let's talk about what happens if they do not get there. this trigger would kick in and it would kick in in 2013 as you said, but it would cut $1.2 trillion in spending between defense and domestic pets. there are some members of congress, john mccain leading the effort to renegotiate that trigger and call for congress to look at that again and see if they can be changed. what your thoughts of renegotiating that triggered the was such a large part of the deal -- that trigger that was such a large part of the deal?

guest: if it was a trigger to get as the vote and create a super committee. it was truly an irritant said that the day before the debt ceiling would not be raised if we did not vote, that members would bode. we were at the final hours, if you will. the final hours that this was put into place. i was an absolute opponent to the trigger, and i frankly believe that the 2013 deadline gives us an opportunity and hope. and the american people want us to do our job. i like to do the job that you sent us here to do. sequestration is an automatic action that takes away from members of congress the responsibility to represent their constituents. the deep cuts in discretionary spending from pell grants to the national institutes for health, the national science foundation, the department of health and

human services, the department of education, the very infrastructure for human resources -- if america is known for anything, it is known for investing in her people. my state has the largest number of people on food stamps, the largest number of uninsured. i come from the state of texas. they do not need discretionary cuts. even though i did not support the long-term run in afghanistan, i support they soldiers and their families. i opposed the iraq war and look at it in hindsight and believe that my position was correct. we spent close to a trillion dollars in continue to spend money in those wars. i believe in military preparedness. i would not want to see $450 billion over 10 years, and then that doubled in cuts to the military. i would not want to see us lose our ground forces being prepared to protect the american

homeland, or to have the smallest number of ships that we would have since 1915. all have the smallest air force. i believe in military preparedness. i believe that would trigger members of congress in 2012, even though it is an election year, the find a way to avoid that trigger in 2013. host: we are speaking with sheila jackson lee from houston. how many years in congress? guest: the privilege of serving since 1995. host: if you want to calling this a question, the telephone numbers are on the screen. -- you want to call in and asked us a question, the telephone numbers are on the screen. you were talking about the war savings and drawing down. there was an article today in the 2 q post," on what to do

with the savings. they're looking to count as much as $700 billion that the nation a logger plans to spend. -- no longer plans to spend. your thoughts on that option? guest: i like that option. i think the problem with that is that the super committee would have to agree in totality or least get a seven-five agreement on the vote.

someone has to join a group of six, or it has to be in some manner, a majority. can that occur over the next couple of days? i think it is a great idea. part of what the 99ers are talking about is feeling vulnerable. to extend unemployment to people to be the work. unemployment insurance or for people who used to work and are out of work for through no fault of their room. we know that they get unemployment compensation. pay their rent, their mortgage, they buy goods, and keep the economy. can the super committee make sure that happens? the realistic providing of the war funds, will they come quickly enough in order to provide that funding for helping the unemployed? i agree, they have to get agreement.

my point on the super committee is that they are working very hard. they are now up against the crunch. miracles may happen, but fall full legislative approaches do not necessarily come -- thought full legislative approaches to not necessarily come from a deadline. many were not doing their duty rather than responding to the american people. they decided to fall on the fear of this special interest. i believe that this is out of regular order and there may be questions of constitutionality. we did not challenge it but in may bp it -- but it may be. if they come up with a solution, it will be a question for the members of congress to support the proposals that they will put in place. i would be absolutely opposed to major cuts in medicare, social

security, and medicaid and not just because i have blinders on, but i think the approach could be more thoughtful and you need to look at the landscape of two may be impacted by making cuts that looks simple now but may have a long-range impact on our seniors. host: let's bring in our callers. caller: it is an honor to be able to communicate with you. guest: thank you. caller: the balanced approach is what we need. there has to be some cuts. i do understand that. the whole aspect of not raising revenue with tax increases has to be challenged. hopefully you all will keep fighting that fight. for republicans unfortunately, the tea party aspect is so out of touch. one that pose the question twice, spending cuts and taxes,

all of the republican candidates were against it. they are out of touch with mainstream america. and the accomplishments of barack obama, a very palpable. for the most part, a stabilized wall street, relatively speaking. we're talking about the car industry, manufacturing, very stable. they are paying us money back. and that job losses that were in excess of 700,000 of month. that is not the case now. the private sector is adding jobs. not to do they agree that we want, but top gun about us -- him bringing us out of a whole, and a lot of people are recognizing that. host: staying on the super committee topic for a little bit. what is a acceptable deal for you in the ratio of spending cuts to revenue? guest: the caller is absolutely right. there needs to be revenues and

there are opportunities for revenues, where the bush tax cuts exploring would bring in a sizable amount of investment in the united states. the potential taxation of those who are offshore in jobs for example, and giving cuts to those for bringing their jobs on shore. i think that would be a serious approach to revenues. and to cuts. but again, and the caller said balance, and he is absolutely right. there must be balanced. the question becomes, balances is not 50/50, but whether the most vulnerable are hit with the 50% cut and whether or not that is more of a sizable hurt to that population. seniors, children, people on food stamps, students who are resources for the 21st and 22nd century, that is really the question.

and that cuts balancing the revenue coming in which we are you driving -- in which way are you deriving their revenue? these types of very strong decisions that require thoughtful analysis, in the short period of time, and get the votes on the committees that you need. the agreement is really the key. can they get the agreement around what is in the revenue enhancers and what is in the cuts? and i would say that the caller is right. the president came in and stopped the bleeding. there is no doubt about it. i truly believe that matched up against those who are now in the race for the republican nomination, he will bear in enormously well -- he will fare enormously well for his homeland security, protecting that, as efforts in the intelligence

community, and the efforts to bring the economy back and to get it to begin to start turning. we just need more cooperation from our private sector. i represent the energy industry and i think they can create an enormous amount of jobs. i look forward to working with the whole concept of green energy and many other types of energy to create jobs. we can generate revenue. host: i want to get into that but you brought the president. from twitter. do you agree with that? is there a political win in that? guest: absolutely not. we are not seeking the demise of this nation. i consider myself a patriot and an american. i love this country and said to all the members of congress. i certainly know my colleagues in the democratic caucus love

this country. there is not a test of a republican or democratic soldier, whether iraq or afghanistan or the many wars that we have had. the question is whether or not there can be an agreement that is in the best interest of the american people. the president will run on his record. i am sure he will be disappointed that the committee has not been able to come forward in a unified way to present a plan. if that is to happen. but i also realize that the congress and the president will have to step in in 2012 -- let me be very clear. the sequestration does not occur until a year -- more than a year from today. it will occur in 2013. we have 2012. 2012 is not just an election one year. we should work. and we can look at the way of generating revenue. i mentioned a few.

building housing, putting home builders back to work, building infrastructure, a building like real life in houston, texas, which will help create jobs, -- building light rail, like we're doing in houston, texas. which will help create jobs. i like the fear of a trigger to be modified. it does not come until 2013. we will not be cutting the military or discretionary spending until that time. it is our job to avoid those types of hard cuts on the american people. the: let's go to rot on independent line from chicago, illinois. caller: how does our war on drugs cost as trillions of dollars in the jailing of 40 million americans resulting in a lifetime of joblessness, welfare, and medicare, and taxes lost of $350 billion under

that economy. host: we're not talking about the drug war right now. do you have a question about the super committee? caller how about 01% cut on all commodities trading, and a circulation tax on all money transferred, and how about eliminate the federal reserve, or at least auditing it? host: of your thoughts from route there. -- from morale high there. ralph there. guest: we have a right of ideas in the congress array -- an array of ideas and the congress if we have the time to do it. going into this final session, we will have to do that. that is my point about the super

committee. can they come up with a thoughtful approach that balances revenues in cuts that does not hurt the american people in this short time? question whether that is the case. i wish them well. i believe i can do the job along with my colleagues and that we should do the job. and we should do that on behalf of the american people. host: talking about the trigger, you're a senior member of the house homeland security committee. " with the cuts mean for homeland security? -- what would the cuts mean for homeland security? guest: we have seen attacks on rail in mumbai and spain. and london. we know the writings of osama bin laden at the time that he was killed indicated that there were efforts to attack our light rail, and that aviation remained

the most attractive target for our terrorist. we started cutting funding, cutting transportation security personnel, tea s.a. officers, we start cutting those resources at the border where it is alleged that terrorists have found porous borders that they think are porous, obviously much stronger, and president obama's administration has enhance that. if we are able to not fund a new technology, if we are not able to secure our cyberspace, cyber security, one of the most vulnerable aspects that terrorists can look at, if we do not have that funding, it is the wrong direction to go. and most of those in the business have the responsibility securing the homeland, undercutting the intelligence community resources, undercutting the personnel that

addresses the question of security in the homeland, it is the wrong direction to go. asked the 9/11 families whether we should be going forward or backward. host: the "washington times" had as a story today. although the country and the department has made considerable progress, significant challenges remain in protecting the country from those who would do us harm. why not shortchanging the other important missions. -- while not shortchanging the other important missions. guest: we should be a country big enough to not only be able to prioritize -- not allow other responsibilities be diminished. i am very concerned about making sure that we are funding the

civil-rights division of the department of justice, particularly since we are seeing a massive undermining of voting rights here in the united states. again talking about redistricting? >> also the voter id laws. putting them forward on false premises, i believe. i am on homeland security and i believe that terrorism warrants full funding. but at the same time, the challenges of the super committee may be daunting because the civil rights division is crucial with of voter id laws in the pending 2012 election, coming into play in 2012, 40 states -- i believe that it is a challenging the constitution. the 15th amendment guarantees the right to vote with no impediment.

the amendment that deals with -- the 24th amendment deals with the poll tax. if individuals have to get a government-issued id and they are poor, they are seniors, they do not have the documentation, that is almost like a poll tax. the 24th amendment suggests that it may be unconstitutional. host: you think immigration reform may be taking a backseat? guest: i have been a champion of immigration reform being an overview, long overdue for americans facing concerns that frighten americans sometimes, and sometimes they confuse it with terrorism that is not terrorism. it is individuals wanting to work, many paying taxes. they want to raise their children and want to become traitors to the united states. i've seen immigrants on the

frontline in iraq and afghanistan. i would argue that immigration has not be seen in the light that it has been seen. if you would pass comprehensive immigration reform of the last section, you could put $5 billion into the coffers of the united states treasury. it has been overlooked. host: where did those efforts stand right now? guest: it is not moving. many of us who want a reasonable approach to immigration reform, and also to our friends in the latino community, i want to personally say to them that many of us in the congress are committed to recognizing the contributions that all immigrants make. because this nation is a land of immigrants and law. if we balance that, we will find a way to not promote, if you will, the kind of stigma and the kind of false accusations and

misrepresentation to the american people that you can deport 12 million people. you can find a regular order for them to line up, not get in front of those that have been in line, be vetted for criminal backgrounds, community service, putting money into the u.s. treasury, and providing opportunities for those immigrants to the contributors and to create jobs. host: howard from marietta, calif., on at the democratic line. caller: good morning, congresswoman lee. just quickly on the emigration issue you just spoke of. do you have a position on if we were to legalize the supposedly

110 million immigrants that there'd be legislation that would state that the and scum of goals, cousins, brothers would not be given the opportunity to enter this country because they are a relative? guest: let me answer that. first of all, i am delighted that a republican is open-minded to the concept to the legalization of immigrants into this country. we want to make sure that we've that each person -- we vet each person and that they have no criminal background that could threaten american citizens and that they would not be engaged in any terrorist activity. we do not know what that number would be. their right to be under the

standard immigration laws that exist right now. i would argue that if they became a legal permanent resident or a citizen, a normal process of bringing a relative in would be governed by the existing law. maybe it would be changed, but i would want to caution the viewers that this would not be a massive influx of people into the united states. you can document that while our economy has not been turning come on individuals come up and coming into america for work. it has diminished somewhat because people come for work. our farmlands have suffered because there is no individuals there to do that work. that work has been offered to americans. and american ones that job, -- if americans want that job, there would be able to do it, but i would caution anyone listening or viewing this that

this would not open the doors. this would provide funding to the treasury, but it would be an orderly process of responding to the needs of those who are now living without status, to give them status, to allow them to contribute to the american society. providing jobs for americans who are unemployed, i know that is a great fear. i have no intent, and there is no one with the intent, to deny an american a job but we won opportunities for those who come as immigrants. host: a comment off of twitter. guest: that is a misinterpretation. i frankly believe that he is right about the identification. we do give id's, a voting card.

there is no reason to not accept the voting card that comes from the local state government. let me be clear. when you get on an airplane, you are in a sense, because of what america faced in 9/11, a highly volatile position. there is no constitutional protection to say that you do not have to show an id getting on an airplane. there is a constitutional protection indicate to should not be denied the right to vote. the state-issued a voter i.d., where they could not use a student i.d. card, seniors who do not have a birth certificate, or have to pay an enormous amount of money to get a state issue voter i.d. may not be able to achieve that. they may be intimidated and that is a problem and the denial of

the right to vote. the 24th amendment says a cannot issue were put in place a poll tax. i believe this scheme of the voter i.d. implemented by republican legislatures is like a poll tax. finally, i would say that the question of the voter i.d. raises the specter that there is massive fraud. the bush administration investigated the question of the voter fraud and barely found 89 cases. this was an effort to dumb down the vote of individuals that are most vulnerable. i frankly believe it is a case for the justice department to determine its constitutionality or whether or not it dumbs down the vote of all americans. host: independent line for merck ireland. good morning. caller: i have a couple of things that i would like to ask

-- independent line from rhode island. have you ever heard of the kareeb administration? these people are providing pell grants for illegal aliens in florida and other federal grants that are supposed to be only for the american people. this has made me upset. one other thing, i understand that there was something past years ago by congress that no illegal immigrant would be allowed to receive any form of help from the united states. i found something on the internet, and i did check these things come and they have been verified. $2.50 billion per year is spent on immigrants, $12 million per year for the education of illegal immigrants who cannot

speak english. millions spent on welfare for illegal immigrants. food assistance programs -- host: let's give the congress, a chance to respond. guest: i'm not aware of the group in florida, but it took a note to look into it. many of the cases that you are siding is governed by state law -- citing is governed by state law. children that are unstatused that were born here but may have come here as a very young child. they are in a primary or secondary school of the various states. various states may account for the cost to educate them. that is a state issue. the same thing for medicaid. many states have a role to not deny individuals who need health

care health care. many public health entities, such as county hospital systems, said the clinics, community clinics, would not deny someone health care as well. part of it is a public health care factor, preventing some from getting sick by contaminating the whole community. these could all be resolved that we look at the question face forward. i understand caller's concern about whether we are spending money on people who are not citizens of the united states. let's fix the problem. let's fix who contributes to the united states in a way that would be an eyes open and transparent review. let's add $5 billion in penalties and fees for accessing legalization. let's have our private sector partnership with the work being done by the president and the

stimulus act and let's put america back to work. we have never proposed immigration. i understand the hurt. let's find a way to get back to work with the recharging of the oil industry that is now producing cars and hiring people. host: congresswoman, i want to shift gears up to an issue in the news, the sexual assault allegations out of penn state university. you think there is a role for congress to play in the fallout from these allegations. guest: if i might say, how deep this pain is for me as a mother and a member of congress to hear the accounting of what is coming out of pennsylvania. i would like to clearly not let pennsylvania be in the bull's- eye, i but -- but i hold up a paper from my newspaper, "the

houston chronicle." host: you are a member of the congressional childrens' caucus. guest: mike co-chair is a distinguished gentleman from illinois. this is the covering of the face of a child, but the point is made that children probably do not tell about the sexual abuse for at least two years. the reason why i think it is important that the federal government is involved is because there needs to be national statement of the horror and our opposition to our babies being abused. yesterday i read about ashley, an 18 year-old, in my state of texas that killed herself after years of sexual abuse and her feeling that no one cared, , no office was willing to prosecute. the legislation i intend to

introduce is a zero tolerance of child sexual abuse act 2011 the role the government can play is to suspend immediately any form of federal funds if the immediate determination is a cover-up or an involvement in the sexual violation of a child. in the instance of penn state, it is not my determination or my desire to discuss the innocence or guilt, who is playing football, or who was not. it is my determination or sense that where there is smoke, there is fire. there are children willing to come forward at this time to make these allegations. that entity would be in line for suspension of federal funds. if it was an academic

institution, that would include scholarship money, pell grants going to students. but we have to be able to make a firm stand against the willy- nilly violation of our children. there have been too many stories. as you have known and heard, sexual abuse attaints, ruins a child's life into adulthood. ask someone who has been abused as a child. host: when will this be introduced? guest: we are hoping this week. the pain is overwhelming. i hope the state of pennsylvania gets this in order. this could be happening in states all around this country. we need to give the federal government to wake up call our concern of protecting our children including the high numbers of impoverished children. we need a wake-up call. our children precious? are they valuable? host: had undemocratic line from

south carolina. good morning. -- pat on the democratic line. caller: i had a question about the super committee. [inaudible] what makes it a change that they will do something better by becoming a super committee? guest: i think it is important that you asked the question that they never existed before in congress. this is a new entity. this is a new concept. we have never had this. it came about because the tea party members of congress refused to do the regular business of the united states congress. raise the debt ceiling that had been raised under presidents since president eisenhower. including, many times come under president bush, both bush one

and two. both fellow texans. a bipartisan responsibility to ensure that america pays its debts. we could not force the tea party to recognize their allegiance is to the american people. i have a great respect for my colleagues on the super committee and i wish them well. it is not regular order. frankly, we need to get back to work as members of congress. 435 in the house, 100 in the senate, we need to do the job. the speaker of the house working with the majority leader needs to work together to get people back to work. we need to ask people in the private sector to have a amounting amount of credit and cash on their books and join us

in being a patriot to invest in the american people. host: manchester. good morning. caller: i hear you say that it is the tea party's fault that we have, what you consider, and unconstitutional super committee. i would like to know why that has not been challenged because everyone in the congress does swear an oath to uphold the constitution. if my facts are straight, there has not been a budget passed in the congress since april 2009. it looks, to me, like this congress is putting us in terrible, terrible danger in order to avoid the hard decisions that need to be made. it is not just republicans or tea party people but everybody up there. these changes would not come into effect until 2013. guest: that 2009 budget was under the democratic leadership.

i do not intend to spend time pointing fingers, but i do intend to spend time giving the facts. 2010 was an election year. we need to stop allowing election-year politics to overtake our responsibilities to the american people. budgeting is hard. i supported a balanced budget under the clinton administration. it can be done. we do not have a budget, you are correct. the super committee in the work that they have to do in terms of securing an agreement to balance revenues with cuts and protecting the most wall marble in our society is our duty. -- in protecting the most vulnerable in our society. we need to protect our soldiers, men and women, and this country is defended. we have the responsibility to do that. host: i know you were a speaker at the occupy houston.

what do think about the eviction of the protesters in new york? there is a report out from the ap that lawyers from the protesters have obtained a court order that will allow the protesters to return to their tents. your quick thoughts? guest: we live in a society that is protected by the first amendment. i would like your viewers to know that, yes, i did talk to occupy houston and the officials say they have been peaceful. they represent the 99 per cent sign -- 99%ers. they need to respect the first amendment. i think those that occupy were ever need to respect, as well, there surrounding -- wherever need to respect their surrounding neighbors. those that are occupying,

wherever they may be, they need to protect the citizens. the i doubt is that these are petitions of government. we should respect it and find the ability to provide the safety and security of them, those around them. i hope the mayors in these respective cities find that balance. they are protected by the constitution. we need to listen to their passion and their plea. host: congresswoman, thank you for joining us. up next, a discussion on the federal assistance program for federal mortgages. first, an update. >> retail sales numbers just in from the commerce department show americans spent more on automobiles, electronics, and building supplies pushing retail up for a fifth straight month. the october report shows growth in october-december for this quarter is off to a good start. it accounts for 70% of economic

activity. the labor department says the consumer price index, that measures price index before it reaches the consumer, dropped 0.3% after a rise of 0.8% in september. consumers pay less for gas and goods, driving down prices for the first time since june. inflation pressures may be easing. more on the occupy wall street. the national lawyers guild has allowed protesters to return with their talents to the new york city park and prevents them from enforcing park rules. do caught the park was cleared -- zucatti park was cleared. the plan to go to court immediately. those are some of the latest headlines. >> wednesday, watched live streaming coverage of the national book awards, red carpet

to interviews, and the awards ceremony starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend, live from the miami book fair international with the events and cooler -- callers. live with authors. find the schedule online at booktv.org. >> c-span.org home page is now easier to use. makes easier for you to watch the day's events, live and recorded. you can access our most popular series. "washington journal," "booktv," and more. you can find where to watch c- span on the all new c-span.org. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we are joined now with faith schqartz. -- schwartz. it is called the harp program. can you explain how this works? guest: i am here to talk about the broad array of options for homeowners to avoid foreclosure. we will hear more about heart for borrowers who owe more than their home is worth. these are for fannie mae and freddie mac, is. this has already been in existence and almost 1 million homeowners have taken advantage. i am also here to talk about the modification programs under way and to tell you of a milestone we have hit. there have been 5 million loan modifications to keep people out of foreclosures since 2007 to

date. host: and the hope now alliances helping people with these modifications. guest: this is a voluntary membership of non-profit borrowing counselors her reach out for those who are in risk and need to know the options that they have. for instance, harp is a refinance program for those people who are current but want to take a vantage of the low rate environment. fannie mae and freddie mac, through the fhfa, are using this to reach more borrowers instead of going to foreclosure. more details will be out later today on that. host: who makes up the alliance? guest: loan servicers, investors, and trade

associations who want to help people in brisk and keep them out of foreclosure. we cannot take any funding from the non-profit housing councils, so it is in neutral non-profit alliance. host: 80 of questions about mortgages or the options out there, -- if you have questions, give us a call. outside the united states, -- you had mentioned this is a program that the obama administration had revisited. it was first proposed right after the obama administration took office. why does it need to be revisited? guest: a this point in the game, everyone is looking for every option they can to prevent foreclosures wherever possible.

every finance is a fantastic way for people to lower their mortgage payments. a bar were who owes more than the day is worth, it is very difficult to get that financing. what i believe fannie mae and freddie mac has done is look at the restrictions on that to see if there are more borrowers who would qualify for a refinance. there is always a credit risk, but it is one option to allow borrowers to have more dollars in their park it and lower the term from a 30-year mortgage and take advantage of the lower rate. host: do you have a sense of how many people this may be able to help? when the first harp was announced, they said there were 11 million people that it could help, but less than 1 million to the advantage of the program. guest: it is a little complicated.

this is not just a sweeping refinance program for all loans in america, but it is an option for bar wars that were between 8125% on loan to value on the property. regulators have suggested that under 1 million or more could be eligible. it is important to keep perspective in the big picture. 5 million people have been helped to the restructuring of loans not to go through foreclosure. there are under 4 million people that have gone into foreclosure in the same time frame of those that have been record structured. -- have been restructured. harp has helped 1 million it stay out. if they help 7 million people stay out of foreclosure, the point is that there are broad tools available, harp,

refinancing, modifications, short sales, there are a lot of different ways to avoid foreclosure. host: help me understand why the obama administration is pushing his programs now. they see this as a way for the economy to get a boost in general. correct? guest: we are an independent alliance, but we are always working closely with the administration and others are on all of their programs which is the making america home affordable, or the harp with the fhfa and fannie and freddie. they want to make sure they can use all the tools to help the housing market. host: you mention the federal housing finance agency. they will be on capitol hill today with the senate banking committee. the housing and urban affairs committee will be meeting on

examining fannie and freddie. will he be making announcements about the harp program at that hearing? guest: i'm not familiar with what they will announce today, but there are saying further details will be coming shortly, so we will hear more from them on a of a refinancing mortgages. bar workers should be careful. it is not automatic that you are eligible. there are certain criteria ar. host: edward demarco, the acting director, will be live at 10:00 on c-span. you say you work with the obama administration developing some of these programs, so what is the relationship? guest: we have been working with fannie mae and freddie mac for 40 years. they are great partners and have been working hard trying to prevent foreclosures.

there regulator has come up with the details of the refinancing. what are the frictions in the system? where people not refinancing as much as we would like them to? what can we do to improve that? we will hear those details later and i do believe they have lifted the loan to value, which in essence says if you are under water 125%, that is maxed out for the refinancing option. i believe they have moved that. there are details that they have not yet released. we work with fannie and freddie on all kinds of modifications, and i think it is important to note that the government has certain programs out there, but the private industry has modified or restructured 4.1 million loans since 2007-2011. the making homes affordable program has been a good structured program but that has only been about 800,000

modifications. what we are here today is to remind people there are many options to avoid foreclosure. it is very important to know that the solutions far outweigh the foreclosure sales for borrowers. we want that to stay the case and we want to keep stabilizing the economy. host: in "the wall street journal" when this was first announced, they did a story about the home lending the revamped program and offered a few of the details. they say the plan will streamline the refinance process by eliminating appraisals and extent of underwriting requirements as long as they are current on payments, according to an official at the federal housing finance agency. fannie and freddie have agreed to waive the gillespies. but they are revamping a program rolled out two years ago, the harp program, which left them

with less than 20% in the equity to refinance their loans if they are backed by fannie mae and freddie mac. one question i had was, one issue is that you have to be current underpayments, correct? so is this really helping the people that are in the most trouble? if someone is current, why would they need to use the program? guest: great question. we want people to have the most incentive to keep their homes, stay in their mortgages, and be able to make an affordable payment. there are perhaps millions making high mortgage payments to cannot take advantage of refinancing because they owe more than it is worth. most mortgage lenders will not refinance a loan if you owe more than it is worth. you have to come to the table with cash. the tarp program looks at that issue.

-- the harp program looks at that issue and will add it to avoiding foreclosures. i think we underestimate the amount of people feeling that stress. host: a question of of twitter -- i am assuming he is saying these loans that are under water. guest: these are generically defined mortgage loans. these are not your traditional sub-prime loans from four years ago that started the house in quincy and crisis. -- delinquency and crisis. these are borrowers that to the advantage of the rate environment. both lenders and regulators, fannie and freddie, would all the stakeholders in wanting to do this. host: first, charles on the

independent line from fort collins, colorado. good morning. caller: here is the big problem with this. maybe i am missing something, but i do short sales for a living and i do with people that are under water all day long. that is what i do for a living. i have been making all of my house payments. i have not missed payments, but it is so onerous because of the economy. i go to refinance and i have bad credit now or not good enough credit. of course, i am almost under water on my house and of a thing else so you go to bank of america, wells fargo, and you have been making your home payment but you need more released. i am almost bankrupting getting ready to go into a short sale such a region. their response? my credit is not good enough. this is the really great thing.

they cannot even declare a short sale until they start not making their payments. a short sale can take six-eight months to clear up because of a bunch of garbage. host: you keep shaking your head. guest: he keeps bringing a point that this is not a perfect system. if you are current and have a chance to refinance, i do not want to oversell not because many may not be eligible. if you are eligible cannot take advantage you do not fallen to a delinquent credit situation. short sales are still not where they need to be. if you go into a foreclosure versus a short sale, a short sale means you are selling your house for less than it is worth, so the investor would take a loss and perhaps the bar where. you can get new credits after two years and it will be relieved on your credit report

versus the seven-year for a foreclosure. if you can get to a short sale, and i thank blunders, the government, the treasury department, are all working hard on making the process better. we have been looking hard at that as well, but modification is still one of your best bet to can get a modification and you can make an affordable payment. that is where we are seeing 5 million of those to date through october 2011. host: republican line from newark, new jersey. do you have a question? caller: yes, i do. i have noticed throughout the country that people live beyond their means. it costs money to live beyond your means. me and my fiancee, we live within our means. my sister, who is a doctor and

makes it to under $50,000 per year, she lives with an army is also by buying things from the salvation army, even though she makes to under $50,000 per year. -- makes $250,000 per year. [unintelligible] host: to you disagree with this program and other ways to help people that are under water? caller: is people live within their means and did not have to have newcomen nice things come out flat screen tv's, they do not need to have all those things and live within their means. host: how much push back has there been? guest: this is not a wide sweeping subsidized program. this is someone who already owns the credit risk of a higher rate. they are still getting the same

our work and offering a lower rate to make their loans. subsidy,o taxpayer matching government reduction. there is an important distinction. we have all tried to revamp our lifestyles and in this difficult economy, we need to on what the housing market through refinances. we need to fix loans where possible so everyone is a winner and communities get stable. host: several people have disagreed with this program. mitt romney disagrees with this program and he wrote at wednesday's debate that mitt romney said, "the obama administration has tried to hold off on the foreclosure process, the normal market process." when he asked if he would look for closures go through the process? would he rather the government

-- has there been a push to let the market handled us themselves? guest: it is important to say that while the government makes a noble effort, much of the modification efforts to restructure the mortgages works for the investor, the bar work, the loan servicer, but not the government subsidized modifications. 4.1 million mortgages have been restructured to avoid foreclosure. if there is not a foreclosure, the investor would have taken a bigger loss because there is a test to have to run with every one of those modifications. the market, in a sense, is working more than people realize. they have saved over 1 million foreclosures today and foreclosure sales are less than 4 million since 2007. host: william on the democratic

line from chesapeake, va. caller: i and current on my mortgage and i want to pay a lower interest rates and try to refinance, but i cannot refinance. they will not let me. guest: have you gone to your current lender and servicer? do you owe more on your mortgage than your home is worth? host: i think we lost him there. guest: the investors have tightened their guidelines. refinancing is not quite as easy as it was coming and we all know that, so we are going through an adjustment. host: michael come independent mind, from new jersey. good morning. -- michael, independent line.

caller: thank you for your attempted to help homeowners in distress, but your efforts are misguided. the banks are not forthcoming and are not telling the truth. in when they enter the loans on to the computer and participate in this system which encompasses 60% of the loans outstanding, they destroy the security of the loan by destroying the note. once the note is destroyed, their interest is destroyed with it. they are not in position to modify or refinance because they are no longer holding the secured interest. they destroyed the pink slip. that was roughly 15 years ago, and they are not telling the truth because they are trying to persuade people who are in distress to were modified. guest: thank you for your

comments. he is referring to the merged electronic registration system which is where the mortgage is assigned to. it is mine understanding that the notes are with custodians and copies of the certified notes, although it is a long process to provide that ownership. it has been nasty, but we're getting past some of the worst parts of it. we are seeing the processes and technical barriers listed, but i hear you and i understand your comment. host: laura on the democratic line from california. caller: good morning. my problem is that my credit is great. i am working two jobs, my income is great. i tried two years ago, but my interest rate is still high. everyone is saying i am just about underwater, maybe at 100%. accredits court is almost 800.

the bank will not talk to me. chase -- my credit score is almost 800. chase will not talk to me. guest: the part of the market that is locked up as these underwater homes. there are programs, such as the fannie mae and freddie mac harp program that hopefully you may be eligible for. it does not require an appraisal. i am not sure if you have an fha loan. if they are telling you that you cannot refinance, they mwaay

want a down payment. host: helped me understand. the to not require the refinanced mortgage to be paid through the original lender, so what is the incentive for another lender to take on an underwater mortgage through this program? how are you encouraging these lenders to go ahead and get involved in this? guest: hope now works in all of these solutions, so we do not get too engaged in the details, but major lenders have that risk at 125% and are servicing that mortgages and they participate in the programs. they will have a lower tendency to default that they take advantage of the lower rate. they have a lot of incentive if they own the loan. if they service the loans and it is already on the box. host: if this program -- who

will actually be taking the loss here? the homeowners are being helped out, or fannie and freddie taking the loss because they will be earning less money over the long run than they originally thought? willoughby been mortgage investors? -- will it be the mortgage investors? guest: every finance means you are paying off the old debt. it is very different than a modification where you restructure the same month. there refinance means the investor gets paid back 100% to their reinvest at a lower rate. the government is an investor, and so are private investors like banks. it is spread out, but they do get 100% of the principal back. host: there are concerns about

the house financial services committee with a marked up about a bill introduced by chair baucus. are fannie and freddie in a position to take on this program where they will not be making as much money when they are trying to pay back the government for bailout money that was put in for them? guest: let me be clear. they have the capacity to handle the refinances. and have opportunities to take on the refinances. they are not there on investors. other people will take losses on that. what is a bigger picture here is that a refinances one vehicle that is helpful to on locking the housing business we are in. there are 5,000,001 modifications that means those people, with the exception of those who may have a -- there have been 5 million loan

modifications. right now, we need to stabilize housing. we need to keep our eye on the big picture here. host: those hearings we are talking about, ed demarco will be having a hearing on c- span.org at 10:00 a.m. and the market will be live also at 10:00 a.m. thes go to robert on independent line from syracuse. good morning. caller: i do not feel the people in the united states are really hearing a lot of the truth, and here is my opinion after being in the banking business 25 years. my job has changed due to the subprime derivatives and a meltdown. thank god i am seeing a silver lining in these past six months with a new career.

anyone who paid on time on their mortgage with no 30-day layettes should automatically be forgiven and should be an easy process. the federal government should have at least said for the next two years, only make interest payments. beginning in 2008 is when this huge meltdown happened on top of the bush and cheney administration come on top of the lack of job creation and starting a recession. whoever was going to be elected, obama, clinton come and did not matter. they were left with what they're left with and now we are doing damage control. here is an example. i was in banking and i got paid by the closing of a long, realtor, like commission. they want to see solid income with a new job. they want to see documented employment, okay?

there are people in the banking, mortgage-related, realty industries for people who lost their homes and got in trouble. anyone right now listening to me that cannot work with an attorney working for the bank to come here is what you need to do. if you cannot afford an attorney, you can do it for $300. file your own chapter 13. go down and get the same paperwork the attorneys would and fill it out. print it out for your local district, state, county, region. go down in front of the judge, raise your hand, tell them that you want protection from the bank under chapter 13. host: he brings a lot of different options. are any of those you would agree with? guest: the government has not looked to change contract with every single investor which would require a wholesale change

in contract across the board to make interest in payments. the treasury has put out $7.95 billion to help those in the hardest-hit states which can help augment the modification process and principal right down. there is help out there, but you have to know where it is. 888-995-hope. it is run by the home preservation ownership foundation. they have certified housing counselors on the end of it. 888-995-hope. host: mike on the republican line from sarasota, fla. caller: thank you for c-span. i did want to confirm what the first caller was talking about. i am under water in my mortgage

is. i contacted my lender and asked to look into the modification, but since i am current they said i would have to stop making payments for a few months before that they would even work with me on a modification. ms. schwartz, if you could explain what impact the modification process has on your credit, i would be greatly appreciative. thank you. guest: there are two things going on. i am not sure if you had a change in expenses or a drop in your income, but there is an option for you to get a modification if you are in imminent default come experiencing hardship and paying a much higher amount of your income to your current mortgage because you had a drop in income. modifications will hurt your credit because you will be delinquent at some point when you are getting a restructured.

typically people are delinquent, although there are exceptions to let current borrowers get a modification. we can look into that as well. i would say people who are current, it is less prevalent. the average person is behind over one year on their mortgage before they can sometimes even get a modification, so it is a real range. the average time to get to modification is now 600 days. i do encourage you to work with your lender on that because it sounds like you have a hardship and you may qualify. be persistent and use housing counselor if you are not getting a clear answer. host: talking with faith schwartz, condi executive director of the help now alliance. guest: i have worked in the banking industry, fannie mae, freddie mac. i spent far too many years in

the banking industry. i worked in the structured transactions and sales efforts at fannie. i know all the banks and various players pretty well. host: independent line from st. paul, minn. are you there? caller: we receive a notice from chase bank of that we are eligible to refinance, so when i called to find out if we can refinance, i told them the mortgage amount and that we had a thick thousand dollar equity. -- we had a $50,000 equity with a credit union. they said i would not be eligible and i would have to pay that off before. guest: i do not know all the details, but they are forthcoming. that is not necessarily an

usually. they do not want anti second financing or anything piggyback on the first -- any second financing on the first lien. i do not know your loan to value, but that could be one of the rules. they are looking for a first lien equity line, that it cannot get complicated in a refinance. -- then it can get complicated. host: what kind of education will be rolled out with this? guest: it is incumbent upon the people offering it, the banks, servicers, fannie mae, freddie mac, there regulators, and the nonprofits to assist. we need to have a clearer information about who is eligible.

some on the phone today are just trying to understand how it works. one thing i hope the dow has been doing for 40 years, people saying that everything is good again, but educating our hours, we do it out -- until across the country. we will be in portland next month and we were just in houston. we meet with at risk borrowers to go through those options with servicers and counselors. host: bill on the independent line up from florida. caller: your message is quite optimistic in contrast to the sig tarp's report. i have not read the third quarter report, but there has been severe criticism of hamp. that was my comments. my question is what is the endgame? what are your goals or

objectives? at what point to the start to wrap up and now tell the market your back on your own? guest: here is why i am a fan of the hamp program. the vast majority of servicers have signed up and have to look for eligibility for borrowers in the government program. for a lot of reasons, they are not always eligible. what is important there is the servicer that has modified loans with lower on principal and interest payments, five years at a fixed rate and 80% of the time, that will be changed after hamp is reviewed. i like the added structure for borrowers to get in there. i am optimistic because we have done 5 million loan modifications. over 1 million harp refinances

have occurred. that would be 7 million families that have avoided the stress of a foreclosure. we understand that is the nature of it, but as long as we are ahead of foreclosure sales, i want you to think through this. we are ahead of the tsunami that has been hitting the united states. our goal is to stay ahead of that. we went to help with every tool available, whether government or private. host: democratic plan from winston-salem, n.c. do you have a question? caller: thank you overtaking my call. i have listened to all of your calls, and i have a question and a short comment. the question is, first of all, i do not even know what harp is. do you have any contact information for those viewers that have no idea what you were talking about but may need help? as well as, i would like to say

that i appreciate the numbers you have given in terms of the many, many people that have been helped. that just warms my heart. however, there are other people, like your callers that have been calling in to save you have bad credit when you hit this bad economy, and i would just like to hope that the people that are listening, but some of them are our representatives that understand that people with bad credit vote, too. thank you. guest: you have the right comments. we have not solve the credit issues and a fresh look at what more can be done going forward. we'll have to be bold about our thinking about new policies, including the government. i do not work for the government, but we need to have options to help homeowners get through this. host: and the caller asked about a place to go? guest: fanniemae.com and i

apologize, but i do not have them in front of me. our website is hopenow.com. host: and do you have a phone number? guest: 888-995-hope and have several languages. host: california, good morning. caller: my wife and i have lived in our home for 13 years. i am on social security and she works. this past year, we have a fallen behind in our mortgage. wachovia holds the note. we are trying to get a loan modification with them. what i would like to know is if

there is any help for people who do not have good credit? what can we do to convince them that we deserve to stay in our home? we have been there 13.5 years. guest: if you have unaffordable payment that you can make and your investor, wells fargo or wachovia, they work with hundreds of thousands of people in your same situation and that is what the modification efforts are all about. people do have some deterioration of credit to get the modifications. i encourage you to work with a third party housing counselor if you are not in strong contact with your lender. they are very to been to this and have all been doing a much, much bigger job in the last year or two.

they have put a lot of money, systems, and technology into this and they fully understand. calling a third party housing counselor if you need extra decals or help on that. host: one other question about the details about the harp program. how was the president able to do this without going through congress? there was an announcement the end of october and some discussion about this. how was he able to do it? guest: i cannot speak for the mall because i do not work with them, but fhfa is an independent regulator and it probably looked at all other options with refinancing and look at what would be best for fannie mae, freddie mac, investors and keep them in their homes and enhance this and look at the macro economy to think -- keep house and stable. fha