wanted to scale it back, handing president obama a very big opening politically. >> now is not the time to double your interest rates on student loans. michelle and i, we've been in your shoes. we only finished paying off our student loans about eight years ago. americans now own more on their student loans than they do on their credit cards. student loans. student loans. student loans. let's give those student loans directly to students. can i get an amen? >> yeah! >> that as a campaign drum beat, mitt romney quickly said he fully supports extending the loan program and house republicans got on board. but the bill they passed today is paid for by eliminating preventative care funding in the health care reform act. house democrats wanted to tax oil companies. that's how they wanted to pay for it. some members, minority leader nancy pelosi and others, also calling the gop funding plan another attack on women. >> what the majority would do today with taking the funds here instead of taking it from special interests and closing corporate loopholes was to just pile on on that assault on women's health care. >> well, a short time later, house speaker john boehner erupted. >> people want to politicize this because it's an election year. but, my god, do we have to fight about everything? and now, now we're going to have a fight over women's health. give me a break. you know, this is the -- this is the latest plank in the so-called war on women. entirely created -- entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain. >> so keeping 'em honest on this issue, who's right? well, we looked at what the house bill eliminates. it's called the prevention and public health fund. about $1 billion this budget year. the categories include tobacco prevention,ive screening, nutrition programs, hospital and infection control, immunization, increases in the number of doctors and doctors' training, but no line items for things like mammograms, pap smears, prenatal care, any other specific women's health issues with the exception of breast-feeding. and congresswoman maloney, who you'll hear from in a moment, says cutting the prevention fund would, in fact, broadly affect women's health. >> it's interesting that the fund they keep going back to is one that particularly benefits, it benefits men too, but it particularly benefits the reproductive health care, childbearing health care, preventative health care that is so necessary to women. >> she's saying it is particularly about reproductive health care, child health care. again, you're going to hear more from congresswoman maloney in a moment about the facts she's using to support that claim. we found a report from the cdc says that low-income women would be affected. but currently those programs are scheduled to come into the prevention fund next year. keeping 'em honest, that's only about two-tenths of 1% of the $1 billion fund. it's a tiny, tiny fraction. does add up to war on women? the cuts are drastic, they do a lot of them, none of them especially good for public health. that's not the argument. but do they target women specifically as the democrats are now saying and attacking the republicans on? and the evidence doesn't seem to support that. there's also this. how democrats who now oppose the cuts didn't always consider the prevention fund off-limits. keeping 'em honest, they agreed to use some of the fund to pay for an extension of the payroll tax cut earlier this year. and when minority leader pelosi was asked why it was okay then but not okay now, she answered, and i quote, good question, and all the more reason why we shouldn't be taking any more money out of it. she went on to say, she didn't favor doing it then, but it was the only way to get the tax cut done. i spoke with one of her caucus members, carolyn maloney, just minutes before airtime. congressman maloney, you and nancy pelosi are portraying this move to take money from the health fund as another example of an assault on women's health care. you said this fund "particularly benefits the reproductive health care, child care, and health care that benefits women." but this increases the number of doctors, suicide prevention, anti-smoking efforts, alzheimer's education, eveffort against hiv, obesity, hepatitis, cancer. it doesn't seem like it benefits any one group in particular, men, women, children. how can you claim that is specifically an assault on women's health? >> well, women depend very much -- a big part of it is preventative health care for cancers. breast cancer screenings, pap smears, all types of screenings for women. >> but that's actually not true, though. i mean, it's actually a tiny percentage is on breast cancer and cervical cancer. it's 0.23%. >> well, the immunizations for children, that's important for families. and women are concerned about their husbands too that are getting a benefit from hit. the preventative health care program is important for men, women, children, americans that can access it and can benefit from it. >> i'm not arguing that, but you are portraying it and nancy pelosi is portraying it particularly as an assault on women's health, something you're saying the republicans have done a lot of. if you're saying that women worry about their husbands and therefore that's how it's an assault on women, that doesn't really seem to hold up. >> well, the main point is that we moved today to preserve the interest rates and kept them from doubling. on july 1st, they would have doubled. so we were taking care of that portion of the program. we should have worked together to get a pay-for that both the republicans and democrats agreed on. the democrats supported a pay-for that would cut the subsidies to big oil. the republicans had a pay-for that would cut the preventative health care and public health care program that benefits thousands and thousands, millions of americans, and that president obama expressly said that he would veto it if they cut this particular program. >> right. >> so if they were serious about moving forward and taking care of this, and preserving the student loans, then they would have worked to find common ground for a pay-for that we both agreed on, instead of pursuing one that they had a veto threat from the president of the united states. >> but republicans are saying, look, you and nancy pelosi and other democrats are trying to trump up this idea of an assault on women, and you're doing it, in particular, on this issue, when, in fact, the facts don't back it up. i mean, isn't this about politics. you want to portray the republicans as having an assault on women. you, in fact, voted in favor of doing this exact same thing to this preventative health care fund earlier this year. you voted in favor of extending the payroll tax cut and nearly $5 billion was taken from the prevention fund. >> that was a very, very unfortunate and all the more reason that we should not go back and cut this fund now. >> right, but when you did that. when you voted for money to be taken out of this fund earlier this year, you didn't say, this is -- i'm doing this and it's an assault on women. but now when the republicans want to do it, you're saying it's an assault on women. isn't that basically just about politics? >> well, anderson, i think it's political for the republicans. they certainly changed their tactics, but not their hearts. >> so the republicans are the only ones involved in politics? my question is -- >> let's just take women out of it. let's take women out of it and look at student loans. >> but you're not taking women out of it. you're saying this is about women. >> -- student loans for the people that need them, the 7 million families that need them. if they were serious about continuing these student loans and not raising the interest rates, they would have worked with us on a common ground pay-for. >> but with all due respect, republicans are saying -- they can say the exact same thing about you, that if you're serious about making a compromise, don't politicize this and say -- attack the republicans saying this is a war against women, when it doesn't seem like there's evidence to back it up. i'm just wondering. do you feel it really is an assault on women to cut money from this -- i'm not saying whether -- it obviously is not good for anybody, for preventive health care to be cut, but how can you say it's an assault on women? >> well, i do believe that if you look at what is happening in state houses, on the floor of congress, in the senate, and in the house, there are movements to roll back gains that we've had in choice, and in some cases, even access to contraceptives. but that issue is a real and it is strong. there is an 18-point gender gap that i believe the republicans have worked very hard to achieve. and that has been efforts to roll back gains that women have had. we've had in the statehouses, one statehouse, the governor said he would not enforce spare pay. we have others who have called it a nuisance. we know many voters didn't vote for the lily ledbetter fair pay act. we know there have been many efforts with ballot initiatives to roll back in some cases even access to contraceptives. i think that is a move in the wrong direction. i don't think that it's helpful to women. and i think women are seeing it. >> right, but -- >> and they will be taking their distrust into the ballot box on it. >> this is clearly an issue democrats feel that they have an advantage on, but aren't you politicizing it all the more by doing something when they're taking money from the preventative health care act or want to, by saying it's an assault on women? portraying it like that, and just the facts don't back that up. >> well, i would say that women and families care a great deal about preventative health care. >> but men do as well. so do children, so do old people. >> the republicans are politicizing it by calling the -- >> so no democrats are politicizing it? >> anderson, i believe they're politicizing it by call a slush fund. >> will you acknowledge that democrats are -- >> i do not think that many families who need these health care services would consider it a slush fund. >> so republicans are the only ones who are politicizing it. >> i don't car access to health care silly. i don't consider having access to preventative health measures for both men and women and children silly and i do not consider it a slush fund. so who is politicizing it. >> but congresswoman, no one ever acknowledges that their side also politicizing things, and you seem unwilling to do that as well. you say republicans are politicizing. i want you to ask you one more time. are democrats at all politicizing this? >> i believe very strong, anderson, that we should have been cutting the subsidies to big oil. that big oil should not have been protected. that families should have been more protected and that the preventative health care program should have been protected. but that's a difference in values. that's a difference in priorities. i believe this is an important program. the president does too. and when you get a veto threat, you know that you are not getting a solution. they should have come back and worked with us on a common ground compromise for the pay-for. >> it was the president, though, who opened up the idea of taking money from this fund earlier this year to pay for payroll tax, which is also what you voted for. >> he felt that was very important and i did too, to give working families a pay cut. and it was also a way to move money back into the economy, to help with the recovery. i think that was an important priority also. >> but if the republicans had said that was a war on women by the democrats, would that have been accurate? >> pardon me? >> if the republicans say, that was an attempt of the democrats to have an assault on women, would that have been accurate back then during the payroll tax? >> well, i don't think i called it an assault on women. >> no, you're saying it is now, when the republicans are doing it. but when you did it, it wasn't. >> i'm saying vote by vote, insult by insult, women are looking at a whole range of things that are happening to them. and this one, i believe, was the wrong value, the wrong priority. we should have looked for another pay-for. what's wrong with cutting the subsidy to big oil? what's so wrong -- why are they so coddled and protected? why are they a protected special interest more than the health care that's provided to the men and the women and the children, male and female, in this country? >> congressman carolyn maloney, appreciate your perspective. thank you. >> thank you. >> more now with david gurden and candy crowley. david, i don't want people to suddenly tweet me saying i am for cutting this. i don't take positions one way or the other on cutting preventative health care. but my issue is, they are portraying -- democrats are trying to portray this as part of an assault on women's health care and the facts don't back that up when you look at how the money is spent. do you think it's going to fly, this argument, whether there has been an assault on women's health care? >> this argument won't fly, anderson. in the past, democrat have said right to go to the barricades, to protect women's health, contraception and the like, and they've had a majority of voters behind them. but on this one, it appears to be very much a trumped up charge. after all, as you pointed out, the president of the united states himself asked to cut money from this fund in order to pay for the payroll tax. democrats wanted to cut money from this fund. that fund clearly has been identified as democrats as one that is not a compelling interest for the country. they're willing to cut it. they've been willing to cut it in the past. to turn around now and go down this road and charge it as an assault on health only diminishes the force of their arguments on other things where they've been right. >> candy, you interviewed house speaker john boehner today. he's digging in saying, overall there's no war on women. that the president is the one who politicized student loans. who has the upper hand right now and where does this debate go? >> i think the guy with the biggest microphone, which is actually president obama, because he can command it wherever he goes. i mean, look, he kicked this off with that sweep through swing states at college universities, very important voting demographic, younger folks, talking about these student loans. listen, it's going to happen. they are not going to raise the interest rates on college loans. they will get this worked out. i don't know if they will end up taking money out of this health care fund. speaker boehner did leave open the possibility. he said, well, look, the senate hasn't said yet what they want to do or where they want to get the money, so let's just see how this goes. but they really believe, and you heard him, he was quite voe s r vociferous on the subject that this is a lousy trumped up political charge and pointed out, as you did, that not only did the president sign legislation that took money out of this fund before, but almost 150 democrats voted for it. so they have -- the look, it is hard to do a scale these days on the house floor or any place else. we're in full swing now, full tilt politically. >> david, is that what this is about? that this is the run-up to the elections and everything now becomes politicized and scoring points? >> you know, it's hard to believe things could become anymore politicized than they were a year ago, but they are being overly politicized. i think the president scored points on the student loan issue. that's why john boehner rushed this bill to the floor and protected republicans. they voted to freeze the student loans, and i think that will go through. but on this assault on women, i think the democrats have stumbled on this one. what it does underscore, anderson is, we are going to be hot and heavy politics right through the elections, on the house floor, as well as out on the hustings. >> but polls show, candy, though, that -- i mean, the democrats have a big lead in terms of, in this perception of being pro-women. >> yes. they have a very large gap. i think the last time i saw it, it was about 18% more women prefer president obama to mitt romney. >> i didn't phrase that question very well. >> there is time to, you know, to make that up, certainly. but this has always been a hard climb for republicans. they've always done better among males than among females. so they have to narrow that gap. they don't necessarily have to win it. but they certainly have to narrow it. and the president has been very gad on this score, for women voters, and that's most voters, the president has been the choice of more than mitt romney. >> david, very briefly, do you want to get in? >> president obama will win the women's vote or democrats have won the last five elections winning the women's vote. but as candy says, the issue is, how big's the margin? >> david gergen and candy crowley, i thank you for being on tonight. candy's guest this sunday on our program, "state of the union," is house speaker john boehner. you can catch it sunday morning, 9:00 eastern, at noon. we're talking about this on twitter right n now @andersoncooper. a big court day in the trayvon martin case. it was revealed on this program last night that the defendant george zimmerman isn't as poor as his lawyer claimed at the bond hearing. we'll talk to a martin family attorney next to see if he thinks that should change the status of george zimmerman, out right now on bond. and a case in florida where the stand your ground law did not work that well for the defense. i'm an expert on softball. and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you. massmutual is owned by our policyholders so they matter most to us. massmutual. we'll help you get there. species of endangeredseveral animals on that bus. but the priceline negotiator saved them all. animal handler:except for joffrey. but he did save me a ton of money. interviewer: how's that? animal handler: that was the day he told us all about priceline... ...it has thousands and thousands of hotels on sale every day. so i can choose the perfect one without bidding. joffrey would have loved this. wouldn't you joffrey? [♪...] >> announcer: with nothing but his computer, an identity thief is able to use your information to open a bank account in order to make your money his money. [whoosh, clang] you need lifelock, the only identity theft protection company that now monitors bank accounts for takeover fraud. lifelock: relentlessly protecting your identity. call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today. [ male announcer ] you are a business pro. monarch of marketing analysis. with the ability to improve roi through seo all by cob. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle... and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. i'm going b-i-g. [ male announcer ] good choice business pro. good choice. go national. go like a pro. welcome back. news we broke last night on this program was the focus in today's hearing of the george zimmerman's case. prosecutors asked the judge to raise zimmerman's bond in light of the fact that it the turns out he was $204,000 that he's raised online from supporters. money that his lawyer, mark o'mara, revealed on this program last night. how much money, specifically, to your knowledge, has been raised by george zimmerman and his supporters? >> well, my understanding, there were two accounts, one with about 700, and one with