practice what they call gender rating. that permits them to charge men and women different premiums for the very same coverage. america's health coverage choices act will make it illegal. never again -- [applause] never again, will insurance companies be able to deny women coverage for c-sections because we are pregnant, because we are victims of domestic violence. never again, will insurance companies be able to deny us just for being women. [applause] america's affordable health choices act will make health care affordable for all of america's women and protect us from high and potentially unmanageable out of pocket health care costs. this bill will improve health care for not only women but for

all americans. thank you. . [applause] >> thank you, congresswoman fudge. as a lagat among the crowd i see many young people. i have five children, ages 20 to i have five children, ages 20 to 30 and it's those young people and the concern their parents face as they often go uninsured. so i am pleased to introduce monique luis, a student at georgetown law school. she learned adults need affordable, quality health insurance. [applause] >> hello. my name is monique luis and i am

a third year law student at georgetown. i also a member of young invincible, do focused organization that's come together to advocate for comprehensive health care reform. on behalf of young and consoles and why i want change collision i want to thank speaker policy for her leadership. it is an honor to stand with you on this day. the health care crisis in america is a young america's crisis. it's also been my own. when i was 21-years-old i was diagnosed with hypertension, a chronic condition. i think if we had good health insurance at the time. i was able to get the prescription medication line needed and manage my condition. but when i graduated from college i followed my passion of public service. i move around as i built my career and ended up in situations where i was in between coverage waiting to get on the insurance plan that came with my next job. that's what happens to millions of young americans in our broken health care system. we are figuring out where we are

going to live, with career we are going to have, who we are going to be. but because i had a potential i also have to figure out how i was going to pay for my medication. but there i was going to get a metro pass or what to miles to work to manage my condition and stay healthy became an actual consideration. that's not the way it should have recently i started having other symptoms. i went to the doctor and was diagnosed with a rear all the women system. will mean more management on my part to make sure i stay healthy. if i end up in a place within adequate coverage it will mean more and unmanageable expenses. our broken health care system has a cost that is not financial. navigating drops were gaps in coverage influences the decisions i make and risks i'm willing to take building my career becoming who i'm going to be. only is that not right, it's not smart and it must be changed.

the time for comprehensive health care reform is now. because no one is invincible without health care. thank you to all of those in congress working in good faith to get this done. thank you for your leadership and courage to put the needs of everyday americans first. we can't wait any longer. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, monique. >> young adults like monique are our country's future. they are the reason i am here. the reason we are all here today. 29% of our nation's uninsured are young adults between the ages of 19 and 29. nearly one-third of those young adults do not have health insurance. that means when young adults fees in medical emergencies, their care often comes at taxpayers' expense or not at

all. they often make big white decisions based on health insurance concerns. there is a clear and urgent need to provide health insurance coverage to our young adults. under the affordable health care for america act, young adults will have the option to remain on their parents' health care plan until they are 27 negative no -- [applause] and this is no cost to american taxpayers. we have the responsibility to give every chance to thrive, to lead and be free of the fear that monique experience. that is why this bill is important and i am proud to be part of this legislation that will lower cost and expand affordable health care to all americans. and now i would like to introduce another great leader, congressman xaier becerra of

california. [applause] >> thank you come calfee for your leadership and assuring all american -- america's children have a to nettie to maintain health care. in 1935, franklin delano roosevelt stood up and fought for social security. there were many that said no. in 1965 lyndon been johnston stood up and had the courage to say yes to medicare despite the fear shouted held by many along with their noes. and today all of us gathered together to say yes to america because we have heard you. we see it in your eyes.

you are telling us it is time to reform health care for our family not tomorrow, not 40 years but today and we hear you loud and clear. [applause] we know that you have fought to keep your children insured. we know that you have fought against those insurance bureaucrats that deny care. we know the you scramble to find the money to pay the monthly premium, and we know you would long ago one day without doing everything you could to help your child or your spouse or parent have access to the quality affordable care that we all deserve. we will be with you because it is time. we will fight with you because you have fought.

and we will work with you because we know that when we do this we follow the tradition of franklin delano roosevelt, lyndon baines johnson and all of those that have stood up but have never been heard and have never been seen that fight tirelessly to make sure their children and their parents, their spouses have access to the quality health care that we know exists in this country. but there is no one in america who has fought longer, truer and harder for quote health care reform for america's families the man i am about to introduce to you. he began his crusade in congress back in 1955, three years before i was born. [laughter] ten years later he fought for and voted for the passage of the medicare act and today she is

the principal author of our legislation of america's legislation to reform health care so that all of america's families have access quality affordable care. ladies and gentlemen i hope you will help me welcome the dean of converse, the hardest working member for health care reform that america has ever seen and the man who will get to live to see health care reform donner and 2009 the representative from michigan, john dingell. [applause] [cheering] [applause] >> thank you, my friend for that very gracious introduction. thank you, my friend, for your leadership and for your

friendship. and for the work you have put in on behalf of the people of the united states. i'm delighted to get up here and celebrate with you this proud day and i want to tell you how happy i am to be standing with these wonderful men and women behind me. these are great americans and madam speaker i want to say thank you to you for your leadership and you, steny hoyer and other leaders, mr. clyburn and all of the others and the three committee chairmen. thank you for what you do. thank you for what you have done and for the leadership you have shown in bringing us together on this day and bringing forward a piece of legislation concede in the greatest openness, fairness and frankness. your leadership is extraordinary. and i want to pay tribute to the other members here all of whom

are committed to the united states. these are real patriots and they are here to see to it the greatest humanitarian need this country conference today and the greatest economic problem this country confronts is addressed in a single piece of legislation to provide health care if your choice in a decent program of health care for every american. [applause] now the name of robert nichols will be the first on that bill and i am sure that my little daddy of the above will be looking down house will be senator wagner and senator murray who were the ones that started this out. and also the great president harry truman who pushed for it

back in 1983. and franklin delano roosevelt pushing for it before that in the 30's. it was to be part of the social security system. but there's nobody more proud of it than these members who are here with me today and i want you to know how proud i am to be amongst them. the senior members have been working for this and i want is a god bless them, the new members who have come here to board. [applause] because it is they coming from difficult districts have the courage to provide us the leadership and a day are the majority makers and to them i say thank you and god bless. we are proud of you for what you do. [applause]

i'm delighted to report that h.r. 3962 there will be introduced today meets the goals that our great president obama has outlined. it is deficit neutral. it provides coverage for 36%, rather 96% of americans. and americans who do not, that 47 million who do not have health care will be grateful for this day. with those millions of americans who can and will lose health care if we don't pass this legislation have additional reasons to be grateful for this date and to be proud of what it is we are doing. this bill offers everyone regardless of income, age, sex, health status the peace of mind knowing that they will have real access to quality affordable health insurance when they

needed and they are not going to have to worry about losing it if they lose their job or if they become sick or if it is found to have a pre-existing condition those things will be even some of the past h.r. 3962 is going to offer a choice, and honest competition. and it is going to bring security to our seniors. and as mentioned i did have the privilege of sitting in the chair when we passed medicare. originally offered back by my own dad and i had the opportunity to watch the house to see where it came from. it came from lyndon johnson, my dad, and ozzie and a lot of democratic members who worked very hard. i use this here gavel to preside over the house. [applause] and i'm going to lend it to whoever is that gets to preside

over this legislation. [laughter] because a good piece of wood doesn't wear out with one great event. [applause] [laughter] and i'm going to tell our@@@@@@# agree that we're going to see the social security and medicare is protected. [applause] >> get them, john. >> and the only citizens to have to worry about their protests a patient in medicare being cut on the insurance companies. some of them have been paid 150%

of what they are entitled to. and curiously enough, this is paid by other american citizens and the retirees who are paying extra for their medicare in order to claim the 150%. we will see if the money goes back to where this should go. that 150%. the seniors don't pay too much, the seniors get the benefits they should. the insurance companies get the benefits that they should but not too much. [laughter] and we are going to see something else, we're going to see that money goes where it should, to provide benefits for our senior citizens because we who have projected medicare are going to continue to do so. now i want to point out -- [applause] 47 million americans have no

insurance. 25 million are uninsured, and there are thousands who are finding that they are about to lose their insurance or are in danger of losing. we are gwen to bring that to a halt. now we have waited 19.7 years between attempt to move forward on comprehensive health insurance on the average since the dave terrie truman. well, that is just a little bit too doggone long and we will see to it that we move forward now because another delay is quite frankly intolerable. [applause] members of congress and the people of the united states rarely have an opportunity to vote on legislation or to support legislation of this magnitude. history recalls for us in the

60's. our seniors were finding it harder and harder to get affordable health insurance. well, medicare was passed in response, and it is one of the most successful programs in the history of the united states. and as i mentioned this gavel was there when it was passed. and i want to tell you it is now time for health care reform. these people up here who work for you and the staff that support them and the entirety of the american people want this change and we are going to give it to them. let's hear it for the leadership and some members and let's hear it for the day we are all going to be down with the president of the united states to see to it that this is signed into law. god bless you all. [applause] [cheering]

>> thank you, mr. chairman, for your great leadership over the decades and your inspiration you are as well as a tremendous intellectual resource. as you can see, we have our clarion call made by the great german here today, made by the american people and their need for change we thank this special guest who spoke so eloquently for the american people here and we thank our colleagues who speak for them every day in their service to the contras. none of this would be possible without the prospect of the presidential signature. silbey thank presidents barack obama for the way he has weighed in on this, the intellectual contributions he has made to it. [applause] when he came before the congress, the president quoted a

letter from senator kennedy who said this is about the character of our country. and as we thank and acknowledge the contribution from the many of did the decades and our newest members to take us into the future let us also acknowledge the tremendous leadership of senator kennedy who made this his life work. thank you. [applause] we thank our students -- we thank our students, our workers, health care providers, the organization's hea >> reaction to the house democratic health care bill, from republicans.

we will hear from members of the leadership, including the minority leader, john boehner, and eric cantor. this is 15 minutes. the american people have been speaking, and the democratic party has not been listening. they say that they do not want public health care. nothing has changed, but the democrats are coming forward with a bill that clearly is a giver -- government takeover of the health-care system. this is not just the government auction, but the 50 new mandates and bureaucracies, tax hikes, all of this is going to require tens of thousands of new federal employees, which is designed for

a government takeover of the health-care system. 1900 and 90 pages. -- 1900 '90 pages -- 19,090 pages. this is bureaucracy. enough is enough. we continue to have better solutions, and you can go to our web site to find out about the solutions. but this was a very clear bill. this will raise the price of health insurance and will kill jobs with tax hikes, and it will cut senior health care benefits. and of all that is not bad enough, the mandates on states will bankrupt what is already states that have huge financial

problems. we have better ideas and we'll be talking about them in the next week. >> any health care policy should pass the following tests. does this improve health in america, and does this lower costs to small businesses and families and help the hon.. they fail this test. the administration promised that if he liked health care, -- you like your health care, he would be able to keep this and your doctor. they will be facing huge costs and increased premiums, and canceled insurance policies. 20,000 seniors will lose their health care for the medicare advantage cuts. the small business owners will be facing higher taxes, making this more difficult during difficult economic times. many women who are the cheap,

officer of their families, it is estimated that 90% of the women in america make the health care decisions. these will now be made by a bureaucrat. and by it -- for the vulnerable, this will reduce access and affordability. there is a better way and we will work with the democrats on a better way. >> good morning. here we go again. the same debate on a different day. there are two questions to ask. did the american people really believe that this bill -- which is 2000 pages, will not explode the federal deficit. the second question is, do the american people think that their health care will be improved because of the bill? i do not think so.

and as my colleagues have stated, this bill is paid for by taxes on small business people, by massive cuts for seniors in terms of the medicare benefits. this does not reflect trying to fix the problems that exist, and keeping what works in the system. as the leader indicated, we believe that there is a better way, and we look forward to taking these ideas to the people and waiting to see what the a geordie -- what the majority will allow for our solutions >> this is a day of profound disappointment to millions of americans. after the democrats produced a 1000 page bill, with mandates

and bureaucracy, heard from the american people. they heard in an unprecedented way. hundreds of thousands were turning out at the town hall meetings. millions of people were calling on the telephone, and they said that they want health reform that lowers the cost of health insurance. they did not want government- run health care. the democrats did not get the message. after weeks of negotiations in back rooms, the democrats have emerged with a bill that is not 1000 pages. this is 1000, 190 pages. this legislation actually uses the word, shall, to 3000 times. the american people do not want

to see taxes and debt of this generation and the next. we have better solutions. the american people have been going to the web site, and we will be offering a better choice for the american people, to meet the challenge of health care reform, without a freight train of more taxes. >> this 1900 page bill is equal on the senate side with another, different, 19-hundred page bill. also, this is likely that before the bill gets to the floor, the moment that this gets to the floor, there will be an 800-page amendment and nobody will know what is in this legislation. one thing that we heard with the stimulus bill, is what is in

the bill. the republicans have many bills that are out there, and i have sponsored nine bills, and i do not think any of them are 100 pages long. they do everything from liability reform, to increase the size of the risk-cool, -- risk-pool. unless you are taxing or cutting medicare, there would be nothing in this debate that could not be done in a way that the american people understand this. and the members of congress would understand this. nobody would understand this in a significant way, 72 hours from now. this will not be the bill that comes to the floor. there is no need to do legislation this way, and there is no way to increase taxes.

this sounds like a significant government intervention, and this is on the other side of the public auction. nobody will be opting out of this. they say that they are -- on the road to government-run health care. we will not let our people buy the cheaper, taxpayer provided plan. the american people know that this is not how to do business. this may collapse under its own weight. >> the help of americans is too complex to rest on one gigantic piece of legislation. in the three months that they have been negotiating behind

closed doors, they have added 1000 pages to the bill that has not been seen just yet. we'll be looking through this in great detail in the next few days. but the end result is the same with the bill. under the latest version of the takeover of health care, american families will have higher taxes and higher health premiums. millions of americans will lose their current health care and seniors will carry the burden of the medicare cuts in this legislation that will lead to fewer hospitals that will be able to treat those seniors. we will make the case of going over every detail of this bill that we can, and try to understand this and make certain that the american people know what is in the other 1000 pages that were added to the bill in secret. >> halloween is on saturday. the question is, is this trip retreat?

-- trick or treat? pelosi will think this is a treat, but this is a trick. there is the mandatory requirement that everyone has health insurance, and the requirement that the employers provide health insurance. and unless you are an employer with less than $500,000 in annual payroll. there is a tax on the durable medical equipment industry, which seems to be completely gratuitous. and so, i would say, 190090 pages is about -- 19,090 pages. this is a lot of reams of paper. the american people are getting reamed. >> this has been taken out to

make a separate bill from this. >> listen, i think that all of the members of the house are interested in fixing the doctor- payment issue. but this is very clear, from what we have seen in the senate, that most people believe that they should get payment for this, and we can offset spending somewhere or increase taxes in order to do this. it is not surprising to me, that this is not in here. but i expect that we will see this at some time very soon. >> given the massive nature of the bill, what is in effect and they will bring this up. >> this may be the most profound piece of legislation that this congress will consider in 100 years. i will hope that we will have a

fair debate, and that there should be an open rule that members of both sides of the aisle will offer amendments to this monstrosity. there may even be some amendments for parts of this to bring this down to size. i am hopeful that the speaker would understand that this is a historic moment, and congress really should be allowed to work their will. >> steny hoyer said that he would put this in line in 72 hours. will you do this in 72 hours as well? >> we will have ideas that are ready. do not worry. >> on the 72-hour issue, he say that there is no time to negotiate. many democrats said, we should do 72 hours. is that enough time to go through this? this is a large build of what will satisfy you?

>> 72 hours to look through this, and understand the changes. this is a monstrous task that does not have to be. i have co-sponsored nine bills, that in total, would have very little cost to the american people but would save a lot of money for the system that does not have to pass all together. the american people would be able to do this. we have the senate bill that could be beside this. 72 hours is a step in a better direction than having this book online and amended at 3 in the morning, voted on that day, and put on line at 11:00 at night. this is designed as this has

been done, behind closed doors, and now you produce a huge bill. this is designed to be so complex that no one would ever know for certain what is in the bill. and if you take the bill and read this for 72 hours, and you take however many pages are here and figure out what to take out, and what to put in, this is a puzzle of such complexity that nobody will know what is going on, which may be with the majority is wanting to have happened. >> the follow-up on the republican amendment. there was a plan to have won the republican alternatives? >> we have a number of ideas that we would like to offer in this process. and we are not certain how the majority is intending to pursue. until we understand how they will proceed, it is difficult for us to have a solid plan. >> can you respond to the growth

in gdp this morning, and also explain the jobless recovery in your statement. what is your take on this with the jobs created? >> there is no factual way of determining how many jobs that we have seen were created what is factional is that 3 million americans have lost their jobs have lost their jobs since the bill was signed into law. the president said that unemployment would not be over 8%. this is 10%. i am very pleased that gdp was up, but where are the jobs? this is still -- the nancy pelosi health-care bill will killed millions of american jobs.

-- gkill millions of american jobs. >> president obama talks about health care plans, where he talks about the latest statistics of third-quarter economic growth. this is about 25 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> good afternoon. please, have a seat. before i began, i would like to talk about a couple of people who handle small businesses.

the administrator of the small- business administration. caramels is here -- karnen mills is here. the other gentleman is a great former governor of virginia. he is now the senator of the great state of december -- virginia, and he is trying to help you control your costs. this is mark warner. [applause] when he comes in, please give him a smile. i was asking you to talk about health insurance reform, and why this is so critical to the success of small business. before i talk about this, let me just talk briefly about the new economic numbers that were released this morning. i am gratified that the economy

grew in the third quarter of this year. we have, very long way since the first three months of 2009, when the economy was shrinking by 6.4%. the 3.5% growth is the largest gain in two years. this is the affirmation that the recession is going back and the steps that we have taken are making a difference. but we have a long way to go to recover from what has been the deepest downturn since the great depression. this report represents real progress, but the benchmark that i used to measure the strength of the economy is not whether the gdp is growing, but whether we are creating jobs and families are having an easier time paying bills, and if business is hiring and doing well. that is what i will speak with you about today. many of you have come from different parts of the country

to be here. i am reminded of the diversity of american small business. your honour's of coffee shops and diners, you are exterminators and builders. each of these shops reflects the different passion, different ideas and different skills. but what you share is a willingness to pursue those passions. taking a chance on those ideas and making the most of those skills. you share a spirit of controversial up -- on for a turnover -- of an open door -- entrepeneurship. american small business has created 65% of the new jobs in this country and many americans own small business or work for one.

starting a business is not always easy. this takes gumption and ingenuity, and failure is more likely than success. i do not have to tell you that this has been particularly difficult over the last few years. from 2007 to the end of 2008, 2.4 million jobs were lost from small business. the banks are shrinking back from lending, making it harder to get the loans to branch out, or finance the inventory or maybe even make payroll. maybe you have had to forgo the rates, maybe you have had to do the unthinkable and lay off your friends and family. we know how tough that things have been for small business. that is why i made certain that the recovery act included a number of measures to help the small businesses to weather the economic storm.

we put a tax cut, not a tax hike, into the pockets of the vast majority of the small business owners and employees. we have supported 65,000 loans for small business, more than $13 billion in new lending. more than 1200 banks and credit unions that had stopped issuing these loans from -- when the financial crisis hit. last week, we talked about increasing the cap on the 5 04 loans. the ones that are handed out by the sba. given the enormous problems that small businesses are facing, we know that these steps are by means not enough. if we are serious about treating a climate where on newer -- of japan or -- entrepreneurship

succeeds, we have to have health insurance reform. few people have a bigger stake in what happens that all of you. fewer people have a bigger stake than these people, because they are struggling under the status quo. you all know the story. we all know that family premiums are rising at more than 130% over the past decade. they have doubled. but the small businesses have been hit harder than most. a story in the paper just the other day said that small businesses will see their premiums rise over the coming year. this is twice the rate -- twice the rate that they rose last year. the small businesses have greater costs, and they have 18%

more in premiums. one national survey had nearly three-quarters of small businesses that do not offer businesses -- benefits as the reason. to many americans cannot afford to build the kinds of businesses that you were hoping to build. to many entrepreneurs socannot give up the health insurance that they do not have at their current job. to many of you are having a difficult time affording health insurance for yourself. this is not good for the economy. this is bad for the country, and this is what we will change when health insurance becomes the law. just this morning, the house of representatives gave their version of health insurance legislation. i want to commend speaker policy and the democratic caucus --

policy -- speaker nancy pelosi and the democratic caucus. this will make quality insurance affordable. and this bill is also fully paid for, and will reduce the deficit in the long-term. there is no doubt that this legislation that is being drafted in the senate would benefit millions of small businesses. this is written with the interest of americans, but there are those who have a vested interest in the status quo are finding otherwise. they are using misleading figures and disingenuous arguments. i want to explain as clearly as i can but the health reform would mean for the small business owners. the first and now want to make clear is, if you are happy with the insurance plan that you have right now, if the cost that you pay for the benefits that you

are getting, and they are walked -- and they are what you want them to be, you can keep this and no one will make you change this. we want to make the courage that you are covered -- currently provided more affordable with a tax credit for the small businesses who are trying to do the right thing. under the house and senate bill, millions of small businesses would be eligible for a tax credit of 50% of the premiums. this is in the legislation that has been proposed. we will also make the coverage more stable and more secure. right now, if one of your workers falls seriously ill, this could take -- this could spell disaster. there could be a faint -- a painful choice. you ask for workers to contribute more -- or do you look for another insurance plan, with no guarantee that this will be affordable? or do you drop coverage

altogether? i do not think that you should have to make that choice for the united states of america. under health insurance reform, we stop the days wear at an insurance company could take the illness of one worker and use this to increase premiums for everyone. we will said strong standards on how much of your premium can go to administrative costs, and there will be a refund if they violate their standards. it will be against the law for them to deny coverage for pre- existing conditions, and against the law for the insurance companies to drop your coverage or water this down when you need this the most. they will not be able to cut the amount you are able to receive during your lifetime. we will change the cut-off of how old your children can be to remain on your plan. we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for the out-of-pocket expenses, and

insurance companies will be able to pay for routine health care. there is no reason we should not catch cancer before it gets worse and costs more money. this is saving lives and money. that is what we will do, for all the small businesses that have insurance, that are currently providing insurance. and for all the small businesses that cannot afford insurance, and the small business owners who cannot afford to get this themselves, they will finally make this affordable. one of the biggest problems in the health-care system right now, is that if you are self- employed, you often have such a small-number of workers -- small number of workers, insurance companies are not interested in your business. you do not have a lot of leverage. you pay higher costs and this --

big business can get better deals because they have more workers and more purchasing power. well we will do is set up an exchange, and this will bring the small business together. this means that this is not just you bargaining with insurance companies. this is you and small-business owners all across the country. with all of that additional leverage, you will be able to get better deals than you could ever have received on your own. the small businesses that choose one of the plans in this exchange could save 25% on their premiums by 2016, two years after the beginning of the exchange. we will offer tax credits to make insurance more affordable for owners of small business. by expanding coverage for more americans, we will eliminate the hidden tax of more than $1,000 that the average worker is paying to cover the medical

expenses of the uninsured. now, nothing is free. and this is true that when reform becomes the law, businesses of a certain size to do not offer their workers health care coverage may be required to contribute to the cost and this frightens many small-business owners. the opponents have tried to say that he would be subject to this penalty, and that is to drive up your costs. but here is the truth. they have been analyzing this repeatedly. 90% -- 90% of small business, regardless of what part of the bill you are facing that is going through congress, 90% of them would be exempt from this requirement. if your business is anything like the vast majority of small business, this requirement simply will not apply to you. i do not think that this is fair to impose a penalty on the small

business that are still operating -- small businesses that are operating with a narrow margin. this will mean that this will reduce our costs, prevent the small business owners from facing rate hikes, and will make coverage affordable for all the small business that cannot afford this right now. and if you are provided health insurance to the employees, this will give you more predictability, more security, and more stability. this will help remove the worry that if you have the courage to strike out on your own, you will be doomed from the start. this will give all americans the assurance of knowing that they will not go broke when they get there. and it will make certain that no small business honor will have to choose between being a successful owner, as someone who cares deeply about the well- being of his or her employer. this will help us to be the kind of country that we know that we can be. what is at stake is not just the

strength of the economy or even the health of the people. what is at stake is the most american of ideals. this is a place where you can make it if you try. we can be your own boss, and the only limits to what you can achieve our your dreams and your willingness to work hard, where you can pass on to your children a better life. that is all that is at stake. that is what we are fighting for. i am confident that, if we do what has to be done, and if we can build an economy that works for all the americans, we can promote innovation and foster growth, to build a better health care system that does not drag down each and every one of you. ball only will we give small business and a huge boost, and not only will we produce the kind of growth that we so desperately need, but we will secure the blessings of america for our children and grandchildren.

that is what we are fighting for. thank you very much, everyone. god bless you. thank you. [applause] >> mark warner showed up. give him a hand. [applause]

> >> thank you so much. [unintelligible] >> i do not have anything -- [unintelligible] >> i will put you in. >> how are you? pleasure to be here? >> how are you? >> great.

[unintelligible] >> thanks a lot. >> thank you, very much. [unintelligible] >> there you go. i like that. [unintelligible] >> you are aware --

you are aware of that, right? we had a great talk. [unintelligible] [laughter] [unintelligible] [unintelligible]

> [unintelligible] [unintelligible] [unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> you have to be consistent.

>> justices breyer and scalia talk about changing the constitution in a changing society, on "america and the courts. " >> here is what is coming up on c-span. next is "washington journal" with your phone calls. and a house hearing on banking regulations, protecting consumers from over-draft fees. >> in 45 minutes, we will discuss the democrats' health care bill with congressman dent and congressman andrews. then russel george will give

his opinion. and there is a story on the first-time health care program. george will discuss these findings. "washington journal" starts right now. . host: you can send us a tweet at

c-spanwj. if you have called% a message in the past 30 days, please let others colleen. this article -- with big government boost, u.s. economy grow and third quarter. mr. irwin, your article seems to indicate the u.s. economy grow because of government intervention and investment. is that a fair assessment? guest: i think it is. 3.5% gdp growth in july through september. what was driving back was a whole lot of government action. there was the cash for clunkers program that propped up auto sales, responsible for almost a full percentage point of gdp, the stimulus action, $787 -- $787 billion passed in february hitting a stride in the third quarter.

a range of programs to support home buying and home building, a residential investment of 23. something percent, the first gain in more than three years. he saw the government pulling out all the stops, every tool to prop up the economy and at least for the third quarter, for those four months it seems to have worked in terms of critics of economic activity. host: if the government would not have done those investments, would there have been grove? guest: it would have been a close call. the truth is, the government has done so much in the past year. it is also the federal reserve cutting interest rates to almost 0% and doing unconventional things, bank bailout, all kinds of interventions, it is hard to imagine given the whole we have been and, if it were not for all of those things, hard to imagine we would be back of the growth path. that said, trying to figure out what individual program did

what it's a tricky thing but it is hard to imagine we would be back in the growth area given the economy was shrinking more than 6% annual rate the first part of this year. it would be hard to see we've would be back in but growth territory without the entire suite of government actions. host: there was talk about a second stimulus. d.c. that happening? guest: it is hard to imagine something large, resembling the $787 billion stimulus from last february. the politics don't look good. i don't think the obama administration wants people to accuse them to spending running up the deficit. but what you are seeing is proposing a number of smaller action that together are smaller shots of stimulus. toole hundred and $50 payment to social security -- $250 payment to social security recipients. $13 billion.

and is not as big as $787 billion but that is a check in people's pockets. also congress moving toward extending the home buyer tax credit and expanding it some. not huge. kind of a one off bill. politicians tend disagreeing -- you see more things like this for smaller, popular initiatives, and not the big sweeping things. host: in your article you write about a home buyer tax credit. that is senator isaacson is bill? guest: it appears the senate has come to an agreement on the various caps and amounts and timing. they want to have an end on the spring. they want to keep housing going. we had a rebound in the housing market in the last few months.

in much of the country the prices are up in the past months. decamp land entirely on the homebuyers tax credit in the original stimulus, at $8,000 for first-time homebuyers, but it certainly seems to have been a factor. gdp numbers -- housing investment, residential investment is up. the first time it has been up since the 2005 -- a long time since we have seen positive boost in investment and housing. guest: what is the announcement, from the white house? -- host: what is the announcement from the white house? guest: of the jobs created or saved. >> gone around contractors, state and local governments and tried to say, if you have not received the stimulus dollars, how many jobs would you have cut and how many do you have now and they tried to tally up the difference and they come up with some kind of estimates on the number of jobs created or saved by the stimulus.

it is worth being a little wary of those kinds of numbers. it is really hard for governments or companies to figure out how many jobs they would have cut. it is kind of an effort to quantify something that is really hard to quantify and i think you will save economic b.a.t's and careers trying to grow what the true jobs impact was. but they would try to come up with first estimates. host: neil irwin from "the washington post." you can find this article on the web site and it is on the front page this morning. this is a little bit when it comes to the home buyer tax credit. in the senate under a proposal that has gained bipartisan support, first-time buyers would receive an $8,000 tax credit if they signed a contract by april 30 and closed on it by june 30. the plan would also enable homeowners shopping for a new primary residence to receive a $6,500 tax credit if they owned their home for five consecutive

years in the previous eight. do you think more government investment in the economy is necessary right now? we want to hear from you. we will put the numbers on the screen. the first call comes from margie from chicago on the democrats' line. caller: two birds with one stone. this is the nurse that had the cancer and call you before. i am still here. in chicago mayor daley announced he will furlough firemen and policemen for four weeks to five weeks, lay off city workers and the worst thing which goes to the health care, we have a public hospital from cook county. they are $50 million in the hole. if -- it is going to have 700 vacant positions not killed and people laid off. host: all that said, where the save as far as the government's role in this economy?

caller: it goes along with health care. you can't let everything fall apart. firemen and policemen. where is the stimulus money? this is a joke. not any jobs condi -- coming. why would you like of 700 health care workers. what i would see is help anything -- i don't see why it has to go through congress. i don't say why obama can't just signed -- signed stimulus money and send it to chicago for public health. host: joe, independent line. texas. caller: i think what she had was a clue there but not a big enough glue -- hello? if you send it to the states, look at the governor's in each state and see where they would put the money. if you run statistics you will see the money is not going down to the people. it takes money to make money. therefore the government has to put some money in for the people

to be able to make more money -- whether it is jobs. the bridge in california that needs to be worked on, the bridge that fell in minnesota that people seem to be forgetting about. the infrastructure in this country, through buildings and revamping them for weather stripping, etc., we can do things and get people back to work. host: new say more government investment? caller: i actually do believe they knew -- need to put more money into the economy for working projects. host: eugene, ohio. democrat. caller: that guy who just called sort of still my thunder. he is absolutely right. i think a lot of the money -- i do believe the government should assist in revitalizing the economy but i think it should be

structured toward smaller banks -- family, like either a small, medium-sized banks. what i am talking about is commercial banks, the ones that were smart enough to avoid a lot of the real-estate deals and stuff response will for creating the crisis. i think the obama administration, now that he has taken care of wall street he needs to take care of main street. that thing he is doing an ok job with that but a lot needs to go to banks so they can issue credit to small business is doing everything from hiring people to equipment upgrades, to payroll. host: augusta, maine. peter. caller: i don't think we need any more government investment.

in my opinion, we are putting an enormous amount of pressure on the value of the dollar. it is just hard for me to imagine inflation isn't around the corner. you can't just keep pumping money and expect things to work out. that is my opinion. host: does the devaluation of the dollar were you? caller: absolutely. because that is what is going to make prices go up. as long as we stay with fiat money and just basted on the government continuing way pumping money into the system, i just don't see how we can expect anything but inflation and the economy to only slowly get worse and worse. i don't understand why people think -- the government takes

such an enormous amount of taxes and then borrows and borrows and keeps pumping money. it is like, yes, we are going to get better tomorrow, we will get better the next week and it really never does. we always go through -- i just see the historical pattern on and on, and i think we should have let the banks just fall. you guys had on c-span at one time -- i believe it was a professor from maryland -- host: peter morrissey. caller: yes, and he said the money from the banks actually paid off the derivatives that were betting we would not pay our mortgages, which started the whole recession. so again, you just pump money out and hope for the best and it doesn't really work and we keep pretending it is going to.

host: what about the school of thought that says the devaluation of the dollar led to the economic recovery by making u.s. products more competitive. caller: it is short-lived. it will not keep going. because it will put pressure on other sectors and eventually, yes it will help a little while but we are still going to keep borrowing more and more. we just don't stop. and it is always going to keep pressure on the dollar. just how woodworks. host: thank you. front page of "the washington post." dozens and congress under the ethics inquiry. right below that is the story. seven on defense panel scrutinized. here is just a little bit from these two stores. we will start with the lead story, doesn't under ethics inquiry. -- dozens under ethics inquiry.

host: here is a little bit from the second story.

host: again, these seven to lead stories and a big full-page jump in "the washington post." if you want to read though full stories, you can go to our website or washingtonpost.com. lillian, maryland. republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching all of the stimulus money that has been

going out of washington out of our pockets. i have traveled all over the state of maryland. i have seen roads that of only been done for a half a mile that did not need to be done. it was only temporary work. my concern -- and my biggest concern for all americans love lost their job -- who have lost their jobs in the past 89 months, where about 5 million jobs that president obama said. there has not been any word out of his mouth that has helped say, we are getting jobs for our american people who have lost their jobs and continually taking money from the government on these bailouts and on the house thing for $8,000 -- now that i hear that there has been problems with people not being honest and doing wrong with that money, and now they plan to

extend it, i don't understand why the government helps the way they do and then things are taken and we find out later it didn't even go to where it was supposed to go. host: annandale, virginia. democrats line. caller: yes, the government needs to invest smartly. what we need is not a big government but the smart government like the current government that we have. it is about time that we have a president that stops sitting on their hands and stop putting money outside our country fighting unnecessary war. it has cost our country so much. today we have a government investing smartly. i am an immigrant who right now is a citizen of the united

states. when i came to the country, if you see the roads, i have never seen any time in our history where there are so many cracks. the government has been busy all the years fighting wars instead of investing in its own people. today we have somebody, a president that cares about his country, the love of the people he sent to accomplish a task. yesterday we saw a government that signed a law -- that americans can see. this is what we want. as mark government who invest smartly and today america has become so negative -- gdp of 3.5 seen as a negative, even cash for clunkers, which was meant for taxpayers, even taxpayers who are benefiting from this,

getting this, are still being negative toward it. host: let's leave it there. thank you for your comments. mr. mitchell, a fatal, north carolina. article appeared -- caller: i do believe we ought to invest in to all the communities in order to create new jobs and produce work for everybody by creating new business concepts. there is -- on the president's desk. if they get it right in the first place, the dollars could of been invested in the baseline in the community is parrot and then backed up the taxes being recycled every five years. host: this article in "usa today." congress okays stopgap spending bill.

host: burlington, north carolina. republican line. what they think about more government investment in the economy? caller: yes. excuse me. i hate to go against the grain from republicans, democrats, independents, but, no -- listen. i want everyone out there that has an ear to hear this. i am going to explain to everyone why this is not a good idea. first of all, the government

takes money out of the private sector and gives it to government workers basically. all this does is allow states to be fat and happy. they don't have to learn where the amount of people who work in their state. do you realize it did this country, you want to talk about social security or even a medicare, the state pension system, if you add them all up in the country, are hugely over burdens. it is unbelievable to me that people can say, yak, give a government worker -- it is already a government worker. they didn't hire anybody knew. they just kept the guy did not that they would have gotten rid of it anyway because most states can't because they don't have right to work laws.

they keep these people want. it is unbelievable to me. our country is going down the tubes. host: jeff, a democrat. what do you think about more government investment and the economy? caller: i and more strongly opposed to government spending to try to create jobs in the economy. i am all for health care reform and the public option but the reason why it i am again spending to create jobs because it never trickled down to the little guys, blue-collar workers. we bailed out the banks and real-estate companies and, to be honest, i'd probably -- i probably don't even pay top dollar in taxes every year, i don't own a home. the $3,000 the government just paid me, i would have gone out and probably try to fix up my old clunker instead of throwing away. thank you very much for letting me express my indian.

host: "the wall street journal" lead editorial. recovery, at last. host: it goes on to say the irony is turning this economy into a durable expansion and now the stimulus programs that were sold the way to ensure recovery. washington's great reflation essentially has the the wound down and paid for and the looming bills now clout the expansion outlook. whatever role the fiscal stimulus played in "saving and creating jobs" -- and we don't

see evidence of much -- there's no doubt it did bust the federal balance sheet with a deficit of $1.40 trillion in 2009 and $9 trillion more predicted for the next decade, every business and investor in america can see a huge tax increase coming right at them. a house health care bill, unveiled yesterday, takes a major wack at the job creators in small business -- to the only one example. the uncertainty of the washington policy outlook is a major dampener on future investment plans. cathy and colorado is on the independent line. caller: this is my first call. just about a month ago there was an economic summit that and bob about 26 countries. interestingly enough, they were unanimous in supporting continuous stimulus in all countries, except france and

germany, which are pretty much out of that recession. but they still uncovered stimulus. and i can't understand there is so much negativity in the united states except for the fact that there is the devaluation of the dollar because of the situation of our trade and all of that. there was also talk about china. they invested three times the stimulus per person than what the u.s. has put in. of course, they have the cash to do that. but they are ramping up all kinds of businesses in green and solar and all of these types of things with their stimulus to help their economy also pared -- also.

i do agree with the obama administration. i think they are trying to dig a multilevel approach to this whole thing and addressing real estate, and i think they are starting with the derivatives regulation. i read the other day where some of the top hedge fund managers, their income is over a million dollars per day is their income. that has to be addressed. all of these things need to be addressed that is so out of whack. host: "the financial times" investors heartened by signs of u.s. growth. mississippi. carl. republican. caller: i am 48 years old and i have never seen a bigger mess in my life in this country. i'm a patriot. i think the government -- just like right now, we are sitting

on our hands, our friends from the va said the previous administration sat on our hands but we are not helping our troops right now and i think it is because we can't afford it. i think we overspent our budget. how much can the government afford to keep printing and printing and printing? we went over to china, we borrowed money, we sold our middle-class as a marketing thing to china that says we will borrow money from you, prop up the middle class, people making $85,000 a year, and it will be like pouring money from yourself. -- borrowing money from yourself. wyck up and say, where is the money coming from? when you have 10% unemployment, the stock market is not booming. but the stock market, people are making money that have money -- buying the stocks that are low and selling them high. no foundation to the stock market because the stock market is based on unemployment.

we are not making anything. we can't keep buying and selling -- we have to get back to the fundamentals. we have to start growing food in this country. that is what we do the best. host: a tweet here -- "the financial times" lead editorial. host: jeff is a democrat from indianapolis. caller: this is basically keynesian economics at work.

in times of economic -- the government must spend more money to get the economy pumped up. i don't understand what so much of the criticism is all about? we tried the supply side way, and look where it got us. we have to try different way. also an article in "the new york times" about how general motors is slowly but surely coming out of their problems. starting to sell more cars. maybe eventually the money the government spent to save general motors will work. if people just give obama some time, all things will work out. quit listening to the right wingers telling everybody that we did it took ronald reagan and long time for him to get out of the economic problems that he inherited and it will take obama some time, too. thank you. host: tom in malibu, california.

caller: i would like to see some intervention but it doesn't necessarily have to be with money. we are a mortgage-backed economy. most mortgages will be sold and resold. when the world discovered that fannie mae and freddie mac cookbooks, crummy paper, our credit stopped. when people buy homes, the bank's fund them, and they take that paper and they sell it. there is nobody to buy that paper. that is the problem. i do not know why the government can't enjoy -- ensure, it ought not to spend money, but i'm wondering if they have any idea what they aren't doing because this will just -- not just one segment of the economy. it seems to me that the money that has been sent so far has been to prop up unions,

investors and things, and it needs to be done in a different way and it seems with cap-and- trade, the only difference in making money and creating in the, is the energy industry and i want to cripple them. we need to cut back on taxation. loosen trade. let america does what it does the most. like i said, it doesn't have to do with money all the time. there's got to be a better way. i have no faith in the congress. i've been nobody exactly really knows what they are doing. host: all right, thank you for your call this morning. joseph nolan tweets -- "the washington times" lead editorial. one paragraph out of this --

host: leo is a republican in ohio. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i appreciate it. we have a tremendous problem. one vcaller -- caller said we have to give obama more time. we can't afford more time. our country is bankrupt -- repeat, bankrupt. we are printing money. when the gdp numbers came out people were all excited. that is all based on false numbers because the government pump and billions and billions of dollars that really don't exist. the government cannot create a job.

the government cannot produce money. it is all fake, it is all destroying this country. america used to be known as a producer of things. we were the giants. we lent people money and all people from the world wanted our products. over the last 50 years we have become the buyer of things. we have become dependent on china and everything this administration and the republicans before are doing are exactly opposite of what we need to be done in this country. and it is breaking my heart is the only solution is it is all going to crumble down and we are going to have to put our boots on and stand back up again and fix the problem. and i fear for my children. host: conn. martin, a democrat. caller: a lot of the privy -- unlike the previous caller i don't fear for my children. people who have never taken a course in economics and read a

history book. all of this has happened before and we will come out of it even stronger. i'm especially appalled by this people don't seem to remember that eight years ago the republican administration inherited a huge surplus and managed to convert it into a deficit by going to an unnecessary war and none of these republicans ever complained about it because they did not see anything wrong going into debt to finance and unnecessary war. it was all pointless. we are reaping the terrible result. mr. obama of course needs time to do it. anyone would. but the government is the last resort. it must step in unless you want to repeat the great depression, i don't think anyone does, anyone with a brain and those who can't remember should have had their grandparents tell them how bad it was to go through a depression when one out of before households had any income. do we want to see banks failing?

what i would like to see is seen mr. obama did something unusual and a point -- a point aappoint sheila bair to be put in charge to work out a mortgage is because she had good ideas. mortgages are still not being fixed. lots of people losing their houses for no reasons. banks are flush with cash and people can't pay off their loans and their debt. the government has to step in here fast because at the rate they are going millions of people will be going down but drain. host: paul, independent. in 10 minutes you will be able to talk to two members of congress, representative charlie darrent and rob andrews -- charlie dent. caller: if the government would

make one long against employers hiring illegal aliens, there would be 30 million jobs quick. host: a tweet -- an e-mail ne-- host: margaret in pennsylvania, republican. caller: nice to see you and thank god for c-span. what i see is on october 22, christina romer, the chief economist made a statement saying -- in response to a question from eric cantor on the congressional committee, he asked has the stimulus been successful in doing what it was

meant to do and her answer is, what you see in the second and third quarter is as good as it is going to get. she predicted that next year, in 2010, and unemployment would continue at the same rate that it did. even if gdp went of which went up, it would not affect the 9.5% that she figured the economy would still be at. i'm seeing that the stimulus is not working. at the beginning they said it was temporary, target, and timely. those things have not come true. they said it they would check for waste and fraud. and we have already seen what that corner of the stimulus jobs that they promised that have come out in the ap article, only some of them have been real jobs. a lot of them have been pumped up to be something they are not. so i see an economy that is not fixed in 2012 -- or that he is

not going to win reelection. in fact, he is going to lose a lot of congressional seats in 2010 because the country wanted jobs, jobs, and he made his priority for health care and cap-and-trade. that is desert for the american people. we want the entree. one out of 50 people -- one continent -- children are homeless, 30 million people using food stamps to go to costco, it was in the news. we deserve better. and i want to thank you. host: let -- rick, louisville, ky. caller: just a band-aid. it doesn't matter who is the president, it does not matter who is congress, it matters who is running the banking industry. this time last year we spent more money in bailing out the banking industry that will cost

the american people -- i forget how many trillions of dollars over the years to even think about buying its back. there was a program on "front line" that talked about the over-the-counter derivatives and how $590 trillion was invested in it. and if the american big zero will take time and look up the word derivatives -- american people will take the time to look up the word derivatives. the people who were in charge -- alan greenspan, lawrence summers, 10 geithner -- alan greenspan bailed out of his position right before the bottom fell out and later come back to congress and stated, i was absolutely wrong for all of these years in what my philosophy was about how the industry should have been run. now, barack obama, the current president -- it tells you it does not matter who the president is -- has two of the people helping him with the

financial side of things in lawrence summers and timothy geithner who worked for greenspan a couple of years back, all the way back to the clinton administration. so, it doesn't matter who the president or who the congress is. you've got to put regulations on the banking industry so that this doesn't happen anymore war we would not be in the problem, in a situation we are in today. thank you. host: brett, republican, cincinnati. what do you think? caller: i think they need to come back with glass-steagall act and regulate the money. i agree with the caller before me. i think the tax cut for the blue-collar workers is a good start at it. that is where the country was founded and made, from blue- collar workers. if they had the money they spend -- they don't have everything

they need -- they will spend it. you spend money and you create jobs. you give tens of millions of dollars to people who already have tens of millions of dollars, they are not going to spend the money. the people who don't have what they need and need to go out and get more products that will spend money and help bring the economy back around. host: "the washington times." new report on stimulus to correct jobs errors. the white house promises new figures released today will be a more accurate showing of progress and president obama's economic recovery plan. it aggressively defended a false account that overstated by thousands jobs created or saved so far. if you want to read more, it is in the "washington times. frederick, maryland. independent line. caller: it is not working

because only a small percentage is going for the american be bought and their jobs. then you take the money from the american people any way in taxes, that is where the money is coming from. american should be paid back their money because they are investing in the country the money goes toward the top people, the friends, families, lobbyist. that is where the money goes to. not much goes back to the american people. also, not so long ago you had bernanke in front of congress and he refused to say where $2 trillion went to. they are just using the american people as a piggy bank, throwing money as they can to their friends and family while giving american people and small percentage of the job, a very small percentage of money coming back. that is loansharking. it is extortion. the american people have to raise up because this is insane. thank you for taking my call.

host: we are going to be talking about health care in the last hour in " washington journal." i know you have seen news reports on the house bill finally introduced yesterday. here is a few little items, these are in "the washington times." a couple of items that are contained in the bill that you might not have heard about. tucked inside house speaker nancy pelosi's 1990 page health care reform bill, made public thursday, is a requirement for chain restaurants to post caloric information on the menus. page 1000 firemen and 11 through 1519 mandates that any restaurants operating in 21 locations post caloric information prominently on menus in a way designed to enable the public to understand in the context of a total daily diet the significance of the caloric information provided on the menus. that means all the big name change -- starbucks, the

doughnut, mcdonald's -- will need to post cal recounts next to their offerings, even on a drive through menus. another one -- the federal government also will ensure that vending machines show calorie counts. pet care -- that never students along with other medical students and eligible for federal grants and scholarships and loan forgiveness under a new public health work force scholarship. house speaker ned tibbles cosi's affordable health care for america act did -- nancy pelosi's affordable health care american act, 1990 pages, hillary clinton's act, 1003 of the pages. democrat. what do you think about more government investment? caller: i certainly think the government should invest sense we are the ones contributing to

the tax system. i just think we have been looking at this whole situation as far as republicans versus democrats or wall street verses main street and really i would love for c-span to bring us a historical perspective on our economic situation. books like charles dickens, it's a wonderful life -- all of these things show that we have been down this road before. we have come out of this road before. the thing is, every time we go down this road it is the top 5% that just bought -- swallows up of the funds and makes it difficult for everyday people. i would love to see that wall street and all of these bankers are replaced by canadian bankers, british bankers, many bankers you can think of that are going to accept a way low- wage than what our current wall street folks are getting. in the same way that

construction workers right now, their jobs are being replaced and outsourced, programmers and professional people, their jobs are being replaced, we need to have an outsourcing from the top down. host: beverly, new jersey. frank is on the line. caller: this is a great topic. one of the most important topics you are going to talk about for decades. look, the bottom line is, you cannot spend your way out of troubles that we are having. everybody talks about all of these jobs, green jobs -- i'm all right with a green jobs and stuff, but the problem is the battery technology is not here yet. nobody wants to put windmill's up. nobody wants to build nuclear power plants. but the government wants to keep

spending hundreds of billion dollars on this stuff that is not proven yet. the problem here in the country now is they are all talking about getting jobs for everybody. we don't have any industrialization here anymore. it has all been shipped out overseas. in order to get our country back to where we need to be, you need to bring the work back here because we don't make anything anymore. anything you wear, by, your cars, the whole 9 yards is done out of this country and there is nothing here for american people to do, where the american people supposed to go to work to? but to spend your way -- a parallel. take a look at what happened to the soviet union. when the soviet union took all of their money and spend it on the military and nothing else, the soviet union's economy completely collapse.

host: corey newton tweets -- now a chance to talk with a couple of members of congress. we will have a roundtable with congressman rod andrews and charlie dent, a democrat and republican. they will be out here in two seconds after we get this news update. >> president obama signed an extension of the ryan white hiv built today. later he needs in the white house situation room with the joint chiefs of staff, vice president biden and other advisers to discuss afghanistan and pakistan. press secretary gibbs says the president will announce a strategy for the war in the next coming weeks. the coast guard tells the federal officials it spotted debris that could be from a coast guard airplane that crashed into a marine corps helicopter in mid-air.

the navy and coast guard are searching the waters of southern california's coast for the nine people who are believed to have been on board the aircraft. rear admiral kevin donigan says he is concerned about china's military buildup and urged beijing to be clearer about its intentions. he added the u.s. endonce to mae sure it does not the stabilize the region. he is commander of george washington aircraft carrier strike group that is now visiting hong kong for the first time in its 17-year history. update on the situation in honduras. secretaries did clinton says the honduran presidential crisis have been resolved and an election can go forward. remarks made what traveling in pakistan, came as a top honduran officials as interim and owls the leaders signed an agreement allowing for possible return of deposed president zelaya. according to a congressional

investigation, a coal industry association with it until several weeks after a house vote on crime legislation to let lawmakers know that letters sent to them opposing the bill were fraudulent. they were sent out by a subcontractor hired by the hawthorne group for their expertise in grass-roots campaigns. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> sunday on "book tv" join our discussion with autism advocate and author on "in-depth." diagnosed in 1950, she discusses her disability, how could help their teach about animal behavior and develop humane ways to handle livestock and processing plants. three hours, sunday at noon eastern on c-span2's " book tv." >> the supreme court, home to america's highest court, takes you inside one of the most

burning buildings in washington and into place is only accessible to the justices and their staff. hear about the court's history and traditions, from the justices themselves. own your own bbb copy of "the supreme court: home to america's highest court." $9.95 plus shipping and handling. >> " washington journal" continues. host: i joined by representatives charlie dent, republican of pennsylvania, and rob andrews, democrat from new jersey. mr. andrews, we were talking about more government investment in the economy. the economy grew at a lot of people attributing it it to government investment in the country. you think there needs to be more? calguest: i think there needs to be more of that have to be thoughtful thought through. i think it is a catalyst. i think the investment in the

first time home buyer credit helped the residential market comeback. i think some of the construction spending on highways catalyzed a development. i don't think we need another $700 billion stimulus. but i think an extension of the homebuyer credit and some more transportation jobs, for example. guest: what i think we need right now is we make sure we get money in the hands of people who can create jobs. that is what i am hearing. frankly a lot of people who are trying to create jobs are scared of the agenda coming out of washington, the energy tax, card check, and concerned about the health care legislation and what the costs imposed maybe. i think we have to refocus a bit and make sure we are sending a signal to those who want to create jobs, that we will help them and not put impediments in the way. host: the health-care bill that was introduced by the house democratic leadership -- you

brought a copy. why? guest: this is the bill we were discussing over the summer, and this is the new bill, obviously about twice as long. i am trying to understand the differences between the first bill and the second. clearly i think -- there is a need for health reform. the question is are we going to be the to advance the goals. i think most of us agree on eliminating precondition exclusions, libelled reform -- the wasn't really anything on this bill. there was limited language on this bill. there are areas of agreement. tax equalization, health and wellness programs. there are a number of areas we can talk about. right now i am trying to understand, the american people try to understand the difference between the two bills. host: rob andrews is chair of education and labor subcommittee on health. you were at the press conference. you are an original cosponsor of

h. r. 3200? and of this bill? how did it to be this big? guest: it is not how long it is but what sense it makes. i think will listen to reasonable objections and good questions from people. they said they would like to see the bill cost the public treasury less, and we think it does. it goes from slightly over $1 trillion over 10 years down to $894 billion over 10 years. people wanted to be sure there were more efforts to promote more competition, and this bill does. it encourages states to set up interstate marketplaces. people said they wanted good things to happen sooner, did not want to wait for five years to get things set up. so the protection against pre- existing exist but -- condition was in the bill from day one. this was an attempt by the members of congress to listen to

constituents and, with a better product and i think we have. and i think as the debate goes forward we will see the come -- improvements. host: why are there two figures been used -- $894 billion and some news reports, $1 trillion. guest: i would be guided from the congressional budget office. it says $894 billion and it also says the bill will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over the next 10 years. they are the neutral scorekeeper. guest: i guess my concern, talking about somewhere around $1 trillion budget by adding a trillion dollar program, i think most of the american people believe deficits will go up. the federal government has not done a good job projecting the cost of entitlements long term. we have seen it. i suspect the cost will be understated overtime. we have just not done a very good job of that.

caller: there have been three health reforms of the is to give the cbo did get them wrong. in the medicare prescription drug chains in 2003, they underestimated by like half the cost of that. but in 1983 and the so-called vrg reforms in medicare, the savings were actually four times more than cbo forecast. in 1997 the budget agreement between president clinton and the republican congress. the health care savings were about half of what cbo forecast. the record here actually is when the congressional budget office forecast costs for health reform, they are more often wrong on the conservative side. the savings tend to be more than what they projected. i think that is what happened here. but a respected, they did project here that this will reduce the deficit by over $100

billion over the next 10 years. guest: medicare was first established back in the 1960's, the costs seemed to be 10 times greater than what was projected at that time. it is glue -- true medicare part d, the cost less than objection largely acting because of the competition between the plans. host: our guests today are representative charlie dent, rep upending it, and rob andrews, democrat from new jersey. we will go to calls. the numbers are on the screen. you can tweet us at c-spanwj. tell us about your district. guest: 70 jersey. a great district. philly fans -- a little disappointed last night but we will come back. it is urban, suburban, and rural. it has all different kinds of people. we have high tech industry, and

g-8 -- agriculture, retail, transportation. i grew up in the district, i live there my whole life except school. host: does it include atlanta city? guest: we don't go all the way to the ocean. camden, new jersey, is the largest city. it has rural towns and suburban and urban ones. a great place to live. guest: i represent the lehigh valley area of pennsylvania and parts of montgomery and bucks county's. we have many philly fans. and we also have a fair number of yankee fans. host: are you along the susquehanna? guest: lehigh and delaware rivers, east central -- allentown, bethlehem, easton, grew up in that area, and the graduate and state and masters at lehigh university. a wonderful community. that's none perhaps from what was once best lamb -- we were

once known for bethlehem steel. the area has transitioned well. host: do you know the unemployment rate? guest: over 9%. guest: we are, too, 9.4. guest: we are about the same. just under the national numbers. host: lee from that larouche, louisiana. caller: good morning, congressman. i have a question. i don't know whether you would like to answer or not. i would like to know what your thoughts are on all of the corruption in the white house, such as the czars and the people who believe in communism and maoists and all of these people.

they are dangerous. and another question. i would like to know if either one of you congressman had ever looked at president obama's background -- where he went to school and all of this. i don't think anybody ever asked any questions. host: either of you want to tackle that? guest: i looked at his background. he went to harvard law school and i believe occidental college and served in an illinois -- in the illinois legislature. the premise that somehow the white house is filled with people trying to subvert the united states is flat out wrong barrett it is filled with people love their country and the league and what they are trying to do when they disagreed with the collar about what they wanted it but we're very

fortunate. . 9% of employment. why would he not want the government spend noun help that 9% unemployment in his community? guest: i'm trying to understand who is he referring to? host: why don't you go ahead and answer. guest: to get back to the issue of what was just said about the

white house swrg a lot of people working for them who are so called czars. i think we need a little bit more accountability. i understand why a white house may need a person in there from time to time to can work across disciplines or departments, but i think we need a little bit more accountability and transparency of people ape pointed to high-level positions and i think there's been an overutelyization of these so called czars and there will be a look into those being appointed into high-level positions. >> have you seen stimulus dollars coming into your community? >> i have. i have seen stimulus dollars coming into our community, but i'll tell you they've come in rather slow lady to pennsylvania if terms of

highway. very little has been spent to this point. as of june $300 million had been obligated but at that time $10 million had been spent. the money is greater, but the stimulus money i'll say for highway infrastructure is going to resurface roads and paint bridges, because once you get a federal dollar for a highway project you get a process and we call it a 12-year plan and we don't call it that for nothing. host: have you seen stimulus dollars? guest: yes. there was 295, i went to a groundbreaking of a new train station for a railway that will connect trenton and another city and there's been improvements to senior citizen housing. certainly not something that's brick-and-mortar. we saw teachers and public

workers who were not laid off because the stimulus money went into the fund and i talked to real estate agents and heard them say a lot of the deals they've been able to do are because of the first-time home buyer credits. unemployment is far too high but i'm glad i supported the stimulus. host: there's a question for both of y'all. but what's the camaraderie level between d's and r's? >> i think it's good. guest: when people cover nascar races on the news at night they show the crashes not the guy crossing the finish line so when there's a negative incident, it gets a lot of attention. as deep-seeded as a lot of policy issues are in this country, i think there's a level of respect that's a good thing. and i have many friends on the republican side and i think republicans do and democrats do.

i think there's a notion that because we disagree on a lot of policy we aren't together. >> certainly there's policy differences but on a personal level we try to maintain civil dialogue and work together where we can. so clearly the united states capital is where a lot of interests collide and so we have to at times. >> we agree on the most important issue of the day, the phillies-yankees. >> that's why the phillies have to win the world series. >> do the -- host: do the -- on the hill help or hurt? guest: those two individuals you mentioned fiercely believe in their views and advocate for them and on occasion say things that are provocative. but i think that's democracy. guest: we have people at all ends of the ideological specktrum and some are more inflame point than others, and

they add to the place and doesn't mean we agree. how people fought dumes, right? guest: yes. you don't see that anymore. host: rob andrews and charlie dent are our guests, independent line, hi. caller: how's it going is this i don't know if i necessarily have a question but a comment at least, i would like to ask the congressmen. what happened or at least could you define a -- what was fi rios about to do? because it seems like a cyclical thing with the economy. we've been here before and i thought that's what sirya was supposed to be in place to help regulate. guest: well, i think i speak for both sides when i say we didn't do nearly as good a job

on that as we could have. we didn't understand the derivative market very well and understand adequately that the derivatives like aig were investing in were puting the entire financial system at risk. i don't blame either part party for that. i think we all have our individual responsibilities. but what barney frank and the others are trying to do is come up with -- i think members on both sides didn't fully understand the scope of the financial services problem. guest: yes, i think often times our regulatory system was omp about kuwaited. we had at times too much or too little -- but i hope whatever comes out of it, it becomes modern and does not punish people who did not cause the problem. guest: i agree with that.

host: on a scale of one to 10 how frighteninging is swine flu to you? guest: it frightens me, but i'm -- so far this strain of flu hasn't been as virulent as first thought but it could get worse. at the moment i think weaver going to best we can to manage the situation make sure there's enough vaccine for folks but so far it's not been as bad as anticipated. but the bad news is it could get worse. host: i want to ask you about this news, dozens in congress under ethics inquiry. neither of you are mentioned so we can talk about this but looks like this report was inadvertently placed on a public computer. any reaction? guest: well, i'm a member of the ethics committee and all i can say is i'm not permitted to

discuss any member who may be under investigation. i would not infer anything from the article about any member in "the washington post" today. so i -- i don't know what document it is that they have. all i know is what i read in the paper, but i'm not in a position to comment under any member of the committee. guest: yes. i think they said exactly the right thing which is number one, it was a horrible thing that this thing got out in the public, and number two, the fact that someone's name appeared can lead to no inference either way as to whether they are under investigation or not. there are all kinds of anonymous complaints made to the ethics committee on an ongoing basis and the fact that someone's name popped up in the document and have utterly nothing to do with the level of

guilt or innocence. guest: and there's the office of congressional ethics. they are the chairs. and that committee can send referrals to the broader house ethics committee with which we would have to deal with. >> host: as a member of that committee, what do you think of that new system? guest: well, it seems to me the office of congressional ethics can take newspaper stories or anonymous complaints and investigate some of which have merit some of which have less merit but i would be there was a little tension between the offices because of some of the situation that is have recently occurred. host: on our democrat's line, tammy. caller: good morning. how are you? guest: well. caller: i'm calling about the

health care issue. i don't have a question but i really wanted to say if you guys have a bill that does not have a public option, you will literally be killing me. i have no insurance and recently had a heart attack and now have a preexisting condition and my doctor wants to know things but tests they won't do because i have no insurance. there's no way i can afford to buy into any kind of health care now that i have a preexisting condition that's not going to happen anyway. if you guys don't pass a public option i'm going to die. so i hope you gries sleep well and have a good day. host: charlie dent your leadership at a press conference yesterday announce that had they would be coming forth with a plan. what in that plan do you think would address what that woman is talking about?

guest: obviously when someone has a preexisting condition that's a problem with that individual. one thing is creating a high-risk pool at the state level also with our reinsurance model to help provide that type of coverage. make sure people have access to a -- face it a lot of folks who have preexisting conditions can't get insurance right now. so we have to give them a place to go to get insurance and some of them will need to be subsidized in order to get that. >> well, here's what happened to tammy under the bill, she would get access to one of those high-risk pools right away. even though she has a preexisting condition and eventually would reach a point where the contribution she would make to the insurance would be about 57 of her income and there would be a sub city that would cover the rest.

that's how i think we have to cover someone like that. and the more people hear about the specifics including a public option, i think the more they support it. host: under the house plan, there is a taxation clause for high income, correct guest: yes. host: would that include people making $185,000? guest: no. they have a sir tax to help pay for health care. it helps individuals whose gross income exceeds $500,000 and couples whose exceed $1 million so a person making $180,000 would not be taxed. >> as a congressman you make about $175,000 a year, correct? guest: yes. host: under the house bill would your insurance change? guest: no. the plan we have would stay the

same. eventually the frall government would have the right as any other would have the right to join the health care exchange. if the federal government chose to join it, then members of the house would have the same choice as other eem would. would i put my family in the public option? host: yes, i would. guest: because i think it's going to be a high-quality, medicare-type plan that would be good. guest: under this bill i'm told the word shall appears 300 times but members of congress may enroll i think it should be mandatory if there's going to be -- guest: well, it's not mandatory for someone working for png. the only people are small business and i think congress should be treated the same. guest: the income goes right at a lot of small businesses which

many are listed as small appropriate ships or the other concern i have one of the differences between the original house bill and the one under consideration now is that there is a 2.5% tax on medical devices. in al district like mine where we make medical devices, this is a big deal. i have companies like brawn and olympics. they are concerned and it will 'em pair some. >> on the small business point, fewer than $500,000 net income so 98% of small businesses will not be affecteled and the dwees tax what i think kills jobs in this country is spending twice as much on health care per cap

tae as our economic competitors do. one thing i'm sure will happen is if we do nothing and follow normal pattern of talking about and not doing anything, lit kill a lot of jobs. host: is there a fear companies could drop their health plan and say public option is available. go there? >> yes. i believe this bill, like the other bill has an 8% payroll tax and company x that has 100 employees, the employer may cancel those benefits and instead of paying is a% or 18% for my health care i'll simply pay the 18% penalty, and you know let someone else take care of them. and i think that's a concern that's very real. i think there's a concern that many people will be diverted from private coverage into the public plan. host: the bill says, fall, about 80% of american customers

who ensure their employees already meet the minimum standards of the bill. they wouldn't have to change anything at all. the budget office, i think a fair ar by tore of this. whether customers would stop covering the employees coverage and pay the payroll but lit not happen. the congressional budget office estimate it is number of people covered by customers will go up and there already 6 million more people covered this the world than thrrl today. it is kind of counterintuitive. the reason is these customers are typically competing for labor in a highly-skilled marketplace, and the idea of dropping coverage for their employees is not attract i have because they would lose people and have to retrain people.

they concluded we will add more people to the coverage. guest: it's true they have looked at this question but when you talk to those at home talking about payroll, 8% is very attractive. there's an incentive for them to drop coverage. i'm just not sure -- many of them will take that option. >> representative charlie dent is a republican from pennsylvania. represent rob andrews a democrat from new jersey and tom is a republican in townsend, tennessee. thank you for holding. you're on the air. caller: it's don, peter, but sorry about that. first i have a question for mr. andrew, there. you said that you didn't think it was right that these congressmen who were under investigation by the ethics

committee, that their names had been released, and i was wondering if you felt the same way when newt gingrich was speaker, and every day there was a new thing. guest: well, the rules to release their names, and they should be released -- it's not clear the names being mentioned are in fact under investigation. it's clear that their names have popped up in a document. but that doesn't mean that they are under investigation and the implication that that's true is unfair to both the republicans and democrats. guest: yes. the ethics committee will make public statements on certain nskses at a time. for example, a few weeks ago we release ad statement that the wrangle investigation had been

expanded. it's known that information is under nsks. we made ruling exxon rate one member who we kelt had no from kansas. from missouri, rather, kansas city, area that we thought his case was to be dismissed based on facts. host: that's a fair way to proceed with things. next how often does the ethics committee meet? guest: we meet regularly. [laughter] host: like talking to the intelligence committee. guest: in the phrase of my friends, it's the most thankless job. these guys put a lot into it, they are put in awkward positions all the time rand it's the worst job in the house and -- >> i probably spend more time on that committee than i do the others.

it's very time. host: and it's one of those committees, too. guest: off committee where there's closely-guarded secrets. ethics, you're dealing with personnel issues so, that's why there's a certain sensitivity. guest: we are fortunate people put their time into it and do it. we're grateful. host: would it be tough to be on the ethics committee and investigate a fellow pennsylvaniain'? guest: well, it's not pleasant investigating in members of congress. i liken it to a -- you just try to be fair in every case and look at the facts and make determine theys regardless if they are from pennsylvania or new jersey or any other state. host: steven, independent line.

please go ahead. caller: hi . good morning, fellows. for one there's a lot of callers who are down on america. i think the best days of america are ahead of us. it's morning in america and i'm proud of the congress. i think you guys are doing a good job. but my questions on afghanistan and pakistan and the troop surge. and i think we got a really good team with mccrystal and investigates and mcmullen but i think they are on the ball. but are we going to get the troops we need over there? and are you going to hold the feet to the fair to on these ied's guest: the question is are we going to get the troops over there that we need? the question is -- the general mccrystal's full report, part

of it is classified in the next couple days. so here's the question in my mind -- the public record appears to say al qaeda has largely been routed from afghanistan and gone into pakistan, the issue is whether a more robust troop presence to defeat taliban crushing al qaeda and keaching them -- of if you are they are stimlating more rance from the united states in afghanistan. i'm for as many troops as it takes to route out al qaeda. but the question of whether it's a purely military matter or a mixed matter, that's the decision we have to make. i'm going to read you crystal's report the unclassified report. there's a classified version.

but general mccrystal is saying we have 12 months to right situation and we need wrath err -- they should make a decision sooner rather than later because the general says herblings we have about 12 months. he releaseed the lort on august 31 and here we are almost in november. i think it's time to act. you know, we cannot separate the afghanistan issue from the pakistan issue. if the taliban becomes resurzents afghanistan this will certainly spill over in pakistan. the al qaeda don't transport border. i think it's impairtive that we efove it will ultimately lead to a resurgence of al qaeda.

their capabilities had certainly been crippled in many ways and the relationship -- the alliance that was sworn between al qaeda and the taliban, there's some suggestion the alliance has been rupptured and the taliban's interests don't necessarily overlap with al qaeda. host: off the top but you're the ranking member of the transportation security subcommittee of hometown grill off two northwest pilots go 120 piles out of their way to get to independence annapolis. guest: i do serve on transition homoland security as well as transition committee right there and i'm sure tsa will

look at it as well. and we should. host: terry. ard more, oklahoma. you with us? we're going to move on to jacksonville -- caller: thank you. host: hi, pat. please go ahead. republican. caller: well, i enjoy listening to c-span every day and would sty these two gentlemen that on every program you hear people talking about jobs. where are the jobs? the republican would outsource every position in the united states if he thought one more would -- in the united states we have six applicants for every job. the crean would fight anywhere, anytime, any cause, the

democrat he would give foreign aid to any country any place, any time and you wonder why americans feel like they have no represents in washington. november 14 is supposed to be a national day of peaceful, wallful legal protest. i think if we see how many people turn out on that day, that maybe we may have a hope in 2010. if i can make one comment about the insurance bill, that democrat, there are 1,900 pages often that health bill. you couldn't put a lie detector test on him and have him pass it that he has read it. guest: go ahead put the test on me, i read it. but if anything i say this respectfully if anything the gentle lady said was true i'd be concerned it's not true that republicans want to outsource every job and not true democrats want to let 30 million more people in the country. the reality is that there are

serious policy differences between the two parties, which we try to reconcile but frankly none of the things the jem lady just said are true and when you say things like that you don't add you don't solve the problems you add to them. >> guest: i am on the homeland security committee and i think we can prevent people from coming spot country -- i think there's a general consensus that you don't like it. host: when do you see adjournment in year? guest: i think it will be right up against the holidays. mid to late december. host: time for a couple more calls.

playersville, georgia, richard, hi. caller: yes. good morning. host: hi. caller: c-span, sitting here listening to our two represent atives, i have no confidence in either one of you two gentlemen that you could fix the problem or are even looking at it like -- host: caller, cowl you explain? guest: because they are not sounding like they are sounding like a fraternity pattinging each ore on the back. host: can you give us an example? guest: yes. the housing problem they were discussing with senatorizea. and you had two experts, economic expert, professor black and from george mason university. they describe what happened to

the housing city, the economic problem as the perfect crime. four eptties involved. congress, who allowed the policy to exist. the financial institution, the federal reserve and the organizations that went out and got these people that couldn't pay loans, and it was all set up fauxing that the taxpayer was going to end up although they had opposite philosophies on exhibition that it was the perfect crime each -- which was very -- and the incentives that allowed to it happen are still in chance today. >> mr. andrews, anything there you want to address? guest: well i'll say i respect what that gentleman just said. it's a tough time to be living in this country and raising a family and it's hard to keep your head above water and the frustration he just express

asked eminently unreasonable. his blanket assumpiton that everyone in collective office is culpable for the economy isn't so. when i smends my child a gift and i have to assemble it,ty -- i think this this notion that eeverything that's wrong in this economy is the fault of politics isn't true. there's a lot of things that we could do better, but i think the frustration is misguided in this case. guest: i heard the frustration, too, and we've had policy disagreements on health care bill for example. >> and that's as it should be. we're not yelling and screaming at each other. guest: i think in this world

there's too much yelling and screaming and people talking over each other and maybe he didn't hear the policy disagreements because we shouted over each other and and by no means do we hold the answers to every problem but people who spend their time looking for a conspiracy to blame -- there's no conspiracy, there's a lot of real problems people in good faith are trying to address. host: good morning. yoip good morning. i'm up with of the last california republicans and i live a mile from the rommed reagan library and point out mr. dent, i really appreciate you being on c-span today. seems like most of the republicans i've had the pleasure for being rather than

soft, quiet, soft-spoken people making jept arguments. i'm a very frust rate republican and totally disagree with everything mr. andrews is saying, but i think he's a decent man just like i think president obama is a decent man. i totally disagree with the way they do things and the way their policy is and their concept of things, but they are decent people. the republicans i agree with them philosophically, but they've been hijacked. i'm just wondering how we can get more people like you to represent our party so i can have my desires represented by people who aren't entertainers. guest: well, thanks for the compliment but i often feel we live in a center right country and people want to have reflect i have values on their community and --

guest: philosophically it's kind of where i am. i don't say i'm a conservative or moderate as long as you vote for me. but i think it's important we elect people who will look at issues thoughtfully and try to make good decisions bassed on their values and what they think the values are of your community. host: anything to add? guest: yes, i think more people are like charles in the sense that they are soft-spoken, well thoughtful people, and i think what the main stream media does sometimes is people like the last caller said people that scream and get a lot of air time. i think there are people like are softer spoken pool people and ar tick late their views. i'm glad we have c-span where we can come and talk about our views. host: thank you both for spending time on "washington

journal." we have about 1 1/2 hours to go on our program. we're going to be talking about health care reform and older americans and talk to david sloan with aarp about the house reform bill and other issues, but in just we'll talk about the first-time home buyers tax credit and fraud. gentlemen, thank you.

>> best-selling author on the rise on google. its two very private founders and the obstacles that lie ahead. sunday on c-span's qaround a. >> you have to be consistent. that's the main thing for a judge. >> supreme court justices anson and scalia trade views on interpreting the constitution in a changing society saturday on c-span's america and the courts. >> the 2010 student cam contest is here. prizes for middle and high schoolers. create a 5-8-minute video on

unwithin of our country's greatest strengths and must incorporate c-span programming and show varying points of view. decline january 20. winner will be shown on c-span. go to c-span doifering for contest rules and info. >> "washington journal" continues. host: well, on your screen now is russell george. he is the inspector general for tax administration for the treasury department. and he's joining us this morning to talk about the $8,000 first-time home buyers tax credit and fraud. there's been a recent nchings. what have you found when it comes to people claiming the $8,000 tax credit? >> well, we have found a number of people not entitled to the tax credit have been receiving it despite reports of recommendations we issued irs

prior to the implementation that certain actions be taken to prevent fraud. >> what are some of the fraud? >> the legislation requires anyone who receives the credit has to first purchase a home and we discovered over 19,300 taxpayers who filed 2008 tax return forms had not yet purchased a home. we also found that over 70,000 efiled flurned 2008 had indication that is people had already own ad principal home, it seems, and again, the purpose of the credit is to encourage the purchase of a principal home. so that is truly troubling. host: how can 19,000 people use this credit, but not buy a home? guest: it's because the i.r.s. did not have controls in place

to determine at the outset whether the person had cases in the paperwork that they submitted na that demonstrated whether or not they were entitled to the credit so in effect they gave up the money before ensuring the people were entitled to the money. host: they gave out the money prior. >> correct -- we discovered 580 people who submitted tax returns seeking the credit and ultimately receiveing the credit were under the age of 18, and as most lawyers and people understand that under contract law, people under the age of 18 are generally not required to comply with contracts. so it's swrr unlikely that you would have what we're calling an arm's length transaction for the purchase of a home. and when i say 580 people under the age of 18, we include

4-year-olds in this number. host: how does it work that a 4-year-old would be able to purchase a home. we have the tax 5ud it treasury department. you can call our recan, democratic or independent line. guest: back to the question on how 4-year-olds can seek and receive the credit. it's most likely the parent of the 4-year-old in an attempt to bypass the income restrictions on who is eligible for the credit submited the request for the credit in the name of the child but there are also instances where people stole the social security so it's

outweighed and another disturbing category are parents who possibly sold their children's social security number and in an attempt to conspire to get the credit and share in the proceeds. how how many cases of potential fraud is being investigated? guest: thousands. that responsibility is falling within the i.r.s. for the most part. with the big exception that our reports also discovered that a number of internal revenue service employees are alleged to have misappropriately taken this credit, and so in that instance, we are conducting investigations. host: now in the paper this morning there's news that the home buyer credit could be extended through april 30 purchase of next year. what is your recommendation?

people, number one to the congress? >> well, first of all, i have to make it clear that the secretary of the treasury has delegated tax policy issues to the assistant secretary for tax policy, so it's not my job to tell congress or the administration whether or not they should institute substance of tax policy. that said, i would recommend to congress to the administration that this wonderful goal that they are endeavoring to accomplish here, the purchase of homes, it should be continued, but that many of the safe guards that we recommended prior to the initiation of the 2008 credit and subsequently in our audit report, be followed. and it's my understanding that chairman lewis, the chairman of the subcommittee on oversight within ways and means is planning to introduce

legislation to deal with many of our concerns. host: and the internal revenue service faces significant challenges for eligibility of home buyer credit and issued on september 29 and available at c-span.org. if you want to go there, you can firebird a hyper from lawton, oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. i just find it real hard to follow the media nowadays. because like you were talking about, the government buying homes i thought the welfare program did that 30 years ago. and no one talks about that right there. but something, another thing about it is i guess the department of interior running out of money for handling maybe indian affairs, but where's all this casino money they are taking in? i know in the state of ok o.k. they took in about a billion dollars. host: i don't think that's

related to anything that our guest is talking about, but thank you for your comments. country club hills, illinois. shell on the? guest: yes. just from a few minutes ago. you asked your guest i thought a tough a question that he could have answered. you asked him how does a 4-year-old purchase a home. he said this it's probably some parent that fill the paper out, which i thought he should have said is a perfect champ of how our government operates. they have all these programs, no way of managing it. how can anyone trust this government? i don't. i think most of the people already figured out the government cannot run anything, all they know how to do is raise taxes. host: mr. george? some of the proposal to the no,

sir being used in the purchase of these homes there are instances where those under the age 18 want and should and could purchase a home for example, a youth who is emancipated and someone who is married at certain age ins certain parts of the country what is considered an emancipated youth varies. they have to go to court to seek that designation but that's a legitimate tron purchase a home and if your income allows you, to seek the credit. i understand that in his proposeal -- i would. and at least -- host: what reforms have you recommended to the i.r.s. guest: some of them are just very bake. i don't know whether your cameras can pick this up. but the form that the i.r.s. designed to require information

from taxpayers when they are submitting their request for the tax credit. host: form 5405. guest: it neglects to ask the home buyer the price of the home. that's a clear indication as to whether or not there's a valid purchase here and whether or not there's a valid purchase for the home when one should be able to supply the cost of the house. major: what's the i.r.s.'s response to that? >> it was twofold. now when it was first the housing and economic recovery act passed in 2008 that it was a passed so late in the year that they didn't have the time to take the steps necessary to make sure it was implemented in an effective manner, but there are other arguments that they didn't want to overburried at

any taxpayer by having he or she submit too much paperwork to the i.r.s. we don't believe these are valid concerns at you will, and we made two, just as people are required when they make certain charitable contributions to supply or retain paperwork, we believe this is something that could have been achieved here. host: what's the estimate on what this has cost the government or taxpayers in fraud? guest: over $8 .5 billion has been requested in tax credits. our audits are about $640 million, we believe is questionable in terms of whether or not it should have been paid. host: if you had to recommend to someone who wants to buy a

home tomorrow, the this credit clear? is it clear staling for them to go ahead and take this credit? guest: almost definitely. host: what are the chances they are going to be auditted? guest: well, let's put it this way. the tax returns we identified that had questionable cases on them, i think there's a high chance they will be auditted, but if they submit the informing that is required as well as in all honesty put an infant or 4-year-old as the purchaser of the home, they should be ok. i mean, -- host: tanya in detroit, democrat, you're on with russell george. they are charging people 75 and they would get credit. caller: a friend of mine, she

got the credit. she got her money and didn't buy a house. she bought a car and blew the rest of it. i just thought that that was pretty wrong. that there's people out there doing that. and the people that is get 2:00 people the credit they know these people ain't trying to get no house. host: did you say your friend did not buy a house? caller: she bought a car and blew the rest of the money. guest: tan iya, that is extremely troubling to learn, unfortunately it's in the to first allegation of this type of fraud. i have recommendation for you. i'd like you to contact, while it's -- the i.r.s. criminal investigations region that would investigate this one and similar ones for people watching television to direct you to them, i'm going to ask that you call my hot line which

is peter, i don't know that the number by heart. host: it's 1-800-366-4484. this is to report fraud, waste and abuse to the treasury inspector general for tax administration. 1-800-366 -4484. guest: and if i could towards caller, two things, one, the person who did this ought to be on the lookout. because the i.r.s., especially in the wake of our report has taken this matter quite seriously as is congress and the secretary of the treasury and others and as are we, so the people who are contemplating doing this, i strongly advise them not to but tonya, i would like you to know the i.r.s. have a pro qui yum! a program where if you turn in people who are tax cheats, if

the i.r.s. ultimately crovereds some of that money, you are entitled to a reward of the percentage of the money that is recovered. so sometimes that amount when it involves corporations is in the millions of dollars and in other instances it's more modest like it would be in this case, but people beaware. they are not going to get away with this. host: you said, mr. george this is not the first time you've heard people selling the tax credit. i heard of a successful prosecution of someone in jacksonville, florida. but also how do you sell somebody a tax credit? i mean, how can -- if i went to you and gave you $75 and you said i'll get you $8,000 off your taxes, how do you do that? guest: i'm not saying anyone engaged in a national accounting firm but literally you tell people come to my

office, let me fill out forms for you and you sit back and wait for the check to arrive and when the check arrives we'll split the proceeds or most times in direct deposit they can alter the number of accounts receiveing the refund and they can do it in that manner. so the problem is it's easy to do. we have a voluntary tax system, the best in the world. my organizations task is to help the i.r.s. to organize and develop and reenforce policies so people who are willing and able to engage in appropriate behavior are to the best of our amendment. host: what happened? jacksonville, florida? guest: that was an i.r.s. nsks and i don't have the details but it's good that the person went to jail.

host: good morning. caller: mr. george, i appreciate what y'all's office is doing. i just had a question concerning the $8,000 rebate. it seems like it would be in the best ejump back to the equity of the home as opposed to directly to the consumer who, as the lady before alluded to, she knew somebody who had -- why is it we cannot put it back to the equity of the home so that home could be used for closing costs or lower their interest rate or to actually put equity back in the home to protect the taxpayers? there's nothing to preembt with homeownership. i mean, you have the option of using that tax including making

extra mortgage payments which would help you reduce the overall debt you owe in the home and there biincrease the equity you have in that home. host: when a policy like this is signed into law, what happens in your office? guest: good yes. i want to make sure those tons role of the inspector general. it's to route out waste, fraud around one aspect of what we do, less known to the public which is when legislation is either being stir looking at whateveral agency is involved can best implement the program to make sure it's run efficiently and effectively and to take advantage -- those taking advantage are identified early so controls can be put in

place early. so in this instance, keep in mind again, in a twofold manner in 2008 under what's the $75 credit was passed and it's important to remind people if they benefitted under that aspect of the loan, it's a loan. it is not a gift. and that they have to repay it over the course of 15 years, interest free, but nums they do have to repay it. the -- the credit was increased from $75 hour, to $8 hour,. ,000. that is gift because it doesn't have to be repaid unless the homeowner or recipient stells the home within 36 months. so the bottom line is what we would like is for the i.r.s. to require more substance of proof or any proof that a home was

actually purchased, so in addition to the 455 form that would indicate how much they paid, they simply could have requested that the hud one form, which is a settlement statement that most taxpayers receive or most home purchasers receive when they engage in a home transaction or refinancing simply supplying that to the internal revenue service. host: good morning. caller: hello. guest: good morning. caller: i've got a question of the days. i'm watching your show and we're talking about the $8,000. for the first-time buyer of a home. my question is why not give this opportunity all these 350r folks, millions of folks that are -- that have been depossessed because they couldn't pay their mortgage,

and apparently from what i see on tv tmbings people are working. they just can't handle the mortgage and they have to give the house up? why not give those people an opportunity also to buy with some kind of a tax credit to to have make it easier for home the get back into housing. >> that's a very good question and point, however, it's a substantive question. host: how did you get into this line of work? guest: i am a prosecutor batraning. host: harvard? guest: yes. harvard law school and committed to public service all my life. intercepted on capitol hill. started as an intern and mail clerk for bob dole, many, many moons ago and had the great honor of being selected to be

chief of staff for the oversight committee that oversees i.g.'s and under congressman steve horne who held as you may recall hundreds of hearings. yes. host: usually on a friday or monday so we had more c-span crews to cover it. guest: yes. but i had then of course literally had the white house under the -- the first corporation for national and community service and sub sweptly the ig of the internal revenue service. host: so you're non-political now? guest: most definitely. host: last caller comes from bruce on our democrats line, hi. caller: how are you guys this morning? guest: well, thank you. caller: mr. george, i have a question for you. in terms of this fraud and waste and abuse of this new

program that they have, the $ put the burden of verification on the mortgage company or the bank saying hey, you have to come in with a drivers license and with your social security card and it's going to take another 14 days but we're going to verify this information and we'll get your application processed as quickly as possible? and it seems to me with all the people out of work, this is a seck taylor type of thing that the government could have put people to work versus just fattening frogs for snakes. it doesn't make stones me. guest: listen, that's a very good idea that you just raised, sir. and you just reminded me that i should make the ninth what we reported is an interim report. within a few months we're going

to update information and i hate to say, peter, that the numbers are going to be a lot worse than what we have already reported. but we're also continuing to make recommendizations so ideas such as the one you suggested would require statutory change it's which is beyond what i can control, but congress is again keenly aware of this issue, and i think they would take those types of recommend daigles into consideration. host: once again, here is the toll-free number. 1-800-366-4484. and who do you recommend should call this number? .

host: we are going to be talking to you about older americans and health insurance. and if you think that health insurance rates should change as you get older, i.e. get higher as you get older and have potentially more health-related costs -- that is what we are going to talk about coming up after this news report from c- span radio. >> it is 9:01 a.m. eastern time. the commerce department says that consumer spending dropped by half a percent in september, matching economists' expectations and reflecting the end of the government's cash for clunkers program. as for personal income, they were unchanged. the white house said the announcement of the effects of

the stimulus plan is expected. according to "politico.com" officials will say the plant has crated and save at least 1 million jobs since it was signed in february. also, a meeting on the situation in pakistan and afghanistan. the president will hear from the head of the joint chiefs, vice- president biden, and others. not present at the meeting will be secretary of state clinton, who is traveling in pakistan. earlier, in remarks broadcast on nbc, she said that the u.s. commitment in afghanistan is not "an open-ended, never-ending commitment." legislation on several fronts making its way through congress include climate change, with the senate environment and public works committee chairman barbara boxer saying that she plans to mark upper klamath built next tuesday, despite -- mark up her

climate bill next tuesday, despite republican concerns about the legislation. the united states and colombia 0 have signed an agreement to expand the u.s. military presence in the country could the pact will expand u.s. access to seven columbia bases -- columbia 0 ba -- colombia bases. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. host: i want to show you this editorial from "usa today." it is from a week ago. "stop age discrimination." it is written by john rother of the american association of retired persons. we will be talking to david sloane of the aarp shortly. but we want to get your reaction to this editorial. "the private insurance industry has been discriminating against

older americans for decades, charging them many times more for the same insurance than ' more desirable' younger people pay. now that we have the opportunity to require fairer and more affordable insurance options, the industry still wants to be allowed to discriminate on the basis of age. this unfair practice would continue to keep affordable coverage out of reach for older americans who need insurance protections the most." we want to get your recommendation for your thoughts on should age influence health insurance rates? you can see the numbers are divided a little bit differently. if you are 50 or above -- if you think that ager should influence health insurance rates, if you should be charged

more when you are older and about to have lower rates when you were younger. brenda, on our 50-overline, kentucky. to turn down the volume on your tv. you know what? we'll come back to you -- caller: that i am ready. i do not think ager should influence insurance at all. my husband and i both had health insurance and never used it. we are older now and we need it. he has it and i do not. and i can afford it at this time. -- i cannot afford it at this time. host: the other editorial is this article right here. her name is clear bloxom. 27 years old. she went out and bought her own insurance because her company could a longer afford it. -- could no longer afford it. she got private insurance

without maternity and without some other things in it. she is fine with what she got. should she be allowed to do that? host: sure, she should be allowed to give -- caller: sure, she should be allowed to do that, but someone my age should be allowed to get it also, and we are just rejected. host: jim, ohio, 49 and under line. caller: no, i don't think they should discriminate. host: everybody should pay the same rate regardless? caller: yes, sir. i am 41 years old and i've been unemployed for almost two years. when i left my last job, i had good health insurance, and i never used it. i am in good health. you know, they are taking money out from medicare come out of

my check every week, and on top of that, i'm paying insurance and social security and i'm probably never going to see any of the money. you know, the way i look at it is, if i get sick now, i go to the emergency room and they can take it out of my medicare payment because i am never going to see it again. host: sharon, 50 and older, california. caller: hello, how are you? host: good. caller: i don't think they should expect older people to pay higher premiums. like the caller before us, we paid in for a lot of years, and possibly they would have used the money appropriately, then they would have money in social security and different places. when you are on a fixed income, you cannot afford an increase or

to be targeted because you have a pre-existing health care need. my mother was very needy of her health care, and she had a lot of pre-existing -- you know, she had a heart condition, etc. and they could not have afforded it because she lived on security like a lot of other people do it they would take advantage of this. host: back to john rother of the aarp, op-ed from "usa today" a week ago, on age discrimination, as he describes it. "this practice would keep affordable coverage out of reach for older americans who need insurance protections the most. in most states, insurance

companies may charge older consumers much more than they charge the young, making premiums up to seven times more expensive. this discriminatory practice is a key reason why 13% of older americans, 7.1 million people, were uninsured in 2007, a figure that is a growing rapidly. many other older americans are so burdened by the cost of their premiums that they avoid treatment that would require them to spend more of their own pocket. a recent study by the urban institute looking at people who bought insurance on their own found that reducing the discriminatory practice known as age rating benefits older adults more than and hurts the young. the reason is that under health reform, and the people with modest incomes would qualify for subsidies that would offset increases in their premiums. stricter limits on ager rating would lower the cost of health care reform by billions of

dollars, something that would help all americans." our next call comes from terry on the 49-an-other line, damascus, maryland. caller: i think people in the 50 and above what bracket have been paying into the system for years and years, so now is the time they needed. i agree with the caller before that as the premiums go in, it pulls the money to offset when they get to that age bracket, and you have to boost the whole system and keep it running. host: what do you think about the fact that young robert -- younger drivers pay higher auto insurance rates? caller: they drop out of the system higher before they have paid into the system. the reverse is happening with the 50-and-older crowd where they have paid into the system for many years. host: what do you do for a living?

caller: right now i am a part- time employee for my husband's small business. host: what kind of business is it? caller: he is in the computer industry. we are one of those heavily taxed where people think that small business people have so much money, but they do not think of what it takes to run a business and how much taxing actually happens even by way of reducing credit that you get in, things like that. we did not qualify for any of the child credit, any of the stimulus. but our income basically over the past five years, while it grew, almost all of it went back into the system for taxes. host: to you by your own health insurance if it is just the two of you? caller: we actually don't. when the company started with only three employees, we started with a plan, and now we have 11 employees. our premiums have grown a little

bit, but not the rates that we are hearing everybody a spouse in the political spectrum -- espouse in the political spectrum. this new plan would probably just about triple what you're paying. -- what we are paying. host: the house plan? caller: yes, we are looking at it. we qualify for -- if you own a business you cannot use -- there are lots of rules for help savings accounts. the owners of the company, we don't actually get to participate, so that is extra money we get taxed on, because our medical cannot be pretax dollars, it must be post tax dollars, so that is another area where we get kind of pinched. with the premium discussion they are talking about, people don't

understand that if you -- what we were making $75,000 a year, we had just about the same of the take-home pay as we have with making $200,000 a year. our next day, has hardly at all increased --net take-home has hardly at all increase. we are able to do a lot less charity-wise. because taxes have been squeezing us more and more, we do less charity-widespread people to not give a lot of consideration to how much charity work people in small businesses do as far as donations into the community and other projects across the country. host: just to be clear, does your company offer a health plan to your 11 employees? caller: yes, we do. host: if we could ask, what kind of costs is that to you and to them?

caller: we don't charge for basic -- you know, for the employee. they upgrade into a family, because we have a lead of singles and have been adding more and more families some are married couples without children. there are options if they want to add into the pool for their spouse, because sometimes spouses work and have their own coverage through their employer. they do pay into it if they opt for the spouse coverage and that family coverage, but the employees do not pay anything. host: what does it cost you and your husband of a month per employee? caller: per employee it runs about $350 a month. host: and is that tough? caller: well, i mean, that is something -- we just see that

as overhead of the business, nothing that we would never argue about. we do think that this whole idea of breaking down the barriers so that more companies can compete across state lines and things like that so that you can have more options of insurance plans now cured towards the small business -- geared towards the small business -- i think that is definitely worthwhile. they are talking about putting 8% -- at one point they were talking up to 20% -- you know, max baucus' committee. i was hearing some talk about 12% to 17% of your gross income. let's say even 10%, $200,000 income, you would be paying $20,000 in premiums a year. we are paying for a family decide -- family-size i think

$700 a month. we would be more than doubling our costs right there. host: thank you for your time this morning. appreciate the inside. frank on our 50-and-over a line from cincinnati, ohio. but you think about age -- what do you think about age and to the premiums go up as you get older? caller: thanks for c-span. i think the opinion piece was referred to private health insurance premiums, and since older folks and naturally have more -- need more medical care and have problems with meeting doctors and attention, and sometimes hospitalization and prescription drugs, it is kind of the way that insurance works. as you pointed out, young drivers, especially young males, charge more for car insurance.

another example, just to show how insurance works, as you get older, life insurance costs more for very obvious reasons. it seems to me that it is just a natural way that insurance rates are set, and i do not see it as unfair discrimination. host: next call, florida, lee, under 50. we are going to go on to vermont, diane, 50 and older. caller: hi, thanks for c-span. total nerd for you guys. there are a lot of problems with of the thing that is happening, and it is mostly government intervention. that is the problem. we should not be having this discussion is none of the government's business what i do with my own health. a lot of the things that the government is doing over the last nine months, and it is none of their business.

i was listening to the caller, tery was great, and how the government is not helping preferred free market hopes for. it is not working for you. -- the government is not helping her. free market helps her. it is not working for you. it is directly contrary to the constitution. they want everybody to pay for everybody else, and even so- called playing field. host: you are calling on the 50- and-overline preview of paid a lot of money over time into health insurance premiums, correct? caller: i have not. i have been a self-employed person all my life. my income level is about $20,000. these days i cannot afford to make more than that. i get discriminated against if i make more money.

my son has no choice. i need to make sure that he gets what he needs. that is where we are headed. we have been ruined in the state of vermont by the health care system here. it has taken all the competition out. we have blue cross, blue shield, and state. there might be one or two others, but we don't know who they are, we will never know who they are, because we probably cannot afford them anyway. host: do you think your son are you when you were a dagger should have been allowed to pay lower premiums? -- when you were younger should have been allowed to pay lower premiums? caller: i think the free market still would have taken care of anything. we will find what we need in the free-market place. if there are people who are not covered, there is a much simpler way. this is just ridiculous overkill, as usual, with government intervention. i really feel that they just need to rein this in and give

republicans the voice they have been asking for. they keep saying they are the party of no. i have seen seven or eight bills that they have tried to propose. i see manipulation of rules, a party out of control, and if it's for anybody else, it would have taken their kids and animals away from them by now. host: andre in texas, 49-and- underlined. caller: it is like a cycle of life. the anchor people should -- the younger people should -- i live in texas, and your interest rate will go down. but the thing about it is if the younger people pay more, but the time they get older, it is like a cycle of life. the younger people will be paying for the older people and so forth and so on. but my question to you is, you have a republican on one side

saying that people have spoken and don't want public option. and then you have the democrats on the other side saying that they want the public option. well, we are the people. when it comes to a bill of this magnitude, and everybody in the united states is going to be either one way or the other court or helped by the option, let -- hurt or helped by the option, let the people vote and then we can get the truth. let us have some kind of package with the people can vote and say, yes, we want the public option, or note, we don't. then it can go to congress and they can make a law for it. let the people vote and then -- host: all right, thank you. we were looking at the john rother editorial in "usa today"

about age discrimination. here is the other half of the editorial, "don't soak the young in pressing medical coverage." is quite clear bloxom -- it is by claire bloxom. guest: can you hear me? host: yes. guest: i am a 27-year-old public-relations executive. i work for cooper smith agency and i have been employed there for three and a half years. since i have been employed there, we have always group health insurance. during the past three and a half years, premium rates have increased significantly, i think between 16% and 20% per year.

when it was time to renew the group insurance rate for this year, our boston to all of the employees and said, "look, -- our boss came to all the employees and said, "look, our rates have increased again --" $200 of my pocket every month and he would pay the other 200 -- "i am willing to let you guys go out and fivnd private health care insurance. if a majority of the employees feel they would rather go the private way versus the group way, i am fine with that." our employees research and we found our own individual plans. i found a plan through blue cross-blue shield with the $2,500 deductible that cost me

$190 a month, which was half of what i was paying before. the only difference with my new plan and the previous plan, the group-covered plan, is that it does not have maternity coverage for mental health coverage, but i'm not engage or married and i don't plan on having a child in the next few years, some of the trinity coverage was not something -- so maternity coverage was not something i was looking for. mental health coverage was not something i needed in the plan, either. it covers everything else that i need -- doctor visits, ob/gyn, things that are important to me, covered completely. i am very happy with it, and it is very similar to what i have but half the price. host: does it include catastrophic, ain case

something happens? caller: yes, it does. host: let's say you change your mind about having a baby, could you add that and what cost would be? caller: i believe is an extra $100 a month. about $300 a month with maternity. host: looking at what congress is doing with health care reform, and your own experience, what would be your advice? caller: as far as -- there are lots of things congress is looking at regarding healthcare purred which bill are you -- host: i am not specifically asking about any pre i am asking about your advice, given your experience. caller: shopping for my own was fairly easy. i went with a friend of mine at an insurance company, and he had

me a lot of four men said -- fill out a form, and he presented me with five or six different private health care options, and i was to choose the one that i thought i needed to fit my needs the best. and blue cross-blue shield called me to confirm everything that i filled out on my farm, and 10 days later, i got a letter telling me i'd been approved. it was a pretty easy process, and pretty easy for my co- workers as well. they went to the brookside online -- a website on-line called einsurance.com, and they filled out a form with their information, and the plans came up. it was fairly easy for all of us.

but then again, most of our employees are in their late 20s. it is easier for us to qualify for these plans that it is for someone that is older, such as my boss. he is actually only 34 years old, but he has not been able to find private health insurance, yet he has a minor arthritis problem, which is considered a pre-existing condition. unfortunately, he was not aware when we decided to go off the group planned to the private sector that he would not be able to obtain private insurance. he is now on a month-to-month temporary plant trying to get improved for private health care insurance, but because of a pre- existing condition, he has not been given any options. host: even at any price, he cannot get adoption? caller: he has -- he cannot get

any option? caller: he has applied to go to the texas high risk pool, with people with previous conditions and issues who are unable to obtain private health insurance. i believe it is $450 a month, $5,000 deductible. my boss -- unfortunately, he will be paying for much higher premiums and higher deductible due to are going from a group health care plan at two private. -- to private. host: claire bloxom, dallas tx, thank you for sharing your story with us. her story was in the october 23 edition of "usa today," last friday. david sloan, senior vice president of aarp. you vert -- heard claire

bloxom's story. what is your reaction? guest: particularly the story of her boss is not an atypical condition. it is hard to find good health insurance. one of the most important pieces of the health reform bills is still provide for injured -- provide for important insurance market reforms. for example, people would no longer be able to be denied coverage because of pre-existing condition. the insurer would not be able to cancel them in the middle of the course of treatment, which sometimes happens. he would not be able to charge a higher premium -- would not be able to charge a higher premium to a woman. no gender discrimination because of maternity costs and other things getting factored into how insurers' rates to

their premiums. i think there are really important steps there, things that are basic building blocks that are critical. host: claire bloxom went out and found her own insurance, basically ala cart -- a la carte. it should come as a young adult, she be allowed to that at -- showed, as a young adult, she be allowed to do that and an increase -- guest: not at all. -- host: is there a problem with that? guest: not at all. people can go out in the marketplace and shop for a variety and look at a range of options and pick the right insurance for them. host: but should she paid the

same amount as someone over 50? guest: this is a fundamental issue, and it gets lost among the other complex issues of health reform. but when you go into a large plan that is offered by an employer, for example, they do not have ager rating. they have essentially community rating. the whole purpose of insurance is to try to spread the risk as much as possible. if they are going to now say to insurers that you can bollinger discriminate against people who are sick, -- can no longer discriminate against people who are sick, that we will eliminate discriminating against people with pre-existing condition, or gender discrimination, why is it ok to continue to discriminate against older americans? one of your color -- callers earlier said that younger people are going to get older sunday.

there is a way to have at all if it is done right. host: do you think the house and the senate, the bills that have been reported, have done it right? guest: the house bill does -- we et aarp prefer a community- rated the apartment where there is no discrimination between young and old. community ---rated environment where there is no discrimination between young and old. the bill that came out of the finance committee had -- allowed insurers to charge four times -- host: what is the current rate? guest: it depends. it is the wild west out there. there are many states where it can be as high as seven-one, or even higher, potentially. it differs, because insurance is regulated at the state level, so each state has its own set of

rules. both of us would be an improvement over many, many state laws. but where we come down is it is either a portable or it is not. massachusetts, which has gone through significant reforms, has a two-one h rating scheme, and there are still many, many people -- age rating scheme, and there are still many, many people in their 50s and 60s that are not able to find affordable coverage even on that basis, and end up with a parcher exemption, where they do not get the penalty but they do not get -- a hardship exemption, where they do not get the penalty but they do not get the coverage. host: the numbers are -- david sloane is the senior vice president for the aarp. we have about half an hour to take your calls and hear your

comments. i want to go back to the two-one and the current seven-to-one. can a group plan charge two-to- one per employee? let's stay x company hires a 55- year-old and they get all processed into the company -- can the insurance company that the company as say, "ok, 55, so we will try to this amount of money, or you hire a 25 year-old and we will try to this -- charge this amount of money?" guest: not in a group. you don't want to wind up with these disincentives where the small business, which offers health insurance, but age rated, binds up in a situation where they do not want to hire

and all the worker, or think that an older worker costs too much. that would be an unfortunate circumstance. we do not want to have that. host: what about the issue if it were a la carte, if a 55-year- old male who did not buy into maternity costs -- should he be responsible for maternity costs for the pool? guest: well, let me say this to you -- one of the things that the insurance industry is expert at is trying to said at the risks as much as possible and trying to avoid -- segment risks as much as possible and trying to avoid more costly risks. you do not want to have -- it would not be a good thing, for example, to have one plan for young people where they segment them entirely from everybody else. a good risk pool, a good

insurance pool, can spread the risk across a lot of people, from the healthiest to people that are not so healthy. the more you can do that, the more effective the insurance is. host: first call for david sloan of aarp comes from panama city, florida. caller: first-time caller, appreciate the program. i'm also part of the aarp program. it age discrimination should not be allowed at all. insurance companies will take advantage of any people -- any loophole and most americans cannot afford the premium increases. i got informed of another 15% increase in my blue cross plan, which, by the way, in north florida, is the only plan i can pick from.

there is no competition at all, none. i will have to pay even though i will not get a cola raise on my retirement. it is hurting everybody. young people get sick, too. they have illnesses as well as older americans. guest: i could not agree with you more. one of the things that people don't realize is that the fastest-growing population of individuals out there who are uninsured is the 50-plus population. the reason for that is it is very expensive -- most of your insurance is employer-based coverage. if you find out of a job, and we do have a difficult economic situation right now, you have to go into the individual insurance market. people who are 50-plus will have a much tougher time than younger people. host: jacksonville, florida,

kathy, 49 and under. caller: i don't agree with the way they are doing it. i think everybody should pay the same all the way across. host: thank you for your comment. david sloan, what is aarp's role in insurance selling, or as an insurer? guest: it's interesting -- i will give you a quick story. aarp was founded in the late 1950's by a high school principal. one of the problems she had seen in california, where she was from, was that many of her fellow retired teachers could not get good help -- good health insurance. the idea was to create an organization where you could, by dint of having as many people in the program as possible, act as essentially -- to leverage that

volume and try to get the best deal you could out of the insurance companies. what we do today that aarp is very similar to that. aarp is not insurance company. it is an organization representing the 50-plus population that, because we have a 40 million members, we are in a very strong position to work with insurance companies to create programs that are marketed and sold by the insurance companies that give our people the very best value, the very best kind of coverage and protection they can get. that is how we are engaged in the business of insurance, buy branded products that are sold to our members by insurance companies. host: michigan, becky, 50-plus, you are on. caller: yeah, i am old.

host: no, i said you are on, not old. caller: no, i did not think you said that. i am 60. as i look back on my life, i remember, i had four children to raise when i was younger. as i struggled through, because there was never enough money to buy clothes for the kids or anything else, i realized that when you are young, you have all these kids to take care of, and when you get to the top of the pay scale, the kids are all gone. and i also remember that back then, my grandparents, both sets of my grandparents, they had it made when they retired because of their retirement plans, which most people could even have --

don't even have a prayer of getting any more. since the older folks tend, i would suppose especially in the very later years, to be set more often, so what? that is the way life is. guest: you raise a very good points. by the way, becky, these days the kids don't leave home. they come back and they stay with you even longer. but i understand the concerns of people today. there is a perception among many people that people that are in their 60s, for example, are far better off from an income perspective than young people. the reality is if you look at it on an average wage bases, the person at 60 years old on average makes about $30,000 a year. the person who is 28 years old

on average makes about $28,000 a year. so really, the income disparity is not great, but the need for the health care for somebody who is 60 is much greater than the person who is 28. host: does the house and/or the senate bill talked-about h and preexisting conditions? -- talk about age and preexisting conditions? guest: well, they have provisions that, in that case of the house bill, would limit what to an older american to be charged price of that of the younger american. host: any pre-existing condition? guest: that is correct. host: does aarp support that? guest: we absolutely do. host: dennis, hi.

caller: good morning. i just want to say that, you know, if these bills are crafted in such a way that there is give-and-take on both sides in terms of the age disparities, and also the health disparities, if there are give-and-takes on both sides, then there will be some fairness. these complex issues -- younger, older, better, worse, back-and- forth -- i think will be reduced and mitigated, and people will feel like there is not some age warfare going on, class warfare going on, income, so on and so on. it was earlier stated that there are some mechanisms like that with tax credits given to people who are going to pay more

because of their income, receiving a tax credit, versus people who do not have the income, keeping the premiums down, so on and so on. that is good. that is what we need here, the give-and-take come back and forth. guest: one of the things that the caller is referring to is that there are subsidies provided based on income in all of these bills that help to make insurance coverage more affordable. one of the important things that people don't realize in many cases is that it is not just the feel-good thing that people want other people to have health insurance. it is a matter of trying to actually insure that there is not all of this cost shifting. i think the point has been made by many people before that the uncompensated care, where people do not have insurance today and they show up at the emergency room for their treatment -- there are no free lunches, and that gets passed along in the

form of insurance premiums to businesses, individuals. the average family premium is $1,000 a year or more as a consequence of the uncompensated care and cost shifting. that is what this legislation tries to get at by requiring americans to have insurance the house bill winds of ensuring an additional 36 million americans -- winds up insuring an additional 36 million americans, which will hopefully eliminate that uncompensated care. host: is the aarp in support of the listening or lessening -- of loosening or lessening state regulation of insurance and making it more federal? guest: i do think there is a good argument that can be made for the notion that you have 50 different laws out there and it is a patchwork. what we do need is a strong federal safeguard that he

ensures that people are treated fairly in the insurance market. you need consumer protection. yes, there is a greater need for regulation and fairness in the marketplace. i don't think that we are opposed to having continued state regulation insurance. but there needs to be some broad rules of the road, which this legislation would help to establish. host: another dennis from florida, this one on our 50-plus line. caller: good morning. you are talking about the regulation of insurance companies. my understanding is that this is not an open market. are they not kind of like a controlled monopoly, were basically there is no real open market -- like me, i am getting 11% increase on my health insurance this year. if i look at it across the line, it averages 10% to 50%

across the board, and i do not believe that is really -- 10% to 15% across the board. and i do not believe that is the competition there. what you think about getting rid of antitrust for health insurance companies? guest: i think there are a lot of people that believe that insurance is the root of all evil. there is an effort, i think, to a certain extent to sort of demonize the insurance industry as far as what is going on here trying to pass health reform at the national level. that probably would not make a very significant difference. in fact, i think some analysis of their shows that taking that antitrust exemption would probably have a very little impact on rates or things like that. but you raise a very basic question about competition, and that is that there are many

markets in the united states where there may be one or two dominant interest. there are fundamental questions about whether that is right. that motivates a lot of interest in having a so-called public option, which has been one of the major lightning rods of this entire debate. there are people who believe that you need to have some additional cupp addition to keep the insurance industry -- additional competition to keep the insurance industry honest, if you will. host: david sloane is senior vice president of government relations at the aarp. he worked for first president george bush, and for john chaffee in rhode island. caller: my comment is about the lady who had the paper. when i was in my 20s, i was healthy, no problems.

i was a nurse. in my 30s i developed systemic -- [unintelligible] had i been paying for the insurance, what would happen to me in my 30's? my daughter, aged 14, diagnosed with something very unusual. these people that are saying to pay less, it has to go into a pool. i am for the public option. i think they went into it wrong. the democrats should have went into it as single buyer -- single payer in and negotiated down. guest: politics is about the art of a possible, and there is not sufficient support in congress to get a single payer scheme in place. you see all the bank around --

there are about 20 different iterations of the public option out there, and an enormous amount of noise around that, and even that is struggling. single payer is probably a bridge too far. host: back to the claire bloxom editorial -- "usa today" write that "older people typically require more medical care than the young, so it is reasonable to ask them to pay more for health entrance -- health insurance." guest: it is a good point. there is a difference between health insurance and auto insurance. health insurance is about your life and your help, and considerably more expensive than auto insurance. there is no question that older americans require more medical

attention and services. no one will dispute that. but i do think you need to try it as you possibly can to spread the risk as far as you can so that you do not wind up with a situation where older americans find it impossible to get insurance, or unaffordable. that is not in the public interest. that is not in their interest or in the interest of young people. as i said earlier, there is no free lunch if those folks show up in the emergency room, the younger people are paying for it in their rates anyway. let us try to get to a fair basis for everyone. host: in john rother's editorial, he talks about the number of uninsured americans growing. aarp sells insurance. is there a missing link here? guest: well, i will tell you, honestly, we have tried working

with insurers to create plans and deal with the current difficulties we face in the insurance market for individual insurance. for example, for people 50-plus. it is a trick. it is expensive under the current circumstance, and they still do medical underwriting so that you are not in a situation where you can charge people a reasonable premium. we work with states and we've tried to create the best programs we can. we are fighting for health reform for a reason. we cannot come up with all of our buying power, put together plans that provide the kind of coverage at a cost that people should be able to obtain. host: st. francis, wisconsin, evelyn, 50-plus. caller: thank you very much for c-span. i have a medicare and finnish plant through blue cross blue

shield -- medicare and its plans for blue cross and blue shield. i really like it. it covers things i hear being discussed in washington. it is good in every single state in the union, no matter where you live. even if i'm out of the country for six months or less, it is still good. we do not have the doughnut hole gap in part thd. we have a plan that is much better than other people who blew cross, blue shield. one of the reasons it is good across the country is that the retired people in my group happen to be all over the country. my question is, why was medicare cut and what was so much cut from the medicare advantage plans? i did not have my premium rates for next year, but my deductible is race. -- i did not have a premium

raised for next year, but my deductible is raised. my question is what does the government have against medicare advantage plants in particular? guest: that is a great question, and one of the most difficult element of the legislation. it is true that in the house and senate, both of those make a significant effort to reduce the subsidies that are paid to medicare advantage. we are basically in a situation with the medicare program is approaching insolvency. it is in difficult shape. we are now paying on average 14% more to provide medicare services through private insurance plans that we are for the traditional medicare programs, and it is unaffordable. the goal is to see if they cannot get these medicare advantage plans to compete with traditional medicare without those subsidies.

the argument is really an argument over equity as well. if you have 20% of the people on medicare advantage, but the other 80% essentially subsidizing them by paying higher premiums themselves, and they don't get the same benefits as the others on the program, it raises fundamental equity concerns. but i understand your an gst over this. host: what do you say to the 40- and-unders who are paying a lot to medicare? what you say to them about medicare being them when they turn 65 years old? guest: that is one of the fundamental things that we are trying to make sure is the case. medicare is not some separate segregated program that is entirely government-run, that is not integrated into the overall

health care system. it is a very large body of beneficiaries, over 40 million. but the reality is that medicare is symptomatic of a much bigger problem. if we address the problems of medicare and make it more sustainable, it will require a more systemic solution, where we actually address the health care costs overall. health-care costs in this country are growing at a rate unmatched by virtually any other service provided to people out there. would you are in medicare or private plan, before you reach the medicare age, we have to fundamentally refocus our entire health-care system, over time. it is not going to happen immediately. this legislation is a beginning. we have got to move away from paying doctors, for example, strictly on the volume of the

services they provide. we have to move towards a value- based system, where physicians and hospitals are reimbursed more on the quality and the value of the care, and the efficiency that they provide. host: last call for david sloane of aarp. go ahead, guy, 49-and under. caller: i want to make up your comments about the whole health insurance debate. i want to say this to the american people -- we need to wake up and take a look at the whole notion and promise of having insurance coverage -- premise of having health insurance coverage. this is my approach, and i hope that other people think of this as a means for them. get rid of the insurance companies. you do not have coverage at all any way. with their systems of how they

discriminate against you for all kinds of different reasons, do don't really have insurance. listen, we need a not-for- profit organization to replace profiteering in the industry and get rid of it, period. guest: that is certainly a sentiment that people have in the debate. you have a range of opinion out there on how to deal with health issues. there are people who want single paper, those people who want strictly market-based solutions with no government involvement, which is one of the reasons it has been such a polarizing debate, are not things like the public option. i understand the sentiment. there are a lot of people who feel -- host: [unintelligible] guest: we have not endorsed any specific bill, but there are provisions, such as closing the doughnut hole, adding preventive

benefits without the copays to move more towards a system of prevention and well-care as opposed to secure, making insurance more affordable for younger members. the group of 7 million people you referred to earlier -- probably much larger now -- those were 2007 numbers -- of people 50-plus -- this is an important debate for us to have. we need to change the present system. it is unsustainable. despite the contentious issues out there, congress has got to sort through these things and move the country forward. it is an important opportunity and people should pay close attention. host: david sloan, aarp, thank you very much. that is the end of "washington journal." this sunday is book tv's "