of work shops. we need to improve our understanding of physical and financial market linkaging and want to continue toagencies to improve both the data in this area, a lot of our admission and analysis in the area. so i want to relate that's a serious commitment. i know that the, i guess the nominee to be administrator has been before this committee recently. he's very interested in this. he has great expertise in this area. i think it will help us get more traction in this area, but this is not something we are ignoring, and certainly eia has never said, k or something. that is not our position. so i really appreciate you bringing up the issue. it's a critical issue authat. i'm not disrespecting that issue way. i do think the standard of proof that people apply does vary. i think what's important is to

just get more evidence, and >> . >> i think that the financialization of commodity markets which you're describe hag been quite 2005. so it is really important to understand a it affects the oil market. in terms of facts on the ground,s that general agreement there's a premium kindprium and want to say, it isn't all iran. i mean what is unique about thi only the tension, but it's.at government, the policy of europe is to drive the market, and drive a million, maybe more, barrels out of the market in a very tight market. and so the second factor is that we have a very tight market anywayit does in its tightness remind me of 2005. it reminds me of the eve of the. it's kind of that type.

and we were using a number of 750,000 barrels a day of other outages. i noticed paul's number is even higher. closer to 1 million barrel as day of sort of above average. so it's iran, butcoerns there a policy of what's going t happening before or after the end of june, but at the other hand, it's also that this is all occurring in a rather tight market to begin with. so that's certainly part of it. >> there a time when dr. yergin didn't highlight additional issues in my judgment on this question and without keeping you here all afternoon, i would just note that saudi arabia has 2.5 million barrels a day of capacity. they're now engaged in a major drilling program to expand their capacity. reuters is reporting they'll have 140 drill rigs operating in saudi arabia. so this conversation is obviously going to be continued

on the question of capacity, on theue speculation, but i want the four of you to walk out of here with a request from me that i would be very appreciative if you would analyze those three studies. the goldman sachs analysis, the consumer federation of america, and we can certainly get you the testimony that led the exxon mobile ceo to offer the judgment of speculation that increased the price a barrel of oil by $20, and i would like to hear from you four recognized authorit whether you think those three studies are off base, because i'm stipulating to the fact that i think iran's a tipulate trying almost daily what's happeningnc

hard to walk away from these judgments from three people who have spent a conra of whom conc there is a significant speculation premium. so the door is going to be open to you, and would be very interested in your reaction. gentlemen, if you have something you feel strongly about, i'll let you offer it, and, otherwise i think we've got to wrap this up. >> on that, i would be very happy to get with all three of those organizations on that point, because i believe they're wrong. have ot the drift on that the impression that those views represent the majority of views or the ken senconsensus among o faulty analysis. >> that's why you are being welcomed to show us li saeos ar.

all right. gentlemen, we thank you. you've been very patient through a morning that's been hic andar. with that the energy committee is adjourned. and, oh. information, all member, all questions and additional statements from toy' by 5:00 p. march 30th. we are adjourned.

so that wraps up the senate manager committee hearing looking at gas prices. the topic of conversation on capitol hill on the senate floor and down the street at the white house today. the senate at few minutes ago in a procedural vote blocked appeal on a tax break for oil and tax companies. that's on our companion network

also the president weighed in on the subject earlier today making remarks from the rose garden. he urged lawma tose l and gas c breaks. the psi ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> thank you very much. seat. sorry we're running just a little bit b it's a great day to enjoy the rose garden.

todaysimp choice to make. they can stand with the big oil with the american people. right now the biggest oil companies are in record profits. profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station. but on top of these record profs, billions a year. billions a year in taxpayers enjoyed year after year for the last century. twice. preum at.peop at the pump right now, and on top of that, congress, up poi, a good idea to send billion more

to the oil companies. it's not as if these con.ie last year the three biggest u.s. oil companies took home more an exxon pocketed nearly$4.7 million every hour, and when the price of oil goes up, the prices at the pump go do these companies' profits. in fact, one shows every time gas goes up by a penny, these companies usually pocket another $200 million in quarterly profits. meanwhile, these companies pay companies on their investments. partly because we're billions in tax giveaways every year. i want to make clear. we all know that drilling for oil has to be a key part of our

we want u.s. oil companies to be doing well. we want them to succeed. that's in my administration we've opened up land to oil and quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. we've added enough oil and gas d then some and just yesterday announcing add new step for oil and gas exploration in the atlantic. the fact is we're producing more oil right now than we have in eight years and importing less of it as well. for two years in a row america has bought less oil from other countries than we produce here at home. for the first time in over a decade. the oil industry is doing just fine. rord profits and rising

production, i'm not worried about the big oil companies. with high oil prices around the world. they've got more than incentive to produce even more oil. that's why i think it's time they got by without more help from having a tough enough time paying the bills and filling up their gas tank and i think it's curious that some folks in congress were to belittle investments in new sources of energy are the once fighting the hardest to maintain these giveaways for the oil companies. instead of taer been more profitable, we should be using that money to double down on investments in clean energy technologies that have nerve are been more promising. power and biofuels. investments in fuel-efficient cars and trucks.

and energy-efficient homes and buildings. that's the future. that's the only way we're going to break this cycle of high gas prices that happen year after year after year, as the economy. the only time you start seeing lower gas prices is when the economy is doing badly. that's not the kind of pattern that we want to be in. we want the economy doing well, and people to be able to afford their energy costs. can't just drill our way out of this problem. as i said, oil production here in the united states is doing very well. and it's been doing well even as gas prices are going up. well, the reason is because we use more than 20% of the world's oil, but we only have 2% of the world's known oil reserves. every drop of american oil to to buy

from other countries to make up the difference. we'd still have to depend on other countries to meet o becaua world market, the fact that we're doing more here in the united state necessarily help us, because even u.s. oil company, they're selling that oil on a market. they're not keeping it just for us. and that means that if there's rising demand around thethenhe up. that's not the future that i want for america. i want folks -- like these, back here, and the folks in front of me -- to have to pay more at the pump every time there's some unrest in the middle east and allher there's going to be enough supply. i don't want other kids to be held hostage to events on the other side of the d. ctrol our destiny. i want us to forge our own

future. that's why as long as i'm president, ameri g pursue an all of the above energy strategy, whi we will continue developing our oil and gas resources, i but it also means that we're going to keep developing more advanced homegrown biofuels. the kinds already powering truck fleets across america. we're going to keep clean energy, like the wind and solar power already lighting thousands of homes and creating hi tos of jobs. keep manufacturingtrucks to get gallon so you can fill up once every two weeks instead of every week. we're going to keep building more homes waste less energy, so that you're in charge of your own energy bills. all of this by harnessing our most inexhaustible resource. american ingenuity and american imagination. that's what we need to keep

going. that's what's at stakenow. that's the choice that we face. and that's the choice that's facing congress today. they can either vote t dollars in the past, or they can taxpay that aren't needed to boost oil future. it's that simple. as longi' betting on the future. and as the people i've talked to around the country, including here today, they put their faith in the future as well. that's what we do at ic we are. we innovate, discover, seek new challenges and ultimately, because we stick with it, we succeed. and i believe that we're going to do thatle a going to be watching congress to see if they have that same

faith. thank you very much, everybody. ♪ president obama a bit earlier this morning in the rose garden of the white house. shortly after the president spokes senate in a procedural vote blocked that bill that would repeal tax breaks for oil and gas companies. also today on capitol hill, the house passing a 90-day extension of surface transportation programs. the vote in the house was

266-158. that bill now makes its way to our capitol hill correspondents report that they expect the senate will accede to t>>more lu about coming up. joining you in about a half hour at 12:45 eastern, for federal reserve chairman ben bernanke teaching a class today at george washington university, and we'll have it live for you right here on c-span3. later, a series of panel discussions looking at the role of women in the 2012 elections. that's hosted by a group called the feminist majority. and they get underway live at 2:30 p.m. we'll also have that right here on c-span3. more about energy policy now with the chairman of the senate energy committee from today's this runs about a half hour. we want to welcome democrat of new mexico, member of the energy natural resources committee. the chair of that committee. centering on energy issues but let's begin wit news of the day. the supreme court oral

arguments. have you had a chance to listen to 6.5 hours of what transpired? >> didn't hear the full 6.5 hours. tried to follow the news on it but i wasn't at the hearing. >> as you look at what the judges are going to have to look at, the justices, how do you think they'll come down on it? >> well i don't know. i certainly hope they uphold the law. it certainly seemed to me it was constitutional when we were enacting the law, and i didn't hear anything during the three days of argument that persuaded me there was any serious problem with the constitutionality of the law. a lot of the discussion did go to the merits and whether or not something was a good idea or not. that was the kind of thing we debated for many months in the congress, and i think the congress is the right place to have those issues debated. >> we've been asking the question this morning, was this the intent fathers, as we've had these three branches of government coming at this intersection on

the issue of health care? >> clearly, cleeat least the war government evolved, the constitution needs to be enforced but i this it would be a stretch to conclude that the constitution requires them to invalidate ts or any part of this health care law. i don't see -- to me real stretch. there's no real precedent nofor that that i can see. >> two points talked about. str individual mandate, strike that out of the law, do you then nullify the entire bill? de a ll, the bill is a very great many provisions that have nothing to do with an individual mandate, and which are not even being challenged, as i understand it. to say tha the -- the native

american health care improvement act, which we reauthorized as part of this overall 2,700-page bill should not be reauthorized because of some problem with the mandate, i just can't understand the logic of that. so to my mind, if they did conclude there was a problem with the, with the mandate, then they should strike that down, leave it to congress to figure out what to do at that point, but they certainly shouldn't invalidate the rest of the law. the issue of n medicaid and a point coercion. that a form of coercion. i want you to listen to what br questioned attorney clement on medicaid expansion under the health care bill. >> if congress wants to do what it did in 1972 and pa as statute that makes the expansion voluntary, every state that thinks that this is a great deal

can sign up. what's telling here, though, is 26 states who think that this is a bad deal for them actually are also saying that they have no choice but to take this, because they can't afford to have their entire participation in this 45-year-old program wiped out, and they have to go back to fig they're going to deal with the visually impaired, disabled in their state -- >> i didn't take the time to figure this out. maybe you did. 26 states opposing it have republican goves of the states supporting it have democrat governors? is that possible? >> it's a correlation, justice. >> yes. >> senatreaction? >> well, again, i just don't see some of the justices seem to think is there. i mean, you can argue about whether congress should allow

states to opt in or opt out of this new coverage, but to suggest that congress doesn't have the authority to go ahead and say, look, we'reyou're goin everybody up to within, income up to 133% of poverty, which is what we did in the law, and that will be increased coverage that the federal government will pay 100% of for the first three years and will pay 90 indefinitely, but to me that's a very good deal. i don't, frankly, understand why the states don't also have some concern for providing that health care to their own citizens. i mean, why -- why are they looking at this kind of -- some kind of terrible requirement that the federal government's putting on them to pay up to 10% of the cost of health care for their own citizens in the state? it's -- to me, it's -- it's an

argument that just -- it doesn't really merit a lot of consideration by the supreme court. >> our conversation is with mexico. the senator will be with us another half hour to take your calls and comments. our phone lines are open. join us on our facebook page or website. one of the point on health care, how the republican national committee is framing the debate based on an opening minute before the u.s. supreme court on monday. >> 11398, department of health and human service versus florida. >> more than 80% of americans, the insurance system does provide effective access. excuse me. because the -- the -- excuse me.

>> so this into, has been and will be a political issue in 2012. >> there's no question that there's been a lot of rhetoric in opposition to this legislation, and a lot of the public is persuaded that it's not a good thing to have done, but my own strong view is that, that it is a good thing for the country. we've got 50 million people without health care coverage today. in country. and this is a way to reverse that trend, and begin to provide coverage for everyone legally in this country and i think -- you know, within the law and congress should be back faults. instead we're engaged in this

argument about the constitutionality of it. >> is the chair of the energy and natural resources committee, let me ask you two related questions. first of all the president's approach is in all of the above, getting a lot of criticism from democrat, from republicans saying he's not doing enough drilling and making us more dependent on foreign oil.>> thi president's right, that the amount of production of oil in this country has increased during the time he's been president. it is higher today than it's been in over eight years in this country. >> but on that argument, many say that began under the bush administration. this is really an extension of drilling permitted late in the bush admtr over and that president obama was not responsible for that? >> no question the bush administration expanded leasing so that drilling has occurred as a result of that, but the obama administration has expanded leasing as well. they announced a couple of weeks

ago that they're going to open another 38 million acres for leasing in the central and western gulf of mexico. in addition to all the other lease sales that they have had. so there has been increased production on federal land, on the offshore, in the onshore. there's been increased production on private land. and the truth is, the price of greene which is what people are really worried about, the price of gasoline does not correlate with the level of production that we have in this country, because the price of gasoline correlates with the price of oil of the world marketant and headline from "usa today" that surprise now averaging above $4 a gal ain cross the country. >> right. and it's a terrible burden on c and a terrible burden on our economy. so i hope -- i hope the geopolitical situation can resolve itself in a way that

allows that world price of oil to come back down, and then, of course, we will see lower prices for gasoline at the pump when that occurs. >> also this week we learned from lisa jackson, the epa director coming up with new guidelines for the coal plants. the story is in the "new york times" yesterday. her recommendations would limit carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants to about 1,000 pounds per m oawthe story in tht paragraph of the "new york times." the obama administrational proposed rule to control power plants, first of, would go far towards closing out an era of old-fashioned, gener. your thought? >> the proposed rule as i understand it is a step in the right direction. it doesn't apply to existing power plants. it doesn't apply to plant that is permitted any time within the next year, but it says that after that, if -- if a

company waoto configure it in such a way that they don't have more emissions than this 1,000 pounds per megawatt hour of electricity produced. i think that's a reasonable way to begin reducing the greenhouse emits from our various xide power plants. >> so when you say reasonable, is it something that republicans would support? >> well, again, you know, the rhetoric i've heard so far is that they're strongly opposed. this is the end of the world. if we were to limit the emissions from these coal fired power plants in the future, but to my mind, the real question is, what are we going the exist power plants? that's the real issue. we need to find a way to reduce emissions in those plants, and encourage utilities to >> our first call is mike

joining us from virginia. good morning, republican line. >> caller: good morning. talking about the founding fathers a little bit. >> we certainly can. >> caller: okay. first of all, the founding fathers would cringe at what's happening right now with the health care bill. they gave us a constitution that limits the federal government. it limits the -- the powers of the federal government in 18 specific ways. it does not seek to increase the power of the federal government in any way, shape or form, but what's happened down through the years is that every time we have seen several government actions in a way that the common good, it assumes more power for itself every time it assumes more responsibility. >> uh-huh. >> caller: this is not what the founding fathers had in mind. secondly i want to address the neem have called about the compromise and continue to say that the foun