>> the u.s. house is about to gavel in. general speeches first. a vote will take place after 630 eastern. now live to the floor of the u.s. house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 7, 2014, i hereby appoint the honorable frank r. wolf to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip , but in o five minutes no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, for five minutes. mr. messer: thank you, mr. speaker. hank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the career of two extraordinary indiana state legislators, senators allen paul and johnny nuget. these two close friends have served the state of indiana for decades, and i want to personally thank them for all their hard work and recognize them for their many

accomplishments. first, let me tell you a little bit about senator allen paul. allen volunteered for the u.s. army in 1967, and is a decorated vietnam veteran. he was awarded the bronze star for saving a man's life and also earned a combat infantry badge in four -- and four air medals after being honorably discharged from the army. allen was elected to the state senate in 1986 where he was a tireless advocate for military members and their families. he passed important legislation to help veterans receive a college degree and supported legislation to offer in-state tuition for veterans. senator paul has a distinction of being the first legislator from eastern indiana to serve in a leadership position within his caucus.

during his 28-year tenure in the senate, he served as majority whip, chairman of the insurance committee and chair of the financial institutions committee. his political savvy and institutional knowledge will certainly be missed by his colleagues in the state legislature. senator paul's dear friend, senator johnny nugent, has also decided to retire after more than 30 years in office. he, too, is a veteran of the u.s. army and army reserve. at the age of 26, johnny was elected deer born county commissioner, the youngest commissioner ever elected in indiana. as a state senator, johnny nugent helped numerous leadership -- held numerous leadership positions including chair of the small business agriculture committee and ranking member of the insurance and financial institutions

committee. senator nugent has been a tireless defender of the second amendment and served two terms on the n.r.a.'s board of directors. during his tenure in the senate, the -- he successfully sponsored indiana's cassel doctrine as well as the -- castle doctrine as well as the state's lifetime conceal permit. he's a member of the deer born county chamber of commerce and southeastern indiana shrine club and serves on the hospital board of trustees. both allen paul and johnny nugent serve as shining examples of what it means to be a public servant. i ask the entire sixth congressional district to join me in recognizing these two outstanding hoosier legislators. i have no doubt these great men will bring the same commitment,

dedication and enthusiasm that they've had during their service to their constituents and their communities and apply that in the next chapter of their lives. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, for five minutes. mr. wolf: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, our nation was founded on two core principles -- freedom of speech and freedom of religion. both of which are contained in the first amendment of the

constitution. no one in america is arrested for criticizing elected officials, including the president. no one in america is imprisoned for going to a mosque on a friday, a synagogue on a saturday or a church on a sunday. the fact that we as americans can express ourselves so freely and choose to worship whenever and wherever we want are part of the american greatness. that is why i am so troubled by the recent events surrounding e high-tech combrure and mozilla co-founder, brandon ike, who despite his credentials was forced to resign because of a $1,000 personal donation he made in 2008 in support of proposition 8, that california ballot initiative in support of traditional marriage. regardless of your views on marriage, any american that values the first amendment should be deeply troubled that

this man was essentially driven from his job because of his personal beliefs. i want to stress, his personal beliefs, not his company's, but his own. nowhere have i read that mr. ike ever discriminated against co-workers. in fact, by all accounts he's a fair and honorable employer. yet, because of his private beliefs about traditional marriage, which i share, he's been demonized and his livelihood has been compromised. as troubling as this particular incident is, the chilling effect it will have on the broader issues of free speech cannot be overstated. i find it notable that andrew sullivan, a leading activist in the gay community, has come to mr. ike's defense. mr. sullivan has been quoted as writing, quote, the whole episode disgusts me, as it should anyone interested in a

tolerant and diverse society. if this is the gay rights movement today, hounding our opponents with the fanaticism more like the religious right more than anyone else, then count me out. yes, public opinion on gay marriage has shifted since 2008 when both then-presidential candidates barack obama and john mccain supported defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but america has never been defined by mob rule. even as -- if 1% of the country supported defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which is hardly the case, that 1% still has the right to hold that view. particularly when it is a view based in many cases on one of the most deeply held faith convictions. i understand that reasonable people can disagree on issues. in fact, robust debate in the public square is in itself an

american hallmark, but what happened last week was not debate. it was stifling of debate, it was a silencing of dissent. it was the compromising two of our nation's most cherished principles, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. the implications are vast and deeply troubling. we should all be concerned. i know i am and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today.

a number of speakers are expected. that will be live, starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern, and on our companion network, c-span3. >> yes, our nation is founded on law and not on the mind of man. we are not ruled by kings or emperors and there is no divine right of presidents. a president is an ordinary citizen vested with the power to govern and sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states. and aaron in that boat is a responsibility to live within its laws with no higher or lower expectations than the average

citizen, just like this since. appeared atsident the deposition of ms. jones and before the grand jury, he was sworn to a second oath, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god. this according to witnesses and the judiciary committee, special counsel, he did not do. i will vote to impeach the president of the united states and to ask that this case be considered by the united states senate and that other body of this great congress uphold their responsibility to render justice on these most serious charges. but to the president, i would , sir, you have done great damage to this nation over this past year. and while your defenders are contending that further impeachment proceedings would

only per track and exacerbate the damage to this country, i say you have the power to terminate that damage and heal the wounds that you have created . you, sir, may resign your post. >> no! >> the house will be in order. --and >> the house will be in order. challenge younly in such fashion if i'm willing to heed my own words. to my colleagues, friends, and most especially my wife and family, i have heard you all deeply and i beg your forgiveness. i was compared to lead our narrow majority as speaker and i

believe i had it in me to do a fine job. but i cannot do that job or be the kind of leader i would like to be under current circumstances. so i must set the example that i hope president clinton will follow. speaker ofstand for the house on january 6, but rather i shall remain a backbencher in this congress that i so dearly love for approximately six months into the 106th congress, whereupon i shall vacate my seat and call on my governor to call a special election to take my place. i think my constituents or the opportunity to serve them. i hope they will not think badly of me for leaving. i think my chief of staff and all of my staff for their tireless work on my behalf. i think my wife most especially

for standing by me. i love her very much. god bless america. [applause] find more highlights from 35 years of house covered from our facebook page. >> an initiative to start a centrist party in american politics to compete with the two established parties. from today's "washington journal." charlesjoined by wheelan, author of "the centrist manifesto." why do you think america is ready for a centrist political party. aret: look around, people

disaffected with the current policy. there is not progress and i would never argue there is a right solution on these things. but i would argue there is a range of answers, all of which are better than what we are doing now. people look atf the two parties and don't feel completely at home in either. they would like something new or better or more pragmatic. how is this party going to be different from other third-party efforts? you can pick your failed third party of choice. the key is they all focused on the presidency. a the presidency in the u.s. is a total fool's errand because of the electoral college. it is nearly impossible to win as a third-party candidate. our strategy for now is focus entirely around the u.s. senate and the idea is there are a

handful with a senator from one party and a senator from another. those are places where the centrists will swing one or the other. if we can win a senate seat in three or four of those races, then you get to a place where the u.s. senate can be 48-4-48. then the centrists lead the ship. host: you said there are parts of both parties you like. what would you keep from the democratic party? caller: somebody -- democratic party? best: somebody has to thinking about the americans. i would target the policies -- i would make sure we had human capital programs in place all the way up through drop of retraining for people in their 40's and 50's. we have to think about giving everybody an economic opportunity. the the democrats have been -- the democrats have been tepid in some senses.

we cannot simply redistribute our way out of our problem. republicans are pro-tree, which ultimately makes the pie bigger. even if at present the party is too dogmatically thai government, the fact is we ought to be skeptical always about what the government can accomplish. what is most harmful to situation? itical thet: i think a lot of views on social issues are not small government. we can disagree on gay marriage but i'm not going to concede that trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban consenting adults from getting married is small government. the democratic side i think the democrats, for the most car -- most part, are in denial when it comes to entitlement reform.

about those programs then you have to fix them. much when we hear about so polarization, is there room in the middle for the centrist party? guest: there should be. 60lup did a poll that found -- found most americans think we need a third date american party. somemeans there are republicans and democrats who are looking for an alternative. is also true the biggest trending group is independent. p --endent means a lot of a lot of things to a lot of people. we want viewers to ask the questions for charles. and hisabout that book vision for centrist party in the united states. republicans can call --

democrats -- if you are outside the u.s. -- i was reading through your book, the strategy you used is occupying the center wall both political parties were talking to their paces during the primary process. the question i have is how do you get folks to pay attention to what you are doing during that primary process when most of the people who are talking about this in the general election did not pay attention. you alluded to the strategy to run a third-party candidate while the primaries are still going on. it works better as a single moderate centrist candidate. you do have to get people who say they are centrist and pragmatic to pay attention then and take advantage of the fact that youth you have -- that if

you have an open seat, the primary forces are two extremes. if you can get that third-party candidates speaking to the middle of those ultimately going to decide the election from the -- theng, then the true two traditional candidates cannot to the etch-a-sketch. case there is a candidate already holding the center. there are no runoffs in the senate races. also ran for congress yourself. tell us about your political campaign. in my mind the republican party moved away and i no longer felt comfortable there for environmental and social issue reasons. i went to chicago -- iran in ranago as a fiscally -- i

in chicago as a fiscally conservative democrat. i couldn't get out of the primary. a lott point i felt like of americans in that i was a man without a party. we're seeing a lot of blue dog democrats become more of a rare species in capitol hill. it is kind of like an extinction save your program. we are creating a centric path and the m o is to get centrist voters from around the country to focus on a handful of races, particularly in the senate. if you get people from 50 states paying attention to key races you can use the club for growth model, funnel contributions and channel them to key races. moderates feel empowered even if there is not a race in their district it's the bill.

-- their district that fits the bill. host: a quote -- we will get into the ideology here on "washington journal." we will do it with the help of our viewers. on twitter -- guest: you have to be fiscally conservative. bowles is asimpson centrist effort in the sense it raised revenue rose -- raised revenues, clues to that closely polls.

-- raised revenues,". being fiscally responsible is about not spending today money that belongs to tomorrow. i would argue being environmentally responsible is exactly the same thing. just those two things. forwards would rule out primary contestants in both parties. -- four words would rule out primary contestants in both parties. host: john is waiting on our live for independents. caller: i am a centrist, a middle-of-the-road or. i don't believe in right-wing or left-wing. the i believe that is where our biggest problem lies, political parties. elected, hegets

does something for three months, the rest of the time is spent collecting money for his party. every party member goes into congress, they do little to collect money. that is what i don't particularly care about and that is why i am a centrist. you claim to be a moderates and i don't particularly care for moderates. i believe it should be strictly down the middle of the road. no left, no right, no compromises. i think what we are looking for is problem solvers. there's an interesting feature we take for granted, two sides each trying to defeat the other. if you are on a church board or any other governing organization and eachfactions

separately say we can come out and the the other, you'd think this is completely this -- completely dysfunctional. these things mean different things to different people. they need a problem solvers. if you were trying to figure out whether you are trying to fix the screen windows, there are 20 folks on each side yelling not listening to what has been said. the people left in the room, even if they didn't agree on anything, would ultimately solve the problem. we are looking for pragmatism. a lot of independents calling and. richard is an independent from pennsylvania. elan.re on with charles whele go ahead. caller: you know the

republicans and the republicansd democrats have a stranglehold on each other. it is ridiculous. it is, you know, who has the most money? citizens united? all the things that go with it. it is ridiculous. i think that young people coming will have as world centrist government. there is no doubt about it. young people, once they get to the age where they are willing to participate completely with it, they are not going to want what we have got now. what we have now is a broken system. that is my comment. host: are centrists inevitable? caller: the young people today

have no time for either traditional political party. it does not fit in with their view of the world. they consider the republicans to be mean and out of touch on the environment, young people have radically different social views, particularly with regards to gay marriage and things like that, but they are far more environmentally sensitive than their parents and grandparents. at the same time they look at as old, musty, and out of touch, incapable of getting stuff done. kind of like your granduncle's democratic arty. not capable of doing what needs to be done. i would agree completely that the next generation is going to look at this oligopoly of parties and say it is not really for us. host: charles wheelan, here to talk with us this morning about his book. that last caller expressed some from ouron from folks

independent callers. how do you go from frustration with the two parties to getting what you are saying in your book, five or six senators elected? for usgreatest challenge is to persuade people that they can make a difference. a lot of folks have the same view as the last caller. what can they possibly do? i make a pitch for a movement where they nod and agree, but it is only when we get to the senate strategy, this point where few senators will make a difference where they sit up and pay attention. you go one step further, what if we were to organize 50 states around a few races? the light goes off, they say it is a leverage point whereby they can make a difference. then they roll it up. in some ways it is better if you do not.

it changes the mentality in the senate. people say that that is a road whereby we, the disaffected senators, can inject ourselves in the system. anyone right now who you would consider a centrist? guest: genghis king. i would love to see people making a caucus together. but i think he is a very important first step. host: we have this on twitter -- aest: in the book there is whole chapter called sex and guns. i had to take the hardest issues and provide a pragmatic view. not a view that will please the two bases, but it will please the middle. let's take abortion. no one is pro-abortion.

there has been no concerted political effort in this country to say let's keep abortion legal and minimize the number. let's focus on what we don't like. fighting battles over supreme court justices and symbolic measures at the supreme court level, let's get the abortion rate down to western europe. they have far fewer abortions and far more liberal abortion laws. in part because they are more generous in supporting single mothers, more access to birth control. pragmatist could rally around the idea of trying to minimize what we really don't like, abortion, moving away from the symbolic battles that characterize both sides. host: back to the phones, independent line, david is waiting from burtonsville, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your work. i am sure that you put a lot of work in that was thankless for a while.

thank you very much. host: let's go to the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i am talking. ok. i have been watching c-span since i was a young boy and i am now 54 years old. it ise a big problem and the two-party system. i was a democrat for a long time. i work for them still too certain degree. i am an african american. i am a negro. you do not change my name after a few years. -- a problemoblem with the way the police are structured in virginia. it is more of a police state now. i know i am changing the subject a little bit, but they are not aggressive against illegals. this is a black neighborhood, it

is all turning latino. i have nothing against latinos, but it is all latino. in all the businesses, in all the stores. my question is this -- is there a problem with the police? they have merged with the military in virginia. surveillance is big in virginia. homeland security, some policing issues and their. is there a centrist path that you would take on some of these? issue that hest raises is immigration. not directly, but there have been compromises on the table. this is one where you think the senate did a decent job where they were not able to get it to the house, but immigration is an issue where the pragmatist in the center could be the glue that hold together what everyone knows we have to do, recognize the number of illegal folks in

the country, give them some path to legality, whether it is to bring folks out of the shadows -- we have to ramp up the number of legal immigrants. silicon valley businesses are pleading for more skilled workers. and national security, i have to admit that because at present times are changing, there is not an obvious centrist policy. everything is in a state of flux. it is not like the cold war where you have clearly defined views. on that front we will just have to see how things unfold. it will involve a balance between things like personal security, privacy, and security. the pragmatists are the ones who always have to sort out the trade-offs. host: we are speaking with .harles wheelan some of your other books, "10.5 things no commencement speaker has ever said," "the centrist

manifesto," and what is one of the other books you're working on? >> i am working on a book on monetary policy. host: he is here to talk about his efforts to start a centrist policy in the united states. he will be here for the next 25 minutes or so. phone lines are open. host: we will go to the line for democrats. frank? like to askuld about how he would rate barack obama compared to harry truman, isther he he -- whether he left of harry truman? i lived in the d c area for a while and i went to book events. i asked different guests there, newt gingrich, he gave one of the better answers, as an

academic historian, he put obama to the left of george mcgovern. it seemed like a pretty straightforward answer. i wanted to know how you feel about that and, as far as foreign policy goes, what do you see in the future after obama? part of myst: problem with this answer will be that i don't know much about harry truman. but i want to reject the left right scales. even though that is the way that we now measure politicians, it is a multidimensional scale, to be real. bepassing health care he may perceived as to the left, but i believe that harry truman was the first democrat to try to do that. it just so happens that obama happened to do it. my knock on president obama would be that in places where he can lead, he has not been as effective as many folks might have hope. let's take health care as the example.

theuld argue that health-care care system is broken and was broken but that the democrats and republicans did not have a dialogue about why the system needs to get better, how it is so inefficient relative to the rest of the world, and that that package was kind of jammed through congress. no result is that there was durable majority. it is not right to change 18% of the economy without any votes from the opposition party. it is never pragmatic and it means you will probably not get a good health care policy. my knock on obama is not that he does not fall on this spectrum we like to trot out, it is that he has not brought people along in the way that we would have hoped given his communications abilities. host: roger green writes -- host: i know that you said it

was easier to start a movement like this in the house or presidency. would you agree? >> i would agree. a centrist presidency could take is very far. this was the impetus for me to finish the book. in my mind as an economist, that was a very good package of compromises that included a lot of things that we had to do that had a political price attached to it. the leadership on the two sides left it there. paul ryan is clearly the republican go-to guy, he voted against it. on the left when talking about obama, he never really got behind it. there was no leadership. that point was a good one, a centrist president could go a long way to bringing the parties together and selling pragmatic solutions to the public, which is where everything has to start . without a groundswell of support, politicians will never fear -- never feel covered to do what they have to do. it the current primary system, i don't see how you are going to

get a centrist president. you might get someone who is elected and moves to the center, but the forces to be will not generate that person. in your book you make suggestions for correcting the system. changing the primary system. you talk about constraining the thect of money and changing rules of congress, including filibuster reform. i want to talk about the effect of money in congress. especially in the wake of the supreme court decision from last week. >> that is the most fanciful suggestion. for all the people that think the financial system is broken, i would say it is worse than you think it is. it a corrupting influence, it just takes a lot of time. you say -- why are there not more good people running for office? because raising money is the most onerous piece of the job.

i think that that gets lost. the supreme court has made it harder and harder. i just don't see it happening in the near future, as much as i think the system would be better if we were able to get the big money out of politics. >> the open primary system that you discussed, what would be the best sort of primary process? thealifornia is leading way, both with gerrymandering reforms and getting independent electoral commissions. but the way that this works is everybody runs in a single primary. there are variations on it, but the idea is the top two advance to the general. they could be democrats, republicans, but because of that dynamic, you are no longer competing in a primary with just your ideological base. as you know, that system puts up folks that placate the far right and far left. with independent primaries it will spit out folks for closer to the center, so the runoff

will not be between the extremes, but between the folks who managed to please the widest swath of voters. i am optimistic that it would start to change if you could get voters to do that. you would start to spit out candidates that were far more pragmatic and consistent with voter preferences of everyone in a particular district. host: this is from irish eyes on twitter -- twitter -- host: paul, good morning. you are on with charles wheelan. caller: good morning. i was calling in to express my opinion that i think that pragmatism in general in is really destructive. that we have seen a series of candidates who have the exact same opinion on the key issues

of progressive taxation, changing the tax policy on the nsa and just the surveillance of americans, the spying policy. not only that, but the federal reserve and really, the most important socialism of our time, tied into economic issues. just like to know if you think the parties are substantially different. do you feel that we need more difference between the candidates? guest: you kept referring to candidates and parties, which is important, but i want to bring it back to government. to get stuff done, you need to be pragmatic. that is where we need to keep focusing. thee is this argument that parties are clones of each other, but i don't think that is true at all. i think the parties have drawn

lines in the sand that are incompatible with the governing i have this -- that i have described. as long as they cling to this believe that they cannot raise revenue under any circumstances, that is incompatible with a government that has promised things that are getting more expensive. and they are not willing to identify the cuts the need to be realistically made. as long as the democrats cling to this notion that they will not change the retirement age of social security or restrain health-care spending, that is incompatible with making those programs work. there are stark differences between the parties. by itself that is not a problem, we should have differences of opinion. but when they are hard, fast, and incompatible with government ,ecisions that have to be made we have a whole series of problems on autopilot. host: you can write us an e-mail this morning as well, journal at c-span.org.

we have this -- right, so trade is a really good thing for centrist to be. as an economist, trade is what makes the pot bigger. it not only creates wealth in this country, but around the country. i was in india, a country that has benefited enormously from trade. if you care about people, you should care about the people of other countries as well. much raid also creates losers. you could probably take the best example from both parties, republicans are right in that we should make a pot your, but they seem to forget that if you make furniture in south carolina and there is cheaper stuff coming from rhea, your factory and your whole town might seriously suffer. the best approach on trade is to do it and take care of the folks find themselves on the losing end. they have a smaller piece of

this growing pie. the best article on trade was written by an economist from the george w. bush administration, the new heel for globalization. the idea was not to turn off the trade that has the potential to make people wealthier, but don't ignore the fact that not everyone is a winner, which i think is the most logical approach going forward. you talkyour book about tough issues. it is called the centrist manifesto. talking about guns after fort hood, texas, what would be the centrist and a festival plan? same chapter with sex. putting all the tough things in a tough place. do, from a need to pragmatic standpoint, is keep hands.s out of the wrong it still allows people to hunt in wisconsin or have them in their homes and washington, d.c.. i would propose a process in

which guns are treated like fine even have as many as you want, but they are registered to you. if you sell them, or lose it, you have to report that they were stolen or lost. a registry, if you will. to the folks in the middle i think it is part of responsible gun ownership. just like responsible car ownership. then if a bunch of guns start showing up in washington neighborhoods and are being used in gang murders and the like, we can focus on where they have come from. is there someone who seems to be losing 35 guns per week and they are finding their way to the wrong place? combines strategy that the libertarian right, have as many guns as you want, but with a responsibility overlay that characterizes pragmatism on the host of issues. you don't get to have guns about taking care of them. host: what about where you can carry them?

guest: that is a harder one. once you step out of your house, it is all of our business. that is probably something best left to the states. one of the themes of the book is that in a federal system there is a role to allow states to disagree and i would say that concealed carry laws are probably better left to the states, with the caveat that whatever gun you have is registered so that we know where it turns up if it is in the wrong hands. mike is calling in on the independent mind this morning from an sylvania. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span, first of all. in pennsylvania it is virtually to get on a ballot in a statewide election. for example, if you are running for governor -- i don't know the exact numbers, this is a rough estimate, you only need like 1000 signatures.

if you are independent or third-party of some kind, you need like 60,000. -- howyou -- how do you do you handle that? guest: this is a good point. i used the word oligopoly earlier. the two parties have a stranglehold on the system. changing the rules as part of the way they do it. there is no logical reason why you would need more signatures as an independent. you should need the same numbers and if that is a hurdle, fair enough. here is where the 50 state strategy makes a difference. what we bring our people who are pragmatic and centrist in 50 state to are willing to help elect one or two people wherever it is most likely to happen. to ballotct signatures, and absolutely huge hurdle, the idea is that when you identify the promising candidate, you interact with folks from 50 states to show up.

college students. you say that for the next 10 days we need to raise 23,500 signatures. that is part of the immigrant -- that is part of the innovation here. if you can harness that effort, you can absolutely get on the ballot anywhere. there is no signature hurdle that is impenetrable if you draw from the whole country. eddie identified any promising candidates going into the next election? anyave you identified promising candidates going into the next election? guest: we have different markers, like fiscal responsibility, environmental responsibility, acknowledge the climate change is real and needs to be addressed, and so on. for candidates willing to abide by centrist principles, saying that these are consistent with 2014 we are all working on it. we are not quite there yet, but

on the senate side there are opportunities. the house side will be less active, but given the number of races they will likely have candidates willing to sign on to those principles. host: the website? .org.: centristproject host: andrew, good morning. you are on with charles wheelan. caller: good morning. i have a couple points. , just 28. i only recently moved into the area recently. it is very impressive, the whole washington thing. well-established, but my mind has been thinking that the capital has all been moved before. aboute all talking shifting power changes and why things can't move into a different direction.

i have never thoht of things as in the centrist system, but more like moving to a one-party now we are moving towards a multiparty system. as a kid when they taught history it was -- the one-party system gave it up to the two-party system, easily. like that is what made this country great. they realize the need to move forward, but now that is not happening when there is a need for it. in my mind a solution could be moving the capital again, shifting the power structure into a different location, shifting the party schematics and all of that. id -- i do not think i will embrace blu-ray capital, but the thing that did make this country great was the onetitutional convention,

giant series of compromises. it is ironic to my mind that the tea party is named after the tea party, the easy part. you go on to a bunch of ships and throw things in the ocean, but that does not accomplish a lot when people iron out the differences to make things stronger out of this agreement. areink that there historical lessons, but i don't think that moving the capital is one i will seize on. host: romney, independent line, good morning. caller: [indiscernible] morning. i agree with your project [indiscernible] white shuttime the they ought to think they .on't say what do you think that permanent? career out ofke

so extreme on their ideas before they can get elected. of takingo scared their jobs. power-hungry, i think. i don't understand on both sides why they won't do a scared word about their own. oberoi.ut under speech thank you. host: thank you for the call this morning. guest: term limits aren't attractive solution, but i fear they would not deliver what people hope. i have the same frustration, people come to congress and make a career out of it. self-preservation tends to trump the natural -- natural limits. the fear is a term limits would just trump the problem. you have to leave and make sure that you will get a plum lobbying job.

one of the problems we have is the revolving door. people serving congress without going far in washington, they just aren't lobbying on the interests they used to preside over in congress. i fear that the kind of people we were electing, if the parties lock hold on the system, term limits are superficially attractive. if i were persuaded that state term limits were doing a much changejob, maybe i would my view, but right now i think it is a simple fix for a much more complicated problem. host: dana, california, thanks for getting up with "washington journal" this morning. caller: hello. i kind of like and am attracted to the idea of the centrist and pragmatic hearty. to take the best of both sides. young people of this country would probably move in that direction. i am agreeing with what your

guest is saying. my question, though, about how that would work, i like the idea that, starting with the senate is the best place to start. my question is, though, when it comes down to votes in the house, eventually in the if people are ideally looking to get three policies, say that you have like 33, 33, 33, you know, members of the senate. how would you change the rules in terms of how a bill would pass? if you don't like the idea of possibly narrowing that down to 34%, 35% of the senate , wouldng on a question

you push that number up to like 61? would that make majority for something to pass? so, that is my question in terms howetting three parties -- would you decide who wins the vote? this is a really important point. you have given me 33 centrist members of the senate. the point is, and i think this is a key mindset change, 3, 4, 10, you cannot pass a bill alone . you are like the smallest kid on the playground. you have to find friends, which is totally different from the mindset now. you can look to the republicans and say -- look, we share your views on a number of things. are you serious about corporate tax reform? rather than being permanent

it if youed and save want to put a price on carbon, we have 10 votes for you. of breaking the broken mindset of washington, there is an enormous benefit of being a minority in the middle. you have got to be the peacemaker on both sides. if the republicans and democrats don't want to play in the sandbox you are creating and don't want to compromise with you, is there the possibility of creating more gridlock? therethere could --guest: could be. if either party comes and is purely obstructionist, the system is designed to accommodate the obstructionist. this is a system designed not to be king george and we succeeded wildly. the house, if they are committed to doing nothing, there is little that we can do to overturn that. but if there are members of each

party for there for the right reason, and i firmly believe that there are, you can be a catalyst to reach out to them and get things moving. all that we can do is promote the best interests that currently exist. we cannot overcome a party committed to doing nothing. host: harry, rougher glen, virginia, good morning. wanted to make the comment that you had on the noshing -- national gun registry. upon therly based notion of the separation of powers. so, we created the senate, the congress, rejected by us. , a lot ofng father's them are in -- were english.

oliver cromwell. our founding fathers were fine with absolute power. that's why we created divided government. this in terms of guns, if we create a national , you know, ourns founding fathers thought there is the possibility of our government being corrupted one day. that is why we divided the powers. it is already bad enough with the things we have going on with nsa, tracking this very phone call. i am not sure that many people , especially those who believe in the right to bear arms, they see a corrupt government coming in and taking your guns. taking a right to protect yourself. host: charles wheelan? guest: you are right. that is not something that is going to fly with the extreme right and it is not designed to.

it is designed to appeal to folks who want to get the best of what we can offer. if we can still guarantee that hunters can have what they want, use guns for sport, use them in your home, it just adds a modicum of responsibility. yes, there is this prospect that the government is going to know where the guns are and come get them, but you have to weigh the risk against the danger that we face every day, which is tens of thousands of people being killed on the streets of america. that --e routine gang gang violence. unlike drugs, guns are manufactured legally. people can't make a guns in the basement, with some exceptions. somehow they fall out of the legal system into the wrong hands and the restaurant is are you willing to trade off a bit of your privacy, just registering the gun. there would still be a lot of effort involved in coming to get

it. ensures -- is that ensures less slaughter on the streets. is that is the trade-off you are willing to do, don't be part of the centrist project. host: two are your inspirations? guest: -- who are your inspirations? put theeorge tsongas price of deficit on the political radar. he brought up a lot of the things we would have to do to deal with our budget situation back then. bill clinton eviscerated him in the primaries, but his gift was that he made it easier later for clinton to balance the budget and do the things that had to be done. he kind of softened up america. there is a role for truth tellers to speak about what has to be done. they may or may not twin election. but they make it easier to solve

problems. >> thoit american political system has turned into a sports rivalry game. people love it. do you think centrists really have a chance? we can't change that mind set. we think of politics as winners and loser. if you had a school board or church board that operated that way, who won at the school board today, that makes no sense. if we can't change that mind set providing a forum people can come up with prague malt i can solutions then there is no hope. i think this is the problem and part of the answer. >> see "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 eastern.

the u.s. house is in recess at this hour. members gaveled in this afternoon at noon eastern for a couple of morning hour speeches. they will be back briefly at 2:00 eastern before starting legislative work at 4:00. several bills being dealt with this afternoon including one dealing with federal loans. >> and we're live later today on recent with a look at afghanistan elections. live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. a little later this afternoon the center for american progress will host a discussion on combating gender pay discrimination. >> in our joint services agreement, we are really active. we are involved. in our myrtle beach station

because not have use news is where you make your money. this is not cheap. but this is what we needed to get them back to our station, we put that back in place. without their financial support, i could not afford these figures. during an ice storm in south carolina, ice just destroyed our generator. we were off the air for almost 16 hours. to get a generator was $400,000. these are the kind of expenses you cannot calculate. i don't care what kind of wealth i may have been blessed with. there is no way owning two or three television stations that i could survive this. >> owners cannot control more

than one station in the same market using joint sales agreements. find out more tonight on the communicators at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> and once again the house returns at 2:00 eastern today. we'll have live coverage. right now a conversation with updates on enrollments in the nation's healthcare law and healthcare system and another republican effort to defund program from today's "washington journal". >> now that the enrollment signup deadline has come and gone we'll take a look at what is next for the affordable care act. to do that we're joined by the hill newspaper. that enrollment last week was for private health plans for 20 14. but there is another enrollment effort that is ongoing for the medicaid and children's health programs that expanded under the affordable care act. is that the new front for

enrollment efforts? >> that's right. the white house is excited to encourage states to don't this medicaid expansion which became optional because of the supreme court decision to up hold the affordable care act. before that states were going to be required to expand their medicaid programs up to 143% of the poverty level. they were going to have to offer helingts care coverage sponsored by the state that would be paid for by the federal government. but several gop states were upset about having to do this and the supreme court made it optional. white house is void of this. i think healthcare reporters and observers across the city did not think they would reach four or five million let alone their goal of 7.16789 so they are very

excited and they want to apply pressure to the gop states to expand coverage. we got numbers at the end of last week on medicaid. what were those numbers? >> what the administration found digsal peoplelion a signed up. people had the opportunity to sign up for medicaid over the last six months and that continues because medicaid enrollment varies by state and is not closed like on the marketplaces. what the administration was trying to do, they didn't total figures. they didn't say these are precisely because of the affordable care act. we assume that's because of the expansion. what the administration is trying to do is actually to empower local advocates in red states to pressure their governors alongside members of

the health system like hospitals to say it's good for our healthcare system for people to have medicare coverage. >> here is a map, the orange red states on this map are the states that have expanded their medicaid to date. the darker red and brownish states are the one that have not currently expanded. what are the states to watch here as this push by the white house to continue this expansion continues? >> there are a lot of swing states we would watch. states like arkansas, new hampshire that are pursuing alternatives to the traditional medicaid expansion. what they are trying to do is take money from the federal government to provide more health insurance but might not do it in the way the affordable care act outlined. i think they will continue to up date that map. they put that map or a version of it out on social media to pressure their base to take it

to those governors. they feel this is the next attleground. >> mike pence was certainly no friend of the affordable care act but he is encouraging health and human services department to work with him on an expansion. it's encouraging to watch some of these red state opponents who are opponents adopt this under pressure from their local business community. the republicans trying to work with hhs, there is an interesting story there. hoyt one story that has come out is -- host: one stair that has come

out is robert gibbs. what were the comments? >> guest: the employer mandate requires most employers to offer it to their employees. what robert gibbs said is i think the employer mandate is going to be the first thing to go without the law. he was saying it very important and wasn't mounting a great defense of this policy. everyone was surprised. it was picked up and was soon across the headlines because to have such a high ranking former official in the obama administration call out a part of the law that hasn't been implemented cast all kind of doubt, we wonder does he have inside information the administration is never going to implement it. and we saw nancy pelosi say no, this is a very important part of the law and there was a vacuum

for democrats there, somebody needed to step in and mount a defense because if you have high ranking officials in the obama administration cast doubt on this employer mandate, it was very important for someone from the left to come in if that mandate is to survive. host: we will show our view terse defense by nancy pelosi on yesterday. >> of all the things i want to say about the affordable care i , robert gibbs' opinion, don't know what his perspective is or who his clients are, we have 7.1 million who have signed up not including over 3 million and probably closer to 5 million on medicaid, being as close to 15 million people who now have quality affordable healthcare. it's really pretty exciting for

those of us who made this fight, the employer mandate, the individual mandate all an intry cal part of giving people -- >> you think it's intry cal and had and has to stay? >> yeah. this is an initiative that has strong pillars in it that relate to each other. >> but to put a period on it, you cannot see supporting anything that would remove the business mandate? >> no. i'm not focused on that. one person says one thing. 7 million people signed up. the congress of the united states that wrote the bill, the members who are proud of what they have done are happy to not run away from what we have done. >> that was yesterday morning on cnn state of the union. what was the response yesterday? >> certainly everyone expected

that a leader like nancy pelosi would come out in support of the mandate but people are skeptical about whether the administration will carry it out. it has been delayed twice. the tration has given us no ipped indication they will delay it again. they have said the delays are over. whether that is true or not is hard to say. i think it will be important to watch the democrat party position on this mandate because there is such untense campaign to repeal it. groups like the retail and restaurant groups who feel they would be most affected by it who say it's going to affect their bottom lines and employee hours and their ability to hire. robert's comments energized that movement to repeal this mandate or pressure the administration to delay it again. and we'll have to see whether the left can mount it's own campaign which may have started

yesterday with nancy pelosi. >> if have you questions as we talk about the future of the affordable care act. >> kathleen is going to be in the senate on thursday. what are we expecting to hear from her? >> she's going to be talking at the proposed bument for 2015. these are typical. as we know, given 7.1 million figure and all of the delays and different changes we've seen, law makers are always interested in talking about this. they don't spend much time on

the budget issues, they are more interested in implementation. we are likely to see her on the hot seat again. she tend to be cool and collected. but she usually hints at what is to come so we'll watch her closely. host: our line for independents. russ, you are on. caller: my comment is along the lines that the thing i've hated about this so much from the beginning is all the money and investment that the republicans made in trying to defeat this thing and trying to turn on the american people against it, if they had taken all of that energy and brain power and turned it into working with the democrat, i mean a bill this big, this massive, of course it's going to have problems. and if the republicans had worked with the democrats on the problems, i feel like we could

have had a very workable bill right now. and i'm hoping that the republicans realize there is no more, nothing more to be gained by fighting it and actually work now with the democrats as a team to really overcome the remaining roblems with the bill.

caller: i will l i would like to say i am a democrat but i don't agree with the affordable care act. i was against it and i still am against it. what i think needs to be dunn is it needs to be totally overhauled but the republicans were not given a chance to put into it the democrat and president obama did not want any input and president obama still saying today it's done, there is no way we're going to change it. things have to change if the

affordable care act is going to be affordable to everyone. otherwise our country is going to face major deficits and major financial problems. that's my comment. thank you. host: some of those comments, me comments happening on chill? >> guest: absolutely. the congressional budget office has not found that to be true however the estimates that obama care will reduce the deficit rely on parts of the law to remain in place that are controversial. for example the independent payment advisory board to restrain the growth of healthcare cost. that board has bipartisan opposition. if that were repealed we would see that contribute to the deficit over time. we see a lot of people concerned

about the cost of these provisions and we're going to have to get data to see how many people were subsidized to see what the impact of those going to be. these subsidies were popular and drew many people to the exchanges who otherwise wouldn't have been interested. but they have not released daltta on the number of people who did receive subsidies. and they vary person by person. we're going to have to see more numbers before we know the total

ost.

>> i am a reporter and i try to report the facts about obama care. but the subsidy issue is very crucial. i don't know the number of people who purchased pet rocks in the last year but perhaps it was more than 2.1 million. i also don't know if the subsidies are being challenged in the court. my understanding is that is a part of the law that has been decided to be legal by the supreme court. we're likely to see it going forward unless republicans are able to take the white house and both chambers of congress which they would be able to repeal those coverage provisions they disagree with so much. i think it would take a waive

election to get these out of there. there are a lot of republicans who have talked about repeal. john boehner after the 7.1 figure came out reiterated his commitment to repeal. and there are a lot of republicans out there who want to hear that message. the other side of the coin is 7.1 million people have signed up for coverage and democrats can use that in the future. people are going to be called on to defend their coverage under obama care. whether that will be successful is hard to say. but democrats are going to try to use it to keep the law in place. >> everyone is interested in new numbers that come out under the affordable care act. what other numbers should be coming out? guest: that's a great question. obama is expected to finalize the cuts in 2015 which are part of the affordable care act. host: medicare advantage is the

private at ty to medicare. you can sign up for traditional medicare or a medical advantage plan. we are expecting the obama administration to finalize its cuts it proposed under the affordable care act. the reason they became part of the law and have been so controversial in past elections, for example when mitt romney was running for the white house. democrats argue medicare advantage is overpaid relative to traditional medicare. in fact the program in these insurance companies receive more money on average per beneficiary. and democrats argue that is not fair and the affordable care act seeks to rectify this.

>> right now we're in the middle of a special enrollment period. also in the next week or two weeks we'll see a final enrollment report breaking down some of the numbers from march when the exchanges saw that

massive sweep of people interest ? they will eelingt except them or perhaps challenge them. perhaps under pressure challenge them. the premiums matter how many people enroll over time. insurers expect a double digit spike which is not great for getting customers. host: that rush of enrollment has spilled over into april as well. guest: that's right. there is a special enrollment period for people who have had technical hurdles to enroll by april 15. they were concerned this would

be a way for the administration to boost it's enrollment numbers but looks like that is going to end in about a week. host: good morning, you are on. caller: how you doing? guest: good. caller: i'm on medicare but my son who had that insurance everybody is talking about that they had to get rid of because it wasn't up to par. well, he got rid of it and got much better coverage under the affordable care act. and john his wife was rushed to the hospital with some heart problems and the bill was paid 100%. and my next door neighbor with a preexisting condition who has been in the hospital many times who almost lost his house. i was a republican but now i believe the republican party is only for the rich. if we can give money to these

countries all over the world, y can't we give money to our citizens? why can't we pay more taxes to help the poor. i'm pretty well off. and i tonight need the help but i'm willing to pay a little more so people like my son can have insurance.

host: are there more people insured now than before obama

care? guest: yes. there were 7.1 who signed upton exchanges in addition to 3 million that stayed on their parents plans. 3 more on medicaid. it's likely people did gain insurance. particularly those who signed up -- those who who is prance were cancelled, those 5 million were the bulk of the people who signed up as the 7.1 figure. but people who had their prans cancelled received a cancellation notice from their insurance company offering plans there. so they were able to sign up off the exchange choosing an option from that insurance company that as provided to them.

host: don is up next on the line for republicans. and caller: thank you for taking my call. i deliver the rubber on the road when it comes down to this bill. i am not going to talk about why did nate read it and the regulations should have been made that people in the insurance business should have helped with the regulations, but the website itself, let's talk about that a little bit. whoever designed this website, and i have done over 400 policies through the website, they do not realize that a two-year-old or a five-year-old or a seven-year-old cannot have a job in this country. they do not collect alimony and so on and so forth. there is stuff on this website that makes the question who designed it? and so on and so forth. there is stuff on this website that makes the question who designed it? .

that is one thing i am surprised about on a website. number four, i wonder when -- the lady on the show said the independent payment advisory board is put in place to make cuts to medicare. i want to make sure everyone heard that. i also want to talk about my stories because there is no doubt that i have people that i ensure that i have gotten plenty it issidy for that think the best thing since sliced bread. i get the other side, two retired police officers and of their wives and they have lost their health in michigan because they plan for the retirement, they make a little bit too much money so they can i get subsidy and their insurance is 1100 and $1200. happening as we have not addressed anything about health care because we have not addressed y and m ir -- m.r.i.

is a grand. lease -- elise jump in. he is from michigan, which is a federally facilitated exchange, which means he would be using healthcare.gov to enroll these clients. it is difficult. there will be books written about all of the problems at hhs that allowed this website to move forward. we know they're going to continue overhauling it before the next enrollment season begins. the problems were so deep, they feel they can do well by making significant changes. theydministration hopes can fix it. we will see if that is true. on the idea of health care costs, this bill is the law now. it was passed in order to address access problems. what they desired was to make

health care coverage accessible to as many people as possible at as low a cost as possible. values -- i think the idea of cost is something that lawmakers will have to continue in the future. the health care system is expensive. there are certain parts of the toordable care act that seek begin to address the cost question. we are likely to see federal health officials published at a about doctors who receive reimbursements from medicare, the specifics they bill, and how much money they receive. we receive data about how much hospitals charge for procedures. this is part of an effort to increase chance -- transparency.

it will also give data to researchers who can see where waste, fraud, and abuse is occurring a little bit better than the government does. host: we stock about the state headlinesthat a few generated from meetings with members of congress, state officials say technology problems on health insurance sites. the wall street journal states grappling with the health care exchange. not great headlines coming out of that headline. -- that meeting last week. know, there were not. many of the states that trouble most were democratic led states. consumers were struggling as

recently as the last month to enroll. it shows government has not attempted to create systems like the ones the affordable care act asked to create. states may appeal to the federal government to use their software. that is an interesting idea. what supporters would say is this is a long -- this law will be on the books for a long time. say theators would system will not work for the public. government should not be attempting it. host: linda, mississippi, democratics line. caller: good morning. i agree with affordable health care act.

when i was young and raising my children, i did not have insurance. working and could not afford health insurance. always talk about the cost of health care. they did not worry about what it cost when they put us in a war, they did not worry about that. democrats worked with them to fix what problems they had. if they spend more time trying to fix the problems instead of trying to knock it down, because it is here to stay. the democrats afraid to run on they need care law, not be afraid. republicans always against everything. just like they was against voting during the last election. they were criticizing the act

during the time when president obama was running. linda brings up some of the republican efforts when it comes to the affordable care act. the save american workers act that passed in the house, 236-186. employer addresses the mandate we were discussing. it is a requirement that most businesses offer health insurance to workers if there are 50 workers or above. this bill would redefine full-time work. is 30 hours a week rather than the traditional 40 hours a week. republicans argue that it ought to be 40 hours. that is the traditional definition and 30 hours is actually prompting employers to order toyees in

avoid offering them health insurance. 18 democrats supported this bill. they sided with republicans in order to pass the bill to raise the threshold to 40 hours. it is unlikely to see a vote in the democratic led senate and the white house is set to veto it. it will not go very far. if republicans are able to claim the senate, which people believe they have a good chance of doing, it could have traction there. mellon, fort lauderdale florida. caller: good morning. to address wanted was the issue with respect to the democratic call-in complaining that obama had no input into the law. i wish you would tell her that republicans had over 140 members in the law when it was written.

secondly, in respect to medicare advantage, why will be cut. people do not realize that medicare advantage cost more than regular medicare. when that program was put into effect, it was supposed to be cheaper than regular medicare, as a result, it is more expensive. why should people with advantage get more medicare payments for individual than those in regular medicare? people wanted, they can paid the extra money out of their pocket. guest: medicare advantage is is whymore and that democrats argue it ought to be cut. the additional payments are subsidizing benefits that are very attractive, like glasses and jim memberships that make these plans popular.

those are not essential health care benefits to equalize the government's contributions. launched arers have lobbying campaign against these. and humana,hcare whose profit margins depend on medicare advantage rates staying stable. they have a huge investment in keeping them equal to what they are now. insurers argue that these benefits will go away for seniors if the government cuts its payments to medicare advantage. they are encouraging seniors to vote on this issue. medicare advantage is very popular. there are many people that say the benefits should not be cut. can you talk about the first part of the question where he was talking about the republican amendments in the original health care law? guest: the affordable care act passed without a single

republican vote in this remains a thorn in their side. a lot of people believe a health-care reform law was going part ofaul such a large the economy, it required bipartisan support. the heritage foundation was excited about marketplaces. there are a couple of different sides of the debate, but i think you will remain an issue for republicans, who are energized by the opposition to the law. they have made great use of that . a few minutes left. a few folks left waiting to talk to you. zach, good morning. caller: good morning. you are refreshing, to hear this

conversation done in an , itlligent, factual manner feels good. i am one of those beneficiaries. self-employed, my wife a government employee. both of my kids have sickle cell. one is graduating this year and the other one goes to another major d one school. it is a blessing for them to stay on her plan because they're 26 and make their way through college is -- i cannot describe how elated i am about this. , taking the side people out of it -- how much we subsidize farms, other nations, i would like people to know that

when you compare subsidies, there is a lot of money that goes to reach institutions that actot serve us the way this is going to service nationwide. people need to know that. i am so glad you brought up the point -- and i tell my friends that this is from the new green grinch era. grinch -- newtn gringich era. guest: a lot of families in the country are benefiting from this. it is not necessarily a change for everybody. the idea that someone with sickle cell, which is a terrible disease can remain on health insurance is a key benefit of this law.

republicans are going to have to answer for its. there are a couple of different replacement plans to obamacare. none of them have been brought to the floor of the house. are concerned about bringing a replacement plan to the floor because any replacement plan that involves repealing obamacare, they will have to answer for the idea that some of these plans are going to go away. that is unavoidable. the white house has taken a lot of its own political heat for that. it will be interesting to see if republicans move forward. jindal replaced his own replacement land. guest: he did. i believe it is part of his abovet to place himself 2016. he wants to make the republican right believe he is a policy thinker, that he is committed to repealing the law.

the way he would cover people with pre-existing conditions would get away of the protections now, but incentivizing states to create a grant -- grant program. states can have a part of that money if they choose to allow kids to stay on their parent's health insurance plan until their mid-20's or cover people with existing conditions. it is another position gentle got criticized for. host:>> washington journal cont.

>> in this segment, we take a look at how your money is at work in a different government program. this week, we will talk about a tax exemption for mortgage debt forgiveness that may be revised by congress. we are joined by nick timiraos. guest: the issue here is that if

the lender forgives a debt that you owe them, that is treated by the irs as income. when we saw007, more foreclosures and banks were being encouraged to offer relief to homeowners, it turned out that if the banks offered you relief, if they forgave some of your mortgage principal, that would be treated as income. that help you are getting from your bank, you would have to pay taxes on. congress passed a series of measures that said you would not have to do that, but you would not have to treat any forgiven mortgage debt as in some. that was 2000 seven and expired in 2010. it expired in 2012 and they passed a one-year extension last year. yearber 31 of this past came around and it expired with no extension. now, what the senate finance committee is looking at doing -- they have passed a two-year

extension of this provision so that homeowners who are getting help on their mortgage, or you're getting a short sale, that is were you own more than your home is worth and you sell the house at a loss in the bank agrees to take the loss area -- take the loss. the difference on your amount of mortgage is $200,000 to $300,000, the bank is forgiving $100,000. the irs would say that is income and you would have to pay taxes on it. homeowners going through a short sale, this is probably someone that is cash poor. how are they going to come up with money to pay more on taxes? the concern is that you may be in sending the wrong kind of behavior. if we are encouraging people not to do that because they're going to face a big tax bill, there is a perversity there. that is the reason this is up

for renewal again. correspondent. why was this allowed to expire at the end of last year? one members of congress who were voicing concerns? just bang i don't think it was the particular mortgage provision. when it expired, some people were saying we did so much for housing, do we need to provide more for housing? saying,re some people we have already done so much, maybe it is time to rip the band-aid off. on the whole, this was lost in the broader issue of tax reform. there was a hope that you would not have to do the tax extenders this year because you could get a bigger tax reform bill. once it became clear that was not going to happen, people said, we need to do this. there has been a view among the

analyst community that this is something that would get extended. if you are a homeowner in florida and you are looking -- say the bank was offering you a danceable reduction. , if you recall over the past year, there has been a number of settlements with banks. jpmorgan had a settlement last fall. the settlements have been structured in a way that the banks are providing principal reductions for hundreds of thousands of homeowners. if the bank was offering to trim your mortgage by $50,000, but the irs is saying that is nice of them, but you are to have to pay us more in taxes, it is a perversity to hear that some members have heard this is like throwing a life rope and then dropping the end that they are holding in letting you struggle out there after they have gotten banks to give you this

release. there is a view this would ultimately get done. if you're a homeowner in florida and you're saying am i going to go ahead and accept this deal from the bank, am i going to do the short sale without knowing what policy is going to be? it is hard to bank on congress doing this and saying i will keep my fingers crossed that congress will retroactively extend this provision. host: let's give folks a visual how this works. this is courtesy of the congressional research service when they looked into a report they did for congress on this. they gave an example of a possible qualified residential debt of $200,000. the loan is renegotiated or the property is disposed of for on hundred $80,000. that $20,000 difference, the debt is forgiven. the tax liability is 28% on the $20,000. that comes out to the $600. without this -- that comes out

to $5,600. without this, you may owe that to the irs. how much did this cost a federal government? how much in taxes were collected because of the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act? almostthe estimate is $5.5 billion. we have had it for seven years and it is probably -- it could have cost the government tens of billions of dollars. the benefit you receive would be harder to measure. when people do a short sale instead of a foreclosure, that is less harmful to the community because the home doesn't go bank ---- doesn't go bank and vacant. onyou measure the impact communities, you are probably having more short sales, having people not lose their homes to foreclosure if they can afford a reduced payment, would make up a

lot of money for the economy down the road. about 6.5 million underwater homes as of december 23 -- as of december 2013. nevada, florida, an arizona has the highest number. we are opening up the phone sines, looking for question and comments as we talk about the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act. republicans can call at (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. independents, (202) 585-3882. you have received mortgage relief under this act, if it is something you have made use of, we would like to talk to you. that is (202) 585-3883. we will start with john, durham,

north carolina. good morning. my question is, if you do a payingale, and you are mortgage protection insurance, how does that work? guest: i am not sure. you are referring to if you were paying mortgage insurance on your monthly payment. you get in's say trouble and you do a short sale, are you still subject to that income tax? mortgage insurance is a benefit that is provided to the lender on your mortgage. that is the policy that you are paying for and that you or your lender have been required to take out. it is so that if the ball were to fall on your mortgage, mortgage insurance company is going to cover a portion of the loss that the lender could take on the default. if you are no longer living in

the house, if you no longer own the residence, and if the mortgage is paid off, the mortgage insurance is not there anymore. to consult a tax professional or a real estate agent. host: how does this fit in with the overall universe of programs that were instituted to help the housing market? one kindthink it was of tool in the arsenal. since 2007 there has been an alphabet soup of homeowner relief programs. one of theobably first and one of the more bipartisan proposals because everybody agreed that if we could get banks to do things voluntarily, if we can you homeowners to work with lenders, we should provide what encouragement we can to have

those things happen. first safetyof the net things. since then, we have had a range of mortgage modification programs. hamp.vernment had they were paying lenders to modify mortgages that met certain parameters in terms of reducing the monthly payment. issues on all sides. they have thrown a lot of different things at it. there has been a huge debate over whether more should be done. people feel like there should be a principal reduction program. freddie mae and fannie mac --

freddie mac and fannie mae decided not to produce -- in a debt reduction program. now we have seen in the housing market a decent recovery, at least in home prices. prices haveis that gone up a little too fast and are making it harder for people to afford homes. borrowers are underwater or they owe more than their homes are worth. it was almost double that a couple of years ago. the home price gains have helped, but there is still a long road to go. should more be done? if you're going to do more, you are not going to have favorable tax provisions for those who get help.

it makes you wonder if it is worth doing these things. a special line, (202) 585-3883 we would love to hear your story if you have used these program. peggy, you are on. caller:. thank you for taking my call. we were back east in 2007 and purchased a home. we put 30% down. the house went way down in value. it is valued at less than what the people valued before us in 1990. took a dime from anybody. we took the loss. it is time to take the band-aid off. i know a lot of people that are

in bad situations with their homes. some of these people did not put any money down. read modifications and some of them have defaulted twice. this is a convoluted housing market. it will not get better until things start over again. people are flipping homes in santa cruz and san jose. the houses are beyond the reach of anybody. the housing market is in a mess. it is time that this is all over with. had helpople that have and i am the one taking the brunt of that. we are paying the taxes for those people. it is time for it to be over. thank you. john that goes along with 's comment. i paid too much for a house, why should this be the bank or the taxpayer's loss?

guest: they illustrate the reason why there has been frustration with government efforts. rants recall one of the that gets credit for being partymental when the tea got started, this was the day that president obama unveiled his mortgage modification sam turned to the traders on the floor and said who wants to subsidize a mortgage for somebody that ?ubsidized an extra mortgage you have a number of people, and peggy is a good example. enough is enough, let's let the market sort itself out. or has been no easy answer on this crisis. i think that there have been

some important steps taken to get banks to do short sales ahead of foreclosures. that seems like a commonsense sort of step. modifications were the borrower can make the payment or they might have a shot at staying in the house conversation. you can watch the rest of it online. we will take you to the u.s. house. by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear lord, we give you thanks for giving us another day. at the beginning of a new workweek, we use this moment to be reminded of your presence and to tap the resources needed by the members of this people's house to do their work as well as it can be