the defense budget is under great stress. we're looking to save money wherever -- >> we leave thus hearing on cyber and strategic security for live coverage now of events surrounding the supreme court's deliberations over the nation's health care law. you can see the rest of the cyber and strategic hearing on our website. go to c-span.org. pictures outside of the supreme court now where demonstrations have continued since yesterday. our studio coverage begins with your calls and your e-mails. about 1:00 p.m., we'll bring you same-day audio of today's debate in the court. and c-span's live coverage of the supreme court's health care arguments continues. that's a live picture of the supreme court on your screen that is taken from the grounds of the capitol, which is right across 1st street from the

supreme court. we also have cameras up. we'll show you active think. you can see some of the live ak tickty going on. it's noon eastern time and the justices have concluded today's two-hour hearing on the individual mandate. now, the audio from today's hearing should be available in about an hour or so, and we will bring that to you immediately when available here on c-span3 and on c-span.org. but in the meantime, we want to show you live sights and sounds from the capitol, take some of your phone calls and let you know how you can connect and let us know what you think about what you've seen today what you've heard today what you think about the fact that the supreme court is hearing three days of arguments on the health care bill. 202 is the area code. 737, ooo 1 for democrats to call in. 737, ooo 2 for republicans and 628, 0205 for independents. now, you can also contact us

electronically. you were send a tweet to c-span, that so is our handle. no high offen in cspan in that case or add pound cspan, and if you'd like to vote in a poll, go to facebook. facebook.com/ cspan, again no hyphen in c-span in this case. so @cspan.org/healthcare on our website you'll find all sorts of information and issues before the supreme court plus links to each day's oral argument when they become available. so we've already got yesterday's up there at c-span.org and in about an hour or so today's transcripts should be released. you can go to the website and see a lot of related activity as well. contact us electronically but we want to show you the sights and

sounds as the activity around the supreme court continues. we're going to begin taking your calls and start with a call from john in shreveport, louisiana. john, you're on c-span. >> caller: yes, sir. i would just like to comment that the obamacare supposedly that's being voted on is the biggest forcing on the american public. i'm 82 years old and never in the presidencies that i have lived through vie seen such a thing come about. home ownership is at risk. a lot of our liberties are at risk, and this is certainly one of them. forcing people to buy health care. we cannot afford it, and can never even think to buy health care if it wasn't for medicare/medicaid. i just -- i cannot tolerate something like this. i cannot. >> john, can i play devil's advocate for a minute. you said you're 82.

i presume you're on medicaid. is that correct? >> caller: yes, sir. >> do you think medicare is legal? >> caller: i think it is in that it was brought about by the government, but it's the choice of a person whether or not you sign up for it. you're not forced by a law. i don't have to have medicare -- health insurance, but it wasn't forced on us by the senator, a president or anyone else. it was put out there as an alternative. >> all right, john. thank you for calling in. now, as i mentioned earlier, the oral arguments have concludnee e lawyers and some of the spectators are coming down. there should be press conferences held by the lawyers. donald, a u.s. solicitor general and paul clement and michael carvin of the national

federation of independent business argued against the individual mandate. so we will bring those to you live, if the lawyers speak to the press outside the supreme court. next call, emma in washington, d.c. on our democrats' line. good afternoon, emma. >> caller: hi. how are you? >>good. >> caller: my comment basically deals with the stakeholders, and the stakeholders mainly are all consumers that are non-commercial, meaning the individual private citizens, those who are legal residents of the united states, that are in the health care market regardless i be, as long as there is a living individual and because we are mortals, no of anticipate exactly when he or she, whether it's an adult or child or ed health

care. and because of that, it is just an intrinsic right for individuals to have some form of national health care. it compels our federal government to take care of all its citizens and legal residents, and i understand that which a commercial side, from the supplier's side of this in the health care market, you're looking at the cause of what is going to occur if the patient protection affordable care act is fully enforced in 2014. what is going to be the financial ramifications for this? but we have to realize it's -- it's going to be necessary to have some form of rationed care, maybe, is what it's going to be, but -- >> are you supportive of that,

emma? >> caller: i am support ib of some sort of rational, of rationed health care, and unfortunately, when it's at a rationed level, in that exchange system, which is going to occur in 2014, the rationed health care is going to be better than no health care at all. >> and we'll leave it there. emma from washington, d.c. on our democrats' line. live pictures from outside the supreme court, and of the supreme court on your screen. you can see people are coming down the steps from the supreme court. we are anticipating that the lawyers in today's case will be pa ki live if that happens. in the meantime, we want to hear your views on this supreme court six-hour argument on health care. tom in laurel, maryland, on our republican line. c-span. >> caller: hi. good morning.

>> hi. >> caller: one thing when they first came out with, you know, discussing the bill, beforeh passed it, there's two things that seemed, well, kind of common sense to me when i was listening to it. one is they were talking about, i don't know, somewhere in the neighbod 30 million to 40 million new people without insurance would not be insured. one of the problems with health care insurance, especially where i worked and the people i speak with is that when they pay for insurance, or even if it's employee provided, it seems like we kind of have drifted into an area where people want to get their money's worth. the other day, or ao i d a cold were ingretsch louse that i didn't go to the doctor and get antibiotics for my cold. it's a cold. now if you get 30 million or 40 million people now paying into the system, i can see how they would want to get their money's

worth and basically spend a whole lot of time getting health care, perhaps -- not necessarily health care and driving up the costs. i know there's going to be some efficiencies i heard you know, if you do a large, you know -- you know, national health care, but i don't know if that's going to cover the extra costs, and if it doesn't, how are they going to keep costs down j? i would think they would have to do as the previo ration health care, or go into an area that i'm very concerned about, and that is mandating prevention. you hear a lot of people talk about you know, well, if we prevent -- if prevention, we can hold down costs. well, you know, i'm not sure if i want the government telling me what i can eat or, you know, i have mandatory -- i have to come in for checkups. and it might even get to the point where people get fined for

not keeping a certain body mass ratio. you know, i'm just saying, it opens up the door for a whole lot of things and i'm not really prepared to deal with. >> we got the point. we appreciate it nap was tom in laurel, maryland, on our republican line. a little earlier on the screen you might have seen senator john kerry coming out of the court. he must have gotten one of the seats for this argument, about 400 seats in the supreme court, and they've been -- averaging about 66 seats for the line sitters, if you watched the "washington journal" this morning you saw where the line sitters, the people waiting in line to get in, were being given red tickets to hear today's argument. thomas shipman tweets in, only way the affordable care act will work is with the individual mandate. if insurance companies only insure the sick, rates would go up or bankruptcy. and next call comes from a

democrat in charlotte, north carolina. james, you're on c-span. please, go ahead with your thoughts. >> caller: good afternoon to you. >> hi. >> caller: like i said, first of all, i am in full support of the health care mandate, in the absence of single payer. that's what i would like to have ultimately, but i'm in support of it, but i'd like to give my -- >> james, i'm going to put you on hold one second. don't go away now. we want to show awe press conference going on. senator schumer is talking about the court case bp here she on the capitol lawn. >> -- fromhe act. an excerpt from the senate republicans' health care proposal from 1993. the concept of an individual mandate was first floated conservative heritage foundation. it was taken up by conservative republicans as an alternative to

the universal health bill proposed by president clinton. senators grassley, hatch and lugar were co-sponsors as was then senate majority leader bob dole and countless other republicans had mandate in recent years. in 2009, senator grassley did. in 2007, senate -- >> and you'll be able to see all of that later. here's michael carvin of the nfib, one of the lawyers who just came out of the court now. >> -- hopeful the court will do the right thing and strike down the individual mandate. anything else? >> how do you feel about the arguments today? >> as i said, i think obviously all the justices were very informed and very active. i think their questions went right to the heart of the matter since i think we've got basic and better first principle responses. i'm hoping that that will carry the day when they write the opinion. >> did anything surprise you? >> no. i think both sides pretty much staked out their positions in the briefing and the prior

arguments, and obviously, a new level of sophistication in digging by the individual justices, but i think the issues before, and i think they were adequately addressed in the argument. >> anything in the courtroom there give you thoughts one way or the other how it's going? >> i never make predictions. >> do i introduce -- i. want to also introduce to you, i run nifbs small business center and one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. he is a business owner from west virginia. step up to the mike here. >> anybody have any questions? i was real happy with the way things went in in. it seemed to -- it seemed to stay simple and there was a lot of conversation. it seemed like everything went well. we're real pleased with it. >> why does it -- >> pardon me? >> why is it important for you to --

>> because it directly affects, we're a self-proprietorship in a small community and it would put us in an added tax that would actually put us out of business. >> can you expand on that? about putting small businesses -- >> sure. we run a retail floor covering store in a community way population of 383. there's not a whole lot of revenue to spend on things that we don't deem necessary. >> how many employees do you have? >> i myself, am prioritier. >> and if you were in a car accident on the way home, what happens? >> my auto insurance coves me for that and as far as medical goes, i don't go -- uncovered. i built a, an emergency n resou

pay for it. i made provisions to take care of my health. i go to the dentist three time as year. i see the doctor when i need it and go to the hospital when i need to. i just take my checkbook with me. >> this would affect millions of people. why is it bad for america, aside from your own positions? >> well, really, what it comes down to is what america do you want? a socialized one or a free one? >> is there any question -- >> pardon me? >> it's that simple? >> it is in my view. >> other questions? >> thank you. >> thank you all. >> great. >> yeah. it's michael carvin. with jones day.

and that was michael carvin of the national federation of independent more people to come out to the microphones and, yes, we will bring those to you live. as you know, all ofllse of thes statements will be rebroadcast in prime time tonight. so you'll be able to watch it there. go to c-span.org to figure out what exact time. we're just waiting on the house to finish its business so we don't know exactly what time, but it will be tonight on primetime. now, when the audiotranscripts are released from the supreme court in about an hour or so, those will be brought to you live here on c-span3.

or they'll be brought to you immediately on c-span3. so you'll be able to watch and listen. we will show justices who's talking. the plaintiffs, et james and charlotte, you have been very patient. i hope you're still there. >> caller: yes. >> go ahead, jame on the statement that last gich was making. i was wondering, god forbid he's flat on his back and can'tit to expects to take care of his health care then? moving on to my point. i was saying that i don't think that the supreme court is going to uphold the health care act, and my reasons are, first of all, it's money. by the insurance companies. i think that people should realize that all of the negativity and spin that has

been heaped against the act is, about money, and where money is involved in politics, generally, most of the time money wins out. >> james, ai apologize. we're going to leave it there. some of the states attorneys fr court now talking. >> only gave congress the power to regulate. distinguishing point. >> it's clear from the clouds, clear from the time the justices spent on this argument we are at a constitutional moment. a shift in the history of this country that will determine the size and scope, the intrusion of the federal governme g >> you said, kennedy said, concern about that. what's your reaction is are you concerned about what he had to say? >> meaning it gave me pause. up to that point, every justice kennedy had said, he indicated that he believed, in keeping

with his previousthisan a const overreach. what he said, you never know how thy vote and hesitate to do. i think they're trying to do positive reaction, and i think justices are going to decide this would be the greatest expansion of federal government in our history, and it would truly take away from our states rights and our rights as individuals. >> we are absolutely -- >> thank you. >> john suthers. lo nebraska. >> future united states senator. >> pam bonder, t.attorney gener,

florida. >> alan, south carolina. >> unofficial -- >> louisiana. from what the court said today that you have asked every private citizen who will be listening to this, you included all these cameras to buy insurance from a private insurance company and pay for it and repurchase it every month of your life from the time you are born until the time you die. and i believe this supreme court is realizing that's a bit much. >> regulating to say they -- t care -- [ inaudible ]. [ chanting ]

>> this is -- i don't think anybody disputes ttoy is a very and the comments, justice kennedy, we have every reason to be optimistic. that they're at least thinking of things the correct way. >> could you repeat -- >> the crowd -- >> encouragement. >> this is not about regulating health care. this is about regulating health care insurance. he was very specific when he made that comment, and when i care i'm talking about the politics of it. this is about the proper application of constitutional -- in this case the congress could have passed this law under the, solely under their tax authority. they went out of their way to say this wasn't a tax two years ag is a tax because it's constitutionally convenient. they sought to do this and just said, nowhere in the constitution does it giportunit.

only regulate it. it's different than having them voluntarily -- like growing medical marijuana or choosing to grow weed. entering into an activity. they're punishing someone for not doing anything. for inactivity and that has never been done before in history. >> do you think they changed their position on werther -- >> i think they're trying to walk back from their initial position, yes. >> do you think they did so logically? >> i don't think there's any logic to the government's position to begin with. >> do you think it's all right to argue both sides of this? >> no, i do not. >> any other justices -- [ inaudible ]. >> well, i'm hesitant to go ahead and predict which way the justices are going to go. i know that all of them yesterday had concerns about the definition of the tax and the anti-injunction act. i know justice kennedy made several comments that

fundamentally changes the relationship between individuals, american, and their government. and that is very telling. because that's the whole thing we've been trying to say. this is a game changer. this has never happened before, and justice roberts reinforced that when he said it doesn't matter if congress chooses to force people to buy karen insurance, burial insurance or engage in some other commodity. he said once we allow them the power to regulate the health insurance industry, and health care insurance, rather,stinnish. it's a slippery slope. that what's the whole point justice roberts was making's once they could do this they can't pick between other markets. they'll regulate all markets. >> a quick picture. >> stand up. stand up. >> thank you, general. >> thank you.

and our live coverage from outside the supreme court continues. you can see it looks really crowded when you see the state t. attorneys general down there and another side looks very crowded. another shot, looks like an empty supreme court with the staps and plauz spap there's the step, mrs. the plausz sa and then a rope and then the sidewalk. the sidewalk is only about 20 feet wide and that's where everyone la goathered. all the press contacts, all the activity in in this half a block area right in front of the supreme court. reich the right there it looks crowded. a couple hundred people are outside. we want to continue taking your calls on the supreme court health care case arguments. larry in rainham, massachusetts,

thanks for holding. you're on c-span, larry. >> caller: yeah. just a couple of quick points. i mean, people support this mandate by citing that you have to biautomobile insurance, that's a state matter, not a federal matter. that doesn't hold water in regards to this particular issue, but my real point is this. if i choose not to buy health insurance and then i go and i need doctor services that is a debt i owe that's no different than any other debt. credit card, mortgage, car payment, everything else. there are all kinds of systems in place for the cred ter to recoup that debt. okay? and like any other debt if someone can't afford to renay debt, well, there are remedies to address that as well. so i don't see this as any different than any other commercial process. the other thing i would say is that if you really want to

mandate anything they ought to mandate life insurance, because then i'm dead and there's no ability to get paid for me. so it doesn't make any sense to me that they would, you know, mandate, i can't incur debt while alive -- >> larry, we have to leave it there. a republican of utah is speak. >> -- insurance companies and come up with a stitch court laws that determines how meld malpractice suits operate. all of those drivers ar preachers of state regulation, not federal regulation. that's where the true comprehension hencive reform needs to oh kuccur, within the states. >> i tend to believe that many proposals for federal court reform are not appropriate for federal legislation. i did not vote, for instance, for the last reform for proposal

that came through the senate for that very reason. >> senator, the attorney general -- >> talking about justice kennedy the role. how do you think he was leaning based on the questions he was asking? >> based on the asked, hi demeanor, body language and facial expressions, in the wake of the answers to those questions, i think he wa was leaning towards the proposition that the individual mandate is unconstitutional nap it exceeds congress' power are under the commerce clause. that conclusion becomes even more compelling, i think. even more inevitable when you couple it with a review of his writingen on questions of structural federalism. >> what specific question was asked that -- >> he asked a number of questions asking what the limited principle exists in the event that the court were to constitutional what then would be beyond congress' power?

and that was significant. one of the opens questions he asked was, does the -- the commerce power include the power to compel people not engaged in commercial activity into commerce into interstate commerce? >> senator. >> yeah. >> having worked for alito, do you think there's anything that were, opposite what we would say about the position? the complexity, if we just say he's in the conservative camp is that too broad a thing to say, since you know him? >> well, i'm not sure i understand your question. >> do you think there's anything on this case that would be unpredictable in his position? since you know him? >> i certainly don't want to describe any gist is as predictable, because that doesn't -- yeah. it's not a word i can use to describe any justice. but based on his questions today and his demeanor in the courtroom, he seemed to me to be

somewhat -- not just somewhat but significantly skeptical of the argument that congress may compel people to purchase a specific kind of health insurance. >> what did you think about the -- they discussed timing. basically, as you know, the state said that, well, they agree you can compel people's insurance, but only at the point of sale and the government saying, well no. if you can't, we will -- >> a lot of the argument is focused on that. an argument that was relied on extensively and many of the members -- let me back up so we can get more people in. many of the members of the court that seemed sensitive to this also brought up that point in connection with their questions. >> right. kennedy did and so did roberts. >> yes. a lot of the justices on both