about the health care oral arguments before the supreme court and legislation on oil and gas industry taxes. after that, georgia congressman tom price on the republican 2013 budget proposal. plus, your e-mail, phone calls, and wheats -- tweets. >> good morning. the debate will focus on a spending plan and the highway bill. house republican plan led by paul ryan is expected to pass with republican support. the package would revamp medicare, cut domestic spending. senate democrats expected to kill this republican bill when it reaches the other side. meanwhile, saturday the deadline to pass a highway bill before federal funding expires. as of now, the senate and house

remain deadlocked. if no agreement on a way forward. there could be a short-term extension bill that would pass the house today. the leading republican candidates are focusing on next tuesday's's wisconsin primary. mitt romney receiving the endorsement of mark lobel biehl last night. former president george h. w. endorsingcially insourci romney. -- mitt romney receiving the endorsement of senator marco rubio. we want to focus on this historic week in washington. three days of oral arguments. asking the larger question, whether or not this was the intent of the founding fathers, the debate over health care, if the intersection between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. our phone lines are open, as always.

join the conversation on our facebook page. you can also send us a tweet. let's look at some of the morning papers on this thursday. roll call has this headline, which was one of the reasons we wanted to focus on this intersection of the three branches. meanwhile, from two leading newspapers --

and, finally, inside the new york times -- so, this question, with the debate over health care, is it what the founding fathers had in mind? take you inside the supreme court with some of the arguments

as attorney paul clement, a former solicitor general appointed by george w. bush, now the attorney for 26 states filing the suit against the president's health care law, had this to say. >> the way that exchanges are supposed to work and the tex-mex is clear, if they are supposed to provide a market where people can compare if computed -- community-rated insurance. >> in utah they function differently where there is no mandate, but they function. the question is always, does congress want half a loaf? on something like the exchanges, it seems a perfect example where half a loaf is better than no loaf./ the exchanges do something but not everything congress has envisioned. >> there are situations where half a loaf is worse. before i address that, if i could stick with the exchanges. i do think the question that this court is supposed to ask is

not just whether they can limp along and operate independently, but whether they operate in a manner congress intended. that is where the exchanges fall down. host: paul comment taking questions from elena kagan. -- paul clement. a lot of questions on our facebook page -- henry on the phone in houston, texas, democrat line joining in on this conversation on this thursday. good morning. caller: good morning. the whole thing is nothing but a sham. you have five republican judges and four democrats.

from the start this whole thing is a sham. 26 republican governors rammed down our throats like our governor, rick perry, and without representation from the people that really need these benefits. it is a sham. host: let me go to the question this morning, which is the larger issue of the constitution and what the founding fathers had in mind. do you think the debate this week will be seen as part of their intent? caller: no, it is just a bit about how they don't want to give benefits to the poor people. that is the bottom line. you have five republicans. this court is an arm of the republican party. host: thank you. cameras are not allowed, so the sketch artists have been busy all week focusing on what happens.

justices skeptical of the entire health care law -- jay on the phone in palm springs, florida, republican line. good morning. caller: >> i think c-span spoke with a teacher yesterday that said he was worried about the insurance on the children. i imagine that he is. i think the president gave that meant a waiver. he has a waiver and it's all paid by the taxpayers. he is probably were read about the children. all these people that make $90,000 and above, why not let them get in the same pool if they want everybody else in? the other thing is too many lobbyists have written these laws and the supreme court is having trouble choking them down. i think we ought to go to 1-term

president and 1-term congress and they cannot come back and forth or ever come again. that's what we should do in this country before you lose it. thanks very much. and we are losing c-span, because you cannot get an independent line anywhere on the west coast that i know of and you cannot get c-span 3. they don't want to carry it. it's not an option. you say go to c-span 3, come to california and you cannot get it or even ask for it. host: thank you. we are working on that issue. keep in mind, all of our programming available anytime on our website at c-span.org. we appreciate you getting up early and sharing your thoughts with us and being such a loyal viewers. let's go back to the issue of

the reach of the federal government and the issues that were raised this week before the u.s. supreme court. chief justice roberts extending the session yesterday afternoon to a total of 15.5 hours of oral arguments. all of it is available on our website. from the wall street journal --

those are the issues. his day and morning with the issue of severability, which means do you separate the entire contract or just take out parts of it. that was the issue taken up yesterday morning and. expansion of medicaid came up yesterday. kurt is joining us for moscow, tennessee, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. as a business owner, i cannot plan anything for the future as long as i know the federal government can overreached with this unconstitutional legislation. have decided what we can and cannot do and yet we don't even know what the rules are. really, this is a violation of the 10th amendment and violation

of the ninth amendment for individuals such as myself that would like to build a future. we have no idea what the government will do next. if they can have the authority by their own selves to appoint czars and things like this. obamacare rules that are so draconian that tell us how we can and cannot function, yet we don't know until after the fact. how are we going to plan anything for the future with the obama administration, knowing that they are going to take all of our rights away and give their union people waivers because those are donors to his administration? host: thanks for the call. from our twitter page --

the front page of the thursday washington post -- dale is on the phone on the democrat line, albuquerque, new mexico. good morning. caller: one thing about thomas is that he sat there to be days for 6 hours apiece and did not say anything. what is he getting paid for? and i think the founding fathers

would be proud of what just happened with this. this is kind of the way they envisioned it to work. unfortunately, the lawyers did a poor job because the justice system is supposed to interpret the laws not to make them -- not . so there really should not have the authority -- they real issue not have the authority to vote this thing down. it should be up to the people. i don't believe the justice department has the authority to vote this thing down. host: thanks for calling. this is also airing on c-span radio. whether or not the health care debate was the founding fathers is the question. the headline from "usa today" --

next is kevin from minneapolis. good morning. caller: thanks for c-span. one thing i was struck by, and i did listen to the majority of it, was that the conservative judges tend to look for the legal basis, the constitutional basis for this legislation, and i noticed the more local justices tend to look for justification but in the utility or the good outcome, the good that as opposed legislation would do. one thing i was struck by and very disappointed was the sloppiness of the legislation. it seems like they don't even pay attention to whether something is constitutional or not. just kind of put together haphazardly. host: thanks for the call. will from forest heights, maryland on the independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call.

you talked about the founding fathers' . ' the court has become so politicized, unfortunately. when you think about the original founding fathers, people of color were 3/5 human. i don't think it was a very inclusive document, although it has changed over the years. i go back to the premise, the court has become another political instrument. it will be a political court. it could be beneficial because it will prove for the third time that we have the court to rely on. host: thank you. you can find this in a number of stores on the web. steve counsel for the constitutional accountability center, a think tank and a law firm which focuses on the

constitution, here is her view -- you can find that online. now on our twitter page -- r question, and was this health care debate the intent of the founding fathers? here's a headline from the new york post --

on the democrat line from new jersey. lisa is on the phone, good morning. caller: good morning. the sole purpose and reason for forming a government for our nation was for the general welfare of its people. i cannot think of anything more important than health care, because that is a matter of life and death. there are some things that the people of this nation -- and it has only gotten more complicated with time --cannot do for themselves, but the government can. this is something the government can and should do. this is something we have been trying to get done since teddy roosevelt's time/ it might not be a perfect solution, but the affordable health care act is a beginning and it is working now.

the problem is there has been such propaganda from the corporate interests. and that's a big problem. this experiment in democracy has turned into an oligarchy. there are voices more powerful than its people. that is not what the intent was. but the conversation in the court, i was so shocked, to hear broccoli and cars and cell phone compared to the overwhelming need of health care. every industrialized nation in our world takes care of the ill, because all of us will get six at one time or another. that is a given, just a fact of life you cannot deny. when people are not covered, unfortunately, we have a crazy health care delivery system. we should not have to depend on corporations that make a huge profit from our suffering and misery, but that's the way it

is. when people are not in short, the people that do have insurance after a pickup in cost. the cost is baloney. it is part of our wages now, which should never have happened, but that's the way it is. host: thanks for the call. this is an e-mail from a viewer in south carolina -- and bill has this point of view from our twitter page -- let me go back to this photograph on the front page of roll call -- dozens of members of congress attended at least one of the three days of oral arguments before the supreme court, including the principal arguments of the law and its teeth opponents --

-- chief opponents -- carl is joining us from berkeley springs, west virginia. good morning. caller: this bill was such a partisan thing from the beginning. i think if the democrats had let the republicans put some of their ideas into the bill there would not dampen such an uproar to begin with, like the order form and selling insurance across state lines. pelosi would not be fair in this regard. another thing, this mandate is unconstitutional. if we are going to be a constitutional republic, we have

to live by the constitution. , theyfederal employee take an oath to uphold the constitution. the constitution clearly says that the federal government cannot over reach its bounds and delta public what they can and cannot do. -- tell the public what they can and cannot do. we are supposed to be free people. the rules of this bill are being written by this lady at hhs. she is not elected by and she is involved more or less in writing this bill. the whole thing is just not right. host: thanks for the call. darrell at this point of view --

national journal writing -- the health care correspondent is joining us live on this thursday on the phone. thanks for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: put these last three days into perspective. what does the corps have to undertake? guest: a for your questions they considered over the three days of argument. the first day, is there the jurisdictional problem that would stop them from deciding the case? it seemed clear there were not a word about that, but they wanted to get a part of the matter. tuesday they talk about the individual mandate, which is the most controversial portion of the law. the part that's a part of the constitutional challenge. it is hard to predict what the supreme court is going to do,

but a lot of people going into the arguments box this is an easy case and we will be a 7-2 decision in favor of the government. it was clear from what happened in those arguments that the republican appointees on the court had serious concerns about the constitutional issues and it may be a tough choice particularly for chief justice john roberts and justice anthony kennedy, often got up as the swing just as. yesterday there was almost a policy discussion they had where they said, ok, if we decide the mandate must go, what do we do with the rest of it? it has all kinds of provisions connected to the mandate and not connected to the mandate. [unintelligible] bills passed with all kinds of extraneous things. asking the lawyers and asking each other what the right role of the court would be in deciding how you butcher up this

law if you decide the mandate is out. there was also this final question discussed yesterday that had to do with the medicaid expansion under the law. one of the things the health care law does is tell the states that it can get all this extra money for their medicaid programs, but they have to enroll a much larger population of people. everyone earning up to 133% of the federal poverty limit. the states were arguing the this was an offer too good for them to refuse. but there were being coerced into accepting the conditions. new release of the justices struggling with this issue. between that issue and the mandate, the justices are problem less likely to want to strike down the medicaid provision on its own, but if they chose, as some of them seem to be eager to do, if they chose to strike down whole lot, then that question would no longer be

relevant. host: some moments in arguments, we want to share one of those quebec antonin scalia and solicitors general paul c clement, let me get your reaction as we listen to this. >> if congress wants to do what it did in 1972 and passed the statute that makes expansion voluntary, every state that it thinks this is a great deal can sign up. what is telling is that 26 states who think this is a bad deal for them actually part are also saying they had no choice but to take this, because they cannot afford to have their entire participation in the 45- year-old program wiped out and they have to go back to? square one and a figure out how to deal with the visually impaired in their state and the disabled. >> i did not take the time to figure this out, but maybe you did. is there any chance 26 states opposing this have republican

governors and all the states supporting it have democratic governors? is that possible? >> there's a correlation, just just. [laughter] host: one of the more lighthearted moments at the end. yet the issue of democrats versus republicans, and a former solicitor general appointed by president bush representing those states. if an associate justice questioning the role of the court in all this. guest: the discussion about the political backdrop for the case came up a couple times yesterday. justice scalia was also discussing in the context of how do you fix the law if the mandate clause -- he pointed out there are not 60 votes to overturn the law. if the court handed congress along with certain parts eliminated and certain parts preserved, it would not be easy for the congress to fix it,

given our current political situation. people don't think about the supreme court as caring about the politics of the moment, but it was clearly on the minds of the justices especially in the practical considerations yesterday. host: three months of deliberations behind closed doors now and a decision expected in mid to late june? guest: that's right. the supreme court can take as long as they need to come out with a decision, but their usual passage is about june. everyone expects, given the complexity and number questions, but they will say before last. host: her work is available online. thanks very much for being with us. guest: thanks. host: now this question from "politico" --

the story is available online. the question we are asking, the debate over health care, is this what the founding fathers intended? next is dennis from king george, virginia. good morning, welcome to the program. caller: good morning. my comment would be the supreme court put us in this quagmire of constitutional question, because they kept ruling in favor of the government every time it assumed more power to the commerce clause. now it's time for them to snap the reins and bring the federal government back under control and not let them have that power. that's pretty much it. host: thanks for the call. from our facebook page, a lot of comments --

and this one from melissa -- you can join in on the conversation. at conversation lamar is joining us from ohio, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i have been wondering, every time there is an important piece of legislation that comes about or is up for debate, the question always is asked, what would you think the founding fathers' intent was? i don't understand that. maybe you can answer this question, the founding fathers,

they were for slavery, right? seoul why does it always, about what the founding fathers would have to do with it? i don't understand. host: you are correct that slavery was not addressed in the constitution. as justice roberts indicated in an interview that we did with him, one of the worst loss in the constitution, but it is the framework of our government, and so it is essentially the laws that we abide by and something the court takes into account. our question, as you have this intersection, you have a law passed by congress, signed by the president, and now being questioned by the u.s. supreme court, and the issue of states' rights has,. and you have expressed your point of view when it comes to slavery. so thank you. thanks for sharing your thoughts and comments.

by the way, the new york times has the story you might be interested ini. it is a look at the mit professor who persuaded a skeptic in the white house on the issue of individual mandate. betty is on the phone from long island, new york, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. i would like to make two comments. first, it was not the founding fathers the sec this whole thing up. set this up. it was the kennedy family. it was the promise to do health care. they tried to do it before he died and they made a promise that it would go through. so that's where it comes from. the second comment i have is, now they have a new scam that

people don't know about. i was standing in line in the supermarket and i heard two men that own businesses. what they were saying was that there were going to lay off -- they each had a small group of employees and they were going to lay off the employees and not have to pay into the insurance and they would pay the penalty, which they would not even pay that. they would lay them off and let them collect unemployment and the employees would pay the unemployment insurance back to them and they would use that money to pay the penalty and pay them off the books. so they are already out there trying to beat the system. and unless we knock this down and find another way, which is

hopefully it beat-proof, we are going to have really big problems. host: thanks for the call. chris, one of our loyal viewers in alabama as the point of view -- the headline from the hill newspaper -- senator kerry joining his colleagues and the supreme court is in the background. the debate over health care. members of the obama administration and members of congress on hand to watch the proceedings, three days of oral arguments, all of it available on our website, c-span.org. senator mike lee is weighing in on the issue of the constitution. you can check it out online at politico.com.

it says the constitution limits the type of power the federal government can exercise. in the words of james madison, the powers delegated by the proposed constitution? to the federal government are few and defined, those that will remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite, it says. now on our independent line from wisconsin, the question is, is the intent of the founding fathers, the debate over health care. gene, a go-ahead. caller: i was trying to get a hold of you yesterday. i was wondering about the constitution, why was it when bush was in office and he pushed through the prescription drug

and there was a penalty for a tax or whatever you want to call it, you had 63 days to sign up for it, and if you did not sign up for it, you get the penalty or the tax, and then, even though you went past the 63 days, then you would be penalized even if you entered into the system as far as the prescription drug part d is concerned, and then you have that the rest of your life until you die. so i was just wondering how they can separate the obama one being unconstitutional, but when george bush put that up it was not. and, by the way, steve, you are one of my favorites on c-span.

. you do a very good host: thank you. i appreciate the kind words. keep watching c-span. david writes for the l.a. times and the chicago tribune and the lead story is available online at the l.a. times website with this headline -- kill the likely to ap law, it says. the alaska journal constitution has -- dale is joining us from bethlehem, pennsylvania, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. no one knows what the founding fathers' intent was, because they wrote these goals upholding states' rights and then turned

around and created the post office where the states had no control whatsoever, because the service to the people in general represents the general welfare, which is mentioned in the constitution. the constitution is zero of flaw, which has been amended meant -- the constitution is full of flaws, which has been amended many times. thank goodness i'm a citizen of the u.s. and tabby option of moving to massachusetts where i can get medical coverage. or i could move to ecuador and gets all my prescriptions at major surgeries and gasoline is only a $50 a gallon. when bush was reelected, 250,000 families moved to canada because of the doughnut hole. the american people just don't know what is in that bill. i have discussed it with many people and they don't know

what's in the bill. it has been demonized by the right. if they look at the benefits of the bill individually, they say that's a good idea or that's a great idea, but they refused to do that. thanks very much. host: thanks for the call. jim says, if the supreme court were not so politicized, the decision would be rendered easily, 9-0 as unconstitutional and. karl rove has his view this morning inside the wall street journal. he's a former senior visored to george w. bush.

the solicitor general took the lead for the president for the administration in defending the health care law before the supremeh courtthee had this to say in closing arguments yesterday. >> congress struggled with the issue of how to deal with this profound problem. 40 million people without health care, for many years. it made a judgment. thatt's a judgment is one is in conformity, i think, with lots of experts thought was the best confluence of options to handle this problem. maybe they were right. maybe they were not, but this is something about which the people of the united states can deliberate and if they think it

needs to be changed, they can change it. i would suggest to the court, with profound respect for the court's obligation to ensure the federal government remains a government of enumerated powers, that this is not a case in any of its aspects that calls that into question. but this is a judgment of policy that the democratically accountable branches of this government made on best advice. host: the comments of donald verrilli in his closing arguments. all those arguments available on our website, c-span.org. so, this question, with the debate over health care, is it what the founding fathers had in mind? mark is on the phone from pennsylvania, republican line, good morning. caller: morning.

the constitution, the last time i looked at it, in the preamble, indicates that the power of government that devolves from the grant of authority from the people, it is not an authority in and of itself. but in the preamble is the concept of promote and provide. it called for the provision of a common defense, but only to provide for the general welfare. it does not mandate the federal government ensure outcomes, which i think is where we are moving to in terms of the government. i think that justice kennedy hit the crux of this case, which is this. the fundamental relationship between government and the people. with this concept embodied in the health care law is that the

power of government far exceeds its enumerated powers and any logical extension there from into a government that can limit your choice is in every aspect of your life, if it so chooses. i will give you an example, but if the concept is that we must do what is in the common good for everything, then by eliminating all automobiles other than the volt, the government has made our choice for us. that is where i think our government is headed. i think justice kennedy really had a grasp of that in the second day of the arguments on the health-care law. host: banks for the call. a lot of viewers from harrisburg. i appreciate it. ashley in waco, texas --

and this from montey -- and from carly -- frank is on the phone from albany, california. good morning. caller: just a couple of thoughts. i'm not sure how useful it is to look to the founding fathers for what they would have done. two quick thoughts. first, as was alluded to a moment ago in a comment, the

founding fathers, the original constitution did not grant the power to the supreme court to decide this issue. the supreme court decided that later. so that would of been a surprise. marbury versus madison, of course. second thing is i'm not sure we want to look at what people in the 1700's would do with respect to policy. obviously, they thought blacks in america should be enslaved. they did address that in the constitution. they said that they were 3/2 of a human being. -- 2/3. perhaps they would not want minorities to get health care, since they thought they should be slaves. if so i am not sure how useful it is to look to that. host: thanks for the call. our question is on the constitution and is this what the framers intended with the debate over the health care? we will take your calls and comments. if you want to continue the conversation on line, you may do so on our facebook page or send

it to c-span at. pope benedict visiting cuba, raising the issue of rights and religion. it is also the unpaid of the financial times and inside the washington journal. and this headline from the chicago sun-times, representative bobby rush reprimanded on the house of representatives floor for his comment on trayvon martin. he was asked to leave because members are not allowed to wear hoods. here's how the scene unfolded yesterday on the floor of the house. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the death of trayvon martin is

indeed an american tragedy. too often this violent act that resulted in the murder of trayvon martin is repeated in the streets of our nation. i applaud the young people all across the land for making a statement about hoodies, about the real hoodlums in this nation, particularly those who tread on our laws wearing official or cause i official clothing -- quasi official clothing. racial profiling has to stop, mr. speaker. just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a

hoodlem. [gavel pounding] the bible teaches us -- >> the member will suspend. [gavel pounding] >> to walk humbly with your god. and in the new testament, ruth teaches us, the spirit of the lord is upon me because he has anointed me give the good news. he has sent me to proclaimed freedom for the prisoners and to recover sight to the client. i urge all who hear these words to heed these lessons.

may god bless the soul of trayvon martin and his family. >> no longer recognized. the chair will ask the sergeant at arms to enforce the prohibition. the chair must remind members that clause 5 of rule 17 prohibit the wearing of hats in the chamber when the house is in session. the chair finds donovan of all goods is not consistent with this rule. -- donning of a hood. >> washington journal continues. >host: we want to welcome jeff bingaman. the news of the day is the supreme court oral arguments. we had a chance to listen to six and a half hours. guest: i did not hear the full six hours. i tried to follow the news on

it, but i was not at the hearing. host: if you look at what the justices will have to look at, how do you think they will come down? guest: i don't know. i certainly hope they will uphold the law. it certainly seemed to me that it was constitutional when we were enacting the law. i did not hear anything during the three days of arguments that persuaded me there was any serious problem with the constitutionality of a lot. 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'd think the congress is the right place to have those issues debated. host: we have been asking the question this morning, was the intent of the founding fathers, we have had three branches of government really coming at this intersection on the issue of health care. guest: i think, clearly, at least the way our government has evolved, the constitution needs

to be enforced. but i think it would be a stretch for the supreme court to conclude that the constitution requires them to do a invalidate this health care law or any part of this health care law. i don't foresee that. to me that is a real stretch. there's no real proceed and for that that i can see. host: let me ask you about two points that were talked about yesterday. the issue of severability. whether you strike out individual mandate, does that nullify the entire bill? guest: the bill is a very large bill and includes a 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 that the native american health care improvement act, which we re-authorized as part of the overall 2700 page bill,

should not be authorized because of some problem with the i cannot understand that. if there was a problem with the mandate, in my mind, then they should strike back down and leave it to congress to figure out what to do at that point. but they certainly should not invalidate the bryzgalov. host: yesterday the issue of medicaid, and one of the points was brought up was coercion. if the federal government gives states additional funding for medicaid programs, is that coercion? all want you to listen to what justice scalia brought up as the question of attorney paul clement on the issue of medicaid expansion under the health care bill. >> if congress wants to do what it did in 1972 and pass a statute that makes expansion voluntary, every state that thinks this is a great deal can sign up. what is telling its 26 states who think this is a bad deal for

them actually are also setting they have no choice but to take this because they cannot afford to have their entire participation in the 45-year-old program wiped out and they have to go back to square one and figure out how to deal with the visually impaired in their state, the disabled in their states --\ >> i did not take the time to figure this out, but is there any chance 26 states opposing this have republican governors and all the states supporting it have democrat governors? is that possible? >> there's a correlation, justice scalia. [laughter] host: senator, your reaction? guest: again, i don't see the constitutional arguments that some of the justices seem to think is fair. you can argue about whether congress should allow states to opt in, or opt out of this new coverage, but to suggest that congress does not have the authority to go ahead and say

that we are changing this program, you will have to cover everybody with income up to 132% of poverty, which is what we did , and that will increase coverage that the federal government will pay over 100% of the in the first years and will pay 90% of indefinitely, to me that's a pretty good deal. i don't know why the state's don't have concerns for providing that health care to their own citizens. why are they looking at this as some kind of terrible requirement that the federal government is putting on them to pay up to 10% of the cost of health care for their own citizens the in the state? to me it is an argument that does not really merit a lot of consideration by the supreme court. host: the mexico senator jeff

bingaman will be with us another half-hour to take your calls and comments. the phone lines are open. if you can join us on twitter or on our facebook page. another point on health care, the republican national committee is now framed the debate based on the solicitor general's opening minutes before the supreme court on monday. >> the department of health and human services versus florida. >> for more than 80% of americans, the insurance system does provide effective access -- excuse me -- -- host: so this is turning into

and will be a political issue in 2012. guest: there's no question 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. but my own strong view is that it is a good thing for the country. we have 50 million people without health care coverage today in the country. that number is growing every year. and this is a way to reverse that trend and begin to provide coverage for everyone who is a legal resident in the country. undoubtedly it falls within the law and congress should bee trying to correct some of those flaws. instead we are engaged in this argument about constitutionality of it. host: as the tear the national

resources and energy committee, the president goes approach being all above, republicans say that he's not doing enough drilling and making us more dependent on foreign oil. who is right? guest: the president is right. the amount of production of oil in this country has increased during the time he has been president. it is higher today than it has been in over eight years in this country. host: many say that began under the bush administration, so this is an extension of drilling that was permitted late in the bush administration that carried over and that president obama was not responsible for gasping. guest: there's 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 weeks ago that they are 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 they have had. so there has been increased production on federal land, offshore and onshore. there's been increased production on private land. the truth is the price of gasoline, which is what people are really worried about, the price of gas does not correlate with the level of production that we have in this country, because of the price of gasoline correlates with the price of oil on world markets. host: in the headlines from "usa today," the price is $4 a gallon across the country on average. guest: right, and it's a terrible burden on families throughout the country and a terrible burden on our economy. so i hope the geopolitical situation can resolve itself in a way that allows the world price of oil to come back down and then of course we will see lower prices for gasoline at the

pumps when that occurs. host: we learned from recent jackson, the epa director coming up with new guidelines for the coal plants. the story was in the new york times yesterday. her recommendations would limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to about 1,000 pounds per megawatt phour. what are your thoughts? guest: i think the proposed rule, as i understand it, is a step in the right direction. it does not apply to existing power plants. it does not apply to any power plant that is permitted within the next year. but it says after that if a company wants to build a new power plant, they have to configure it in such a way that

they don't have more emissions than 1,000 pounds. i think that is a reasonable way to begin reducing greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide that it's from our various power plants. host: when you say reasonable, is it something republicans would support? guest: again, the rhetoric i have heard so far is that they are 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, to my mind, the real question is what are we going to do about the existing coal-fired power plants? that's the real issue. we need to find a way to reduce emissions in those plants and encourage utilities to do that. host: our first call is my joining us from newington, virginia, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. are still talking about the

founding fathers? host: we can. caller: the founding fathers would cringe at what is happening right now with the health care bill. they gave us a constitution that limits the federal government. it limits 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 has happened through the years is every time we have seen the federal government act in a way that is ostensibly for the common good, it assumes more power for itself every time it assumes more responsibility. this was not what the people continued to say that the founding fathers were bonds of evil slave owners. the vast majority of them were very much conflicted --

convicted in their consciences about slavery but at the time of the founding, slavery had existed as the economic system of the south and trench for 160 years. the southern states were not going to join the union if the federal government was going to tell them how to run their economic system. >host: thank her for the call. welcome to constitution 101. guest: i really don't have a comment on the issue of the views of the founding fathers on slavery but i do think the history of our country has been that as we have identified challenges that needed attention, we have tried to find solutions to those problems. and ways to meet those challenges and the federal government has stepped in when we enacted social security for

example. the same arguments were being raised them that this is a terrible overreach by the federal government to require people to have a certain amount of funds taken out of their paycheck in order that they will have something once they get to old age, to keep them from being destitute. i think it has been a good thing. i think social security has been a good thing. i think the health care legislation will prove to have been a good thing as well. host: next is john from new york, welcome to the program. caller: good morning. if you look at the founding fathers, the original document, when they pledged their life, their liberty, and their treasure to the constitution for the good of the people, it is the same thing with the health care. it is just an extension of it. i paid income tax and health care for over 40 years.

i paid the health care for the senators and congressmen. now that i am retired on disability and have lost my health care, what happened to all that money? i have never used it. we have never gone to the doctors. i have to go 30 miles to buy groceries. i don't go to the doctors on a whim but yet now that i will need it someday, i am 60 years old, i cannot afford it. what happens to the president's promise of affordability? this is ridiculous, thank you. >host: move the story forward. if support strikes down all of the health care bill, what does congress do? does it go back to square one? host: i don't know. the congress is very polarized today and it is difficult, frankly, to see how this congress, at least here in

2012, would have the ability to get agreement on any kind of major health care legislation if this bill were struck down. you never know what the sentiments of the new congress might be after the election. it is not realistic to suggest that this congress will go right back to work and write a new bill. it is just not going to happen. host: you came to washington when tip o'neill was speaker of the house and ronald reagan was president in 1982, 30 years in the senate, has it changed? >> the institution has changed, washington has changed, but the country has changed. all of this polarization and inability to agree that people see in washington is a reflection, frankly, of what we see, what i see it nationwide. there is great polarization in the general populace.

the media is polarized. there is very little effort on the part of the media to try to present any kind of balanced view of the issues being debated. i think that reinforces the polarization. congress reflect that and makes it very difficult for us to agree on what steps to take. host: let's turn back to energy issues -- guest: i certainly support and more nuclear power generation but i think the thing that is holding that back now is the economics of it. it is expensive to build a new nuclear power plant and very cheap to build a new gas-fired power plant. but typically with gas as cheap as it is, speaking about natural gas, that is used for power

generation, with that as cheap as it is, it is just not likely that you will see utility stepping up and saying instead of using that natural gas at a very cheap cost, we will invest a $10 billion nuclear plant. host: you have a hearing that gets under way later this morning and c-span will cover it and we will be live on c-span 3. from "usa today"on thursday -- the purpose of the hearing today is to look at energy costs per what do you expect to learn and what can consumers expect? >> we have experts talking to us about the reasons for the increased price of gasoline and aviation fuel.

i think the main thrust of that testimony will be that the geopolitical factors are driving these higher costs and that it is not a question of whether or not we are producing enough domestically. it is a question of what people are concerned as to what might happen with iran and their supply of oil going into the world market and whether they're not of his support -- other producers who could make up for shortfalls in that regard. i think that will be the thrust of the testimony. is from our next call florida, independent line. caller: good morning , everybody. i am 56 years old. i got my education as far as the constitution goes back in the midst of death 60's. i was always taught that the federal government was a tool,

simply a tool, for your thomas and sovereign states to be able to work together. the federal government was given certain enumerated powers and all the other powers are left to the states. it has become a situation where the federal government holds the state subservient to its powers. a like for you to explain to me how the federal government can disregard the rights of the state's. over 50 percent of the states, a majority of states are against the health care law. secondly, a senator is supposed to -- their job is to represent their state governors and legislatures, the house of representatives represent the people's wishes. i believe the senate -- you are

a democrats the represent the democratic party but you don't necessarily represent your steak on lesser state wants the health care law. how can you justify the federal government usurping the power of the states? the states are the ones in control in this and the people. host: let me add this other point -- guest: of course, my reading of the constitution, my understanding is very different than that of the caller and the person who did that he mail that you just read.

under our constitutional system, the federal government does have authority over states. where it chooses to act and afford to act. under the constitution, it can act in whatever way it is necessary in order to regulate interstate commerce. that has been very broadly defined by the supreme court. in the case of the health-care law, the federal government, the congress, the president had chosen to take action to deal with this 50 million people who have no coverage and try to rein in the costs and the growth of the costs of health care and tried to improve the quality of health care. those of the three main objectives of this bill. i think they are well within their rights, the federal government, in trying to do this. senators, as i have always understood it, represent the people of their state.

26% of the people in my state have no health care coverage. for me not to support this federal law would be very much contrary to the interest of my state and the people of my state. host: the other issue is the oil and gas tax bill. you want to eliminate $24 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years for what you call major integrated oil companies like exxon, shell, chevron, comical philips, and bp and modify dual capacity roles to eliminate foreign tax credits. please explain. guest: that is one of the ways in which taxes are reduced for the oil companies that produce worldwide business credit system that they currently enjoy. the main trust of this bill, the

bill that will be voted on in the senate is a petition for cloture, closing off debate. the main thrust of it is to try to provide some resources so that you can extend the tax incentives for other types of alternative energy like wind energy, various efficiency provisions better in the law today which have been allowed to expire and we think is important to keep those incentives in place so that we can continue to move in that direction. the reduction in the taxes from the oil industry, the reduction of tax breaks for their oil industry as a way to find revenue. >> yourself and $11.7 billion extends over the next year. >> there is a deduction that was

put in place maybe 10 years ago or so that was intended to encourage manufacturing in the united states. unfortunately, as congress was of writing the bill, congress in its traditional way started adding more and more things to the definition of what is manufacturing so that pumping oil at of the ground as manufacturing under this bill. we are trying to correct that. if you are making widgets or you are manufacturing automobiles, that is manufacturing. want to provide an incentive for that because that creates jobs. if you are just reducing natural resources, that is not manufacturing. host: let me get your reaction

to what your colleague lisa murkowski said yesterday. >> the first point i have heard is that american taxpayers are somehow subsidizing the oil companies. it is important to put this in context. this argument rather bizarrely labels basic tax deductions somehow as a subsidy, as though the federal government is allowing businesses to retain more of their earned dollars because that is what is happening here with the situation of the oil companies. they have earned the dollars and they are basically keeping more of the dollars that they have burned some hour or other, that action is the equivalent to handing them a check. whether it is what we say with

the situation in solyndra where they get a check for the government. it is important to put in context that when -- some say we need to end subsidies for zero companies, what they're really translates into it is raising taxes on oil production. host: is there a correlation? our tax subsidies and reducing them a tax hike? >> clearly, when you eliminate tax provisions that allow people to pay less tax, you require them to pay more tax. there's no question about that. the issue is -- are the provisions that are allowing them to pay less tax still testified? are these provisions and which served in a public purpose other than just saying this particular

sector of our industry or our economy will pay less tax than other sectors. you can have that debate but i agree with my colleague were to call it a subsidy or elimination of the tax break, or imposition on the tax break, that is just a question of how you want to frame the issue. host: you were first elected back in 1982 in the u.s. senate and are a graduate of harvard and stanford law school. ogden, utah, republican line/ caller: the gentleman before said that government is limited by the constitution and the power is not given to the federal government. we feel very strongly about that in the heartland.

the comment about the oil prices does not correlate with production. if the folks on the left would get out of the way and let us use our call and our oil and all the resources that god blessed this great country of ours with, we could be self-sufficient on all production and energy production. if the united states of america became self-sufficient on energy production, it would lower the cost of energy throughout the entire world. host: thanks for guest: thbacal. guest: what we pay for oil in this country depends upon the world price of oil. even if we were to be producing enough oil to meet our needs,

which would be desired, even if we did that, we would still be watching the price of gasoline go up at the pump when the price of oil goes up for the world market. it is very much in our interests to reduce the amount of oil we have to use and thereby reduce the vulnerability of our economy to these price spikes we are seeing today. on natural gas, we do produce all the natural gas that we need. we are producing more than we need now to begin to try to figure out how to take -- test -- host: time for one more call, delaware, thank you for waiting. caller: good morning, i am

retired, 63 years old and 33 years and the service so i have spent a lot of my time watching this. if this health care bill goes down and i am an independent and i don't agree with it, the only one who can take credit is the u.s. senate who failed to put in a server builds the clause and they took out that tax worded so they could get it through because it was too busy trying to manipulate the 60 votes before senator brown got on board. guest: first call, whether we had a sever ability provision in the bill or not, the supreme court, for many decades, has recognized that they have authority to make the decision as to whether to strike down the entire lot if they find some part of it on constitutional or to just strike down that one individual part. the question of whether or not congress should have called this

attacks rather than a use of the commerce clause, to my mind, it does not matter particularly what congress should call it the supreme court can decide whether they determined that it is an exercise in commerce, or power or an increase in the taxing authority. it away, i think it is unconstitutional. host: you leave office of the end of this year so what's next? guest: i haven't made any plans. host: if you could give your colleagues any advice how the next congress to operate, what would it be? guest: i would say they should come to congress after this upcoming election with a willingness to compromise and a willingness to work together cross party lines. we should also allow the more

moderate voices within the country to have a larger role in shaping the public policy. host: thanks very much for being with us here. you can check out the hearing on c-span 3 getting ready at 9:30 eastern time. coming up, a medical doctor and republican of georgia will join us in a few minutes to weigh in on the debates that has been front and set center year in washington. we are keeping track of other news on this thursday morning. >> good morning, the annual arab summit meeting opened in the iraqi capital of baghdad today with only 10 of the leaders of the 22 member arab league of -- in attendance. there is growing unrest for several.

the serious issue is clouded the attempt to get acceptance by other arab nations which are suspicious of its ties with iran. mitt romney has won endorsements from the florida center marco rubio. the tea party save -- favored says it is clear the former governor will win the nomination and continuing the primary fight will only damage the effort to defeat president obama. later today, former president george h. w. bush will indorse mitt romney enjoying in the campaign event in houston. president obama takes to the rose garden this morning to redo his call for congress to end tax breaks to oil companies. he is urging congress and what he called the billions in taxpayer dollars handed out to oil companies every year. that country for a senate procedural vote on a bill to repeal tax subsidies. finally later this morning, the

labor department releases weekly jobless claims figures. also do is an updated look growth for the first quarter of 2011. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span. >> ronald reagan was living this hotel after delivering a speech to the afl-cio. the agents are surrounding him. you heard six shots in the first one hit jim brady and the head. the second one gets tom delahanty and gets hit in the back. the path of the president is clear. john hinckley has a range of 20-30 feet. he could hit stationary targets such 20 days 30 feet. would-be assassin john hinckley fires six shots. >> this weekend we will talk about the race to save the president sunday at 7:00 and

10:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv this weekend on cspan 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: tom price is joining us from georgia's sixth congressional district. guest: great to be with you. host: you were inside the supreme court for day one of the oral arguments. let me begin with the broader question about the dynamics in the room and what you saw and how you felt. guest: that was the first time i heard oral argument in the supreme court and people were very attentive and the justices were very engaged. to have the presentation began and the interrupted with in the first sentence or two was a new experience. about went very well and that of the justice or harming on the issue but that needed to be addressed and it will be a fascinating sequence what their division is. if the issue of the mandate is

struck down with to the centerpiece of the health care bill, is back to congress to deal with this issue. in the next congress, what are the alternatives and what will the political appetite be if changes need to be made in health care bill >> the status quo is unacceptable. as a physician, my colleagues are having trouble taking care of their patients because of the administrative challenges and regulatory challenges and taxes and all the things washington has been their way to make it more difficult to take care of patients. i believe is it is important to get people covered. you can cover people without putting washington in charge. hr-3000 is a bill which i have authored with a number of people in congress that would get folks to allow them to select the coverage they want.

we have to address the insurance challenges. you should not lose your insurance if you change your job or lose your job. that is just crazy. folks should be able to own their health care regardless of who is paying for it. goes with them wherever they go. the pre-existing, centuries, it is insanity to have a system where you get off all diagnosis or injury, you can be priced out of the market. that does not make any sense. had to face that without putting one engine in charge. for home depot or coca-cola or wal-mart or the large companies that are self-insured, they make it so they can ensure their employees because the health status of that one person does not significantly affect the cost of their health coverage. that is what we need to allow

individuals to do. the loss and abuse issues in this country are drastic. the presence law did nothing to address this. we have a very robust law suit abuse. host: if you have a pre-existing condition and opt out of the health care plan, you then will drive up the cost of health care because you may use an emergency room where you are uninsured or might have a critical event -- an illness that you know and need care for. the obama administration said if you have all americans in this pool, that will bring down the cost of health care coverage and bring down the cost of insurance. everyone has a piece of the proverbial pot. pie. >> when washington defines what

it wants you to have, they have to define that. whether it is mammography or the screening for prostate cancer, it is washington deciding. that is not right. the american people know that is not right to how you fix it without putting washington in charge. everybody has health coverage you can make it so it is financially feasible and attractive for anybody not to have covered regardless of their economic status. the pre-existing condition is important to describe because it does not exist. it does not mean we can't the we have not been created -- creative enough to allow us to exist with this. we should allow thepooling mechanisms so people can be covered like large businesses.

host: this is the conclusion of the argument before the justices. >> [video clip] congress struggled with the issue on how to deal with this profound problem with 40 million people without health care for many years and it made a judgment -- its judgment is one that is in conformity with many experts and the best batch of options to handle this problem. maybe they were right, maybe they were not but this is something about which the people of the united states can deliberate and a vote. if they think need to be changed, they can change it. i would suggest to the court with profound respect to the court's obligation to ensure the federal government remains a government of the enumerated powers that this is not the case in any of its aspects to call that into question. this is a judgment of policy

that the democratically- accountable portions of the government made. host: what is your reaction? guest: i think justice kennedy on the second day of hearings said it best -- he said that if this were allowed to be go through, it fundamentally changes the relationship between the states and citizens. we think is a bridge too far. i cannot imagine that a supreme court of united states would find that the federal government has the authority constitutionally to demand to require a free american to purchase a specific product the marketplace. just doesn't make any sense. host: next is louisville, ky good morning. caller: good morning, i have a question related to waivers to

the health-care bill. we are a small business owners and like everyone else, they are going to try to mandate ever went to purchase health care. how is it that some people, a large number of which are labour unions, are being issued waivers and i would like to know the process and how they got these waivers and who made that decision. if you can, all the democratic fee to the fire and see if you can get an answer to both questions for us. the secretary of health and human services was given more power to waive the requirement of law if she saw fit. that may sound all right but the problem is that people in washington are picking winners and losers.

many of the over 1000 waivers that have already been applied to this law, many of them are for labor unions. if the labor unions don't have to comply with it, why should anybody else? this lot is on just on its face because people here in washington are picking winners and low risk and that is just wrong. host: our next call is from fayetteville, north carolina. caller: i just wanted to make a few comments about the health care program. i have always been a registered democrat but i both both ways depending on who is best taken care the people as a whole. i have been disabled for four years. my company was bought out by another company and therefore i lost my job. i have not been receiving the

correct amounts of pay. i don't have regular insurance to have a regular doctor. my daughter had to leave the state she was in and, and take care of me. in doing so, she has to take care of me. she cannot work and does not have insurance. she lives with me, she is not eligible for any benefits. i make $28 per month, not enough to get assistance. the damage that was done to my spinal cord and to my shoulder and damage to my brand, i have these pre-existing conditions but i cannot get health insurance because i cannot afford it. host: how you response to that? guest: god bless you. i think the current situation is awful for the status quo is awful.

the president's bill would not guarantee anything for this lady, nothing, other than the opportunity to get in line and determine whether or not washington has decided the kind of care she needs will be allowed. we don't believe that is the right way to do it. in our vision, imagine a system where this lady would be allowed to access health coverage that she can afford with her current in, or if she's not, based upon level of our income would be subsidized at a premium or benefit check that would allow her to purchase the kind of coverage she wants for herself not that the government demands. there are wonderful ways to solve all of these things that puts patients in charge, not washington. i hear that plea and i understand and appreciate it i would have patience, to my of saddam and insurance. it was a huge dilemma for them. we take care of them all the time but that does not mean that the system in which we were working was the right system. there's a better way to do that and that is what we propose.

host: this is for don-- guest: there is no reason washington should . be picking the winners and losers. patients and families and doctors are the ones that should be making medical decisions not washington pretty fundamental principle is that washington should not be decided what kind of health coverage you can have for you and your family. it is simply wrong. host: let me ask you about the debate today on congressman paul ryan's budget plan. there's a headline from "the new --k plans*"

times" -- does that trump other issues in this election year? guest: current medicare and medicaid program and food stamps programs are destined to go bankrupt. because of the changing demographics of our society. i don't know if you have noticed, but we are $15 trillion in debt. we have no equal the amount of gross domestic product in one year with the entire debt. get on that path and the president only as was growing up in debt. we believe in the positive optimistic solutions to saving and improving and strengthening those programs. you cannot do that with the current trajectory. in our budget, we put in place a

medicare reform that makes it so that all those in or near retirement, nothing changes for them as it relates to medicare. people have made plans in their lives based on the assurances from the federal government but under the age of 55, on the current trajectory, medicare will not be there. it will be bankrupt according to the actuaries of the medicare program. in two straight then sank -- you need to save and strengthened. medicare should be an option but we believe they will select one that is more responsive. there are ways to solve these challenges with output in washington in charge. host: this is a chart being put out by omb and the congressional budget office --

why not cut domestic programs and raise taxes on those who can afford the most as a way to compromise on this issue and get bipartisan support? guest: we have reduced discretionary spending which is the domestic program portion. we spend about $1 trillion per year on domestic -- on discretionary spending. the entire federal budget is about 3.5 trillion dollars which means we spend $2.50 trillion on automatic spending. this year, we'll have an annual deficit of $1.30 trillion which means you could get rid of the entire federal government except for medicare, medicaid, and sells security and not even balance the budget.

we believe you have to hold an decrease could discourage refunding we have proposed. you also need to fundamentally reform and strengthen the program. get to a point where we ultimately can balance the budget. otherwise, we will continue to have this debt crisis in a spiral that connected to our economy can never get out of the doldrums it is in now. host: let's go to patrick next to his waiting on the telephone from easton, pennsylvania. caller: 94 taking my call. good morning, representative price. as an orthopedic surgeon and a director, the former director of the clinic for which you did surgery at, you of all people would know essentially being a public clinic that the cost of

health care is outrageous and the government subsidization does not work. the points that you have made already are absolutely dead on and the trajectory we are headed on is completely unsustainable. there is no money. not 22 years old and i'm looking for to give me any of my social security when i become 18 or getting medicare. -- when i become 80. the constitutionality of the affordable care act, people need to realize that the national defense authorization act completely changed the way our constitutional rights are looked at. people should pay attention to how many times the work the secretary shelled.

guest: my mom went to wilson college in eastern pennsylvania. what he says is absolutely true. if through the last three years, we have seen an incredible heat illusion of power from the legislative branch of the executive branch -- an incredible evolution of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. every time you see that in law, that means that somebody in washington is making decisions on behalf of the american people when, in fact, the vast majority of the time, the american people should make those decisions. i could not agree more. you also mentioned about the clinical was in charge of at korea hospital.

it is a home for indigents in the city of atlanta. some patients don't have the resources to have health coverage elsewhere. the challenges we face need to be solved in a way that makes it so doctors and the minister is of that hospital and every other hospital in the country are able to make the decisions to help with patients and their communities and not have washington dictate what they must do. host: congressman price is a graduate of university of michigan. let me read to you this e-mail -- guest: if you reform the system -- we spent a lot of money on all sorts of things in washington that frankly are not the role of the federal government or that we don't need. the biggest cost drivers and health care are the same as they

are in business -- taxation and regulation and litigation. the lawsuit abuse issues and the practice of defensive medicine wastes about $600 billion per year every year in this country which is one out of every four health dollars. imagine a system where physicians do not have to practice that way and put that money to much better use. the money is there, as a society or the past 50 years have evolved into this incredibly top-heavy centrally controlled system that does not make it so that the resources can be used efficiently, effectively, more responsive for president. the recesses or there but you have to design a different model that is responsible to the patient. >> i want you to respond to the comments of your colleagues. they reacted to the paul ryan plan. >> the house majority has put

together a lopsided budget trying to rig the middle class, get steeply toward common-sense national priority, and and the medicare guarantee. according to estimates, more than 4 million americans lose their jobs because of this budget. but they provide $150,000 tax cuts to the richest people in this nation. the republican budget would slash the social made isafety n. over 8 million men, women, and children would go hungry if the plan to turn food stamps into an underfunded block grant goes through and more damage will be done. coming out of the deepest recession since the great depression, food stamps helps feed 40 million americans, 20 million children, this is robin

hood in reverse. it takes the middle class and give to the rich. host: we will see more of that today. the vote is expected later this afternoon or tonight. guest: she has a talking points down but it is patently incorrect. if you look at the present program, the current law ends medicare as we know it. $500 billion is removed from the medicare program and put in place to control costs based on washington is a 15-member unelected board of bureaucrats. those 15 individuals, none of and can be actively practicing physicians by law, you cannot

have a majority of them who has ever seen a patient by law. those 15 individuals will decide whether care for seniors will be paid for. that's the kind of solution the other side wants. we presume that status quo be able to continue. debt and trillion in it is increasing unless we change course. greece is not far away from our future. there are huge challenges we have been huge changes that must be made. we can do it now without putting an undue burden on those individuals who are currently counting on these social safety net programs but we have to reform them and strengthen them to make its of this country can allow for the american dream to be realized. >> here is a political question --

what are your thoughts? guest: he is doing a great job as chairman of the budget committee. he is a dedicated individual, an individual grounded in the fundamental principles of this great country and the principles that made us great. you consult these challenges without putting the federal government in charge and a bracing individual opportunity and individual liberty and individual expansion across this country to let food -- to let folks realize their dream. good morning and thank you cspan for your programming. caller: i just have one question that needs an answer. i think the supreme court was well within its purview to hear this case. my question to you -- what is congress intend to do about repaid the money that they still from the social security

trust and that they are stealing from all these other programs that were funded and paid for by the people? guest: the money that was paid into the social security program was supposed to go into a trust fund and stay there so it could pay for benefits. that has changed over the life of social security so that now you have two or three employees paying for every retiree and that cannot continue. be heldt to accountable. washington must set up programs and be held accountable spot to make certain they will stay in place. we have to mature the promises spoke we have are assured. the only way to do that is for the american people to choose

these two futures. do we want a country that looks like a western social democracy are or do we want to look for a country that helps you realize dreams. the people will decide. washington will not decide. i have great confidence in the american people and know that when they go to the polls this november that they will elect leaders who will make certain we are held accountable. host: i know you have a meeting at the top of the hour. the front page of "the washington times" this morning -- mitt romney was vowing to stick -- to stay in this race. guest: i would not presume to tell anybody when to get in or out of a race. the american people are desirous

of making certain we have one standard bearer on one-sided one the other side and to hold obama to accounts. the policies that he put in place, the sad thing is that it has devolved into dividing the country and it is very distressing. we have a plan for the future and we believe the optimism and hope of the american people rests in conservative governments that recognizes the primacy of the individual. host: the transportation bill in addition to the budget are two key issues before the house and senate this week. the transportation bill deadline is saturday. guest: my sense is that we will reach an agreement to have a 90- day extension of the highway bill. we need to make certainly move forward on that because work projects across the country to not work in 90-day increments. the house wants a five-year bill and the senate downed craft what a two-year bill.

we believe the longer bill is appropriate and we will fight for that. host: thanks very much for being with us and thank you for taking our viewer calls and tweets and e-mails. we will continue with the next 10 minutes of your chance to weigh in on any topic we have been covering this morning. we have been talking about the health care debate and issues like transportation and energy issues. whatever is on your mind, this form is yours. here's a quick look at some of the headlines --

ron is joining us from florida on the democrats' line, good morning. caller: good morning, i was hoping to talk to mr. price but i will give you a quick rundown. in early 2000, i had a heart disease and i spent a year with medical and since they did not help me out and i was close to dying, i had to spend my own money to go to the mayo clinic which in one day, they diagnosed my disease and they helped me. it cost me everything i own that they helped me. to go on from there, they talk about this pommel of 15. i'm going to the veterans

hospital right now. they have a panel of the 15. they can set up the rules. they have rules. they follow the rules. i have been taken care of like a king. that is going by what the government says and they have been doing a good job. as far as this toward reform, it has not worked so i don't know why they keep pushing it. it does not need to be in there. host: next is vancouver, washington, independent , good morning. caller: good morning, i am optometrist. i have a private practice in vancouver. we are afraid that if this law continues, will be absorbed into major medical plans. as an optometrist, most optometrists are not accepted on those plans. if that occurs, we will lose the

majority of our patients based. that patient base will be forced into ophthalmology who wish more to do surgery rather than general care. a lot of optometrists will go out of business, those people we support as our staff, the people we buy our merchandise from, our equipment, they will suffer. there's a domino effect that we are free will happen when his health care bill. a lot of us hope this will be turned down. host: thank you for the call. let me go back to "the national journal"--

this is for members of congress who will be taking a recess next week for easter. the presidential candidates are focusing on wisconsin and new gingrich is heading there this afternoon. rex santorum is there today. mitt romney will be spending part of the weekend and the tuesday primaries next week will be in maryland and washington but the big primary is in michigan. welcome to the program. caller: have a quick question on procedure. if there is such a majority in congress, why don't they passed the democratic budget? i don't understand why the democratic congress cannot pass the democratic budget? i am a republican but i don't understand this point. i would like some clarification on that. host: protocol.

-- thank you for the call. from "these chicago sun times" -- kim is joining us kim maine, good morning. caller: good morning, i wanted to ask a question about the individual mandate. the supreme court strikes down the individual mandate, what is next? an individual mandate for social security? you have to pay into medicare, that is required. will they be struck down, too? i have not heard anybody asked that question. host: news on the economy --

we will get new jobs numbers at the end of the week as we look at the nation's unemployment rate and next week we will get the figures for the full month of march. politics is the story this morning on the front page of "the washington times." newt gingrich was at georgetown university last night making news. [video clip] >> back in high school i was a janitor in my high school which is a private school and it was embarrassing to be a janitor in my own school. i was poor. i did not feel empowered by

serving my classmates. why not invest in kids the work for law firms and hospitals and get paid? >> i'm all for doing that but i would ask you this question -- did you find it useful financially? >> i needed to help my mom who is a single mom. >> ok. >> i did it one year and i had to move somewhere else and thank god, i had georgetown to save my butt. [laughter] i got everything through georgetown. if i did not have that opportunity, i would not have gotten anything. my friends are pregnant or in gangs are in jail and they did the same job. >> on sorry if you are offended.

both of my daughters worked as janitors of the local church and they did not think it was demeaning and a light that they earn their on monday as kids and they kept their own money because they work -- they thought were can inherit dignity. host: that was newt gingrich last night at georgetown university. this is from "the baltimore sun" -- thomas john is from scranton, pa., good morning. caller: good morning, u.s. congressman price about the paul ryan budget that gives a tax break of $150,000. you never entered that -- he

never added that it never followed up. he just answer is what you want to answer. a starving dog will eat so much food and then start because he knows if he will eat any food he will vomit everything up but the rich never stop eating. host: thank you for the call. we will take it to the floor of the house right now. some of the key issues that the house and senate are taken are the transportation bill and paul ryan's budget plan. it wants live coverage here on c-span and live coverage of the senate on c-span to end on c- span 3, ben bernanke is completing his session at george washington university. that is live this afternoon on c-span 3. thanks for joining us on this thursday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 29, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable charles f. bass to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the chaplain, father conroy.

chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we asked today that you bless the members of the people's house, to be the faithful servants. may they be filled with gratitude with the opportunity to be able to serve in this place. we thank you for the abilities they have been given to do their work and to contribute to the common good. may they use their talents as good stewards of your many gifts and thereby be true servants of justice and partners in peace. give each member clarity of thought, impurity of motive so they may render their service as their bestselves. may all that is done this day in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved.

the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler: thank you. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, on monday i visited hardgrave high school in huffman, texas. students from this school come from hardworking, rural, lower to middle class seniors. i met with almost every one of them and they had a job. i was proud of their questions about government.

one student, corina, asked me this. why should those of us that work hard sacrifice our tax dollars for freehandouts to pot heads and others that are too lazy to work? this has nothing to do with being black, brown or white, because i'm hispanic. they should be made to try harder to find work, submit to drug testing to qualify for this money. mr. speaker, corina and several other of her students have a concept that many people have forgotten, personal responsibility. the american dream means that if you work hard you can do anything in this country, and it's the individual, not the federal government, who controls our future. young people must know that hard work still pays off because it is the american way, and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from delaware seek recognition? mr. carney: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. carney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of a 10-year, $4 trillion deficit reduction plan

that is both balanced and comprehensive. in the congress today there's now broad support in both parties from both chambers to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. that's the goal set by the president's deficit reduction commission. today we will consider a number of budget proposals for fiscal year 2013. none of them is perfect but it's critical that we come together behind a reasonable 10-year, $4 trillion framework and start working on the details. time is running out to fix this critical problem. i believe the van hollen and cooper-latourette proposals are both frameworks that deserves support and consideration. both of them are balanced and fair. they include revenue increases and spending cuts, and they don't undermine the fragile economic recovery in the short term. progress is difficult and today's budget votes are only the first step, but i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this difficult task. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, when president obama was inaugurated in january of 2009, the average nationwide price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. the 2012, march, nationwide average has been $3.89 or higher, reflecting in 110%-plus increase. keep in mind that every penny increase in the price of gasoline costs the u.s. economy $1 billion and american consumers $4 million per day. now last week secretary of energy, steven chu, was asked to grade his performance on american gasoline prices. he graded himself an a. an a, america. when the price at the pump for american families have gone up over 110%. mr. duncan: i'm sorry, secretary chu. we give you a perm formans and the performance of the -- performance and the performance of the administration the grade of f.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, we all have our own ideas on how we should balance the budget, but missing in today's debate is an approach that will provide a bipartisan effort to solve our nation's fiscal problems. mr. costa: no one party has the answers. we can do this not through a republican or democratic proposed budget unless we can demonstrate bipartisanship. and that's why i'm both opposing the democratic and republican proposals. these are not an answer to our nation's fiscal problems. instead, the simpson-bowles approach reflected in the cooper-latourette substitute is the preferred approach we need to follow. last night's votes and today's votes will once again demonstrate that the congress is tone deaf. it's time to put our economy back on fiscal sustainability

and pass the simpson-bowles measure that last night failed far short. by cutting $4 trillion from the deficit over 10 years through spending cuts and tax reform and ensuring the solvency of social security and medicare, that's what we should do and we need to act in a bipartisan fashion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? mrs. hartzler: i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. speaker. last week marked the two-year anniversary of the president's health care law going into effect, and as a former teacher, i think it's important we look at it and see how it makes the grade. i believe if you compare it to the matrix of his failed promises that it deserves an f. they said it would create jobs. it didn't. in fact, c.b.o. says 800,000 people will lose their jobs because of it.

they said it would lower costs. it hasn't. premiums have increased $2,000 per individual. they said it would keep -- americans will be able to keep their own plan and their own doctor. the administration's own estimate says that over 20 million americans could lose employer-sponsored health care as a result of it. and is it constitutional? i believe it's not. it's time to have a grade a health insurance here in america, one that increases accessibility and affordability. that's what house republicans are advancing, and that's what they deserve. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? mrs. biggert: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, for 100 years women in the chicago area have been improving the world around them through the junior league of chicago. this summer the junior league will mark its centennial

anniversary, and i join the current and past volunteers of this wonderful organization in celebrating its many contributions. in fact from 1976 to 1978 i served as president of the junior league and am eternally grateful for the opportunity this great organization gave me to work with the head start program in chicago. it was the beginning of many wonderful and fulfilling years of public service. mr. speaker, since lucy mccormick blair l nimbings dh found it had in 1912, they have contributed more than two million hours of service. they funded epileptic research and launched what became known as the chicago children's museum. these are a few examples over 100 years of service. today i applaud the junior league and wish them 100 more years of success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, today house republicans will stand up to business as usual in washington and vote for a budget that will help our economy grow, guarantee the promise of medicare for everyone and put forth a true all-of-the-above energy strategy in america. mr. johnson: now, compare this to president obama's budget. one filled with more than -- with more of his failed tax and spend policies, one in which he called for over $45 billion in new taxes on american energy production. with prices surging at the pump, more than doubling since president obama took office, it's unconscionable that he would want to further burden america's small businesses and families. america sits on the largest total recoverabley energy

resources in the world, including oil, natural gas and coal. that's 1.3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent. just imagine if we develop them as part of a real all-of-the-above strategy. job creation would surge, gas prices would fall and america would be one step closer to energy independence. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to say thank you to the many persons who supported the homes for heroes act that passed day before yesterday. this is an important piece of legislation that will place a person in h.u.d. whose sole responsibility it is to monitor homelessness among our veterans. we believe that in solving the homelessness problem we can also solve a lot of other problems that they have. i'd like to thank all of the persons on the committee, especially my chairman of the committee, mr. bachus, my

ranking member, mr. frank, ms. waters who has helped me for years with this legislation. i'd like to thank mrs. biggert, mr. gutierrez, the chairs of the subcommittee and ranking member. i'd also thank mr. cantor because i did have a chance to visit with him about this and he helped to promote this legislation. ms. pelosi, of course, is a big supporter of our veterans as is the case with mr. hoyer. i -- one additional person that was very helpful. mr. hensarling. he and i had a great conversation about this, and he was very supportive and mentioned it in open mike at one of our hearings. so i thank everyone. our veterans are better served. god bless the united states of america and thank god for our veterans. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from texas has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. webster: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 600 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the

resolution. the clerk: house resolution 600. resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 4281, to provide an extension of federal aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure, and two, one motion to recommit. section 2. the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waived with respect to

any resolution reported on the legislative day of march 29, 2012, providing for consideration or disposition of a measure extending expiring surface transportation authority. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. webster: for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, and pending which time i yield myself the time i might consumement the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. webster: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. webster: i rise today in support of this rule and the potential it holds for a bipartisan, bicameral agreement for the long-term authorization re-authorization bill. it provides for a closed rule for prompt consideration of h.r.

4281, the surface transportation extension act of 2012. h.r. 4281 simply calls for a 90-day extension of current transportation legislation at existing funding levels. without the extension, critical transportation programs around the country will begin to shut down saturday night at midnight. the federal government will no longer be able to collect the user fees necessary to maintain the highway trust fund and eventually it would be unable to pay obligations that have already been incurred for construction projects. most importantly, according to recent reports, a shutdown saturday would immediately furlough 3,500 federal employees and put up to 130,000 highway projects at risk. a 90-day extension is no one's ideal scenario, but at this juncture it appears necessary. necessary not only to avoid the calamity that comes from current

legislation's expiration, but also necessary for the continued potential for a long-term re-authorization. and with passage, this extension and a long-term re-authorization remains within reach. the transportation bill passed out of the house transportation infrastructure committee has been laudable provision, streamlines and consolidates federal transportation programs, cuts red tape, and washington bureaucracy, and increases funding flexibilities to states and local governments. better leverages existing infrastructure resources and encouraging more private sector participation in rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. it provides five years of certainty and stability with the flat funding that is paid for without raising taxes. i'm sure the authors and proponents of the senate bill can point to a menu of laudable policy provisions within their bill as well. with this extension, we don't give up on the likelihood of the best of both bills being reconciled for long-term certainty and stability and can provide -- we can provide to those tasked with rebuilding our

nation's transportation infrastructure. to be sure, however, the task at hand remains avoiding expiration of the existing authorization this saturday night. i don't have to reiterate the consequences that loom if we do not act. as the chamber of commerce wrote in a letter to the members earlier this week, an extension is not the best course of action but it must be done. once again, mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule and the potential this short-term extension holds for coming together in a bipartisan, bicameral way for a long-term authorization of our nation's transportation programs. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this rule. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from florida for yeelingd me the customary 30 -- yielding me the customary 30 minutes, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, where do i begin?

this is one more opportunity lost. one more opportunity squandered by this republican-controlled house. we are just days away from the expiration of the laws that authorize our surface transportation programs, and yet here we are debating a politically charged, unnecessary, and partisan bill that just kicks the can down the road a few months. last month this house began but could not finish consideration of the most partisan drafted, possibly the only partisan drafted highway re-authorization bill in history. let me repeat that. the house could not complete consideration of the republican bill. a republican bill that would have been considered a joke if it weren't such a serious breach of responsibility. this is like a bad soap opera. just when the twist and turns can't get more fantastical and crazy, someone comes up with an even zainier idea just to keep the plot lines moving along. i'm waiting for the mysterious

twin brother to show up. and the plot line here is that the republican leadership keeps manufacturing ways not to do the simple thing, the right thing, and that is to pass the senate bill. the two-year bill that passed the senate 74-22 clearly and overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion. it's refreshing and a bit strange when the senate can put their ideological differences aside and actually pass a decent bill. it's not every day that senator barbara boxer and senator james inhofe agree on a bill, but that's what happened with the senate bill. now, i'm not going to stand here and say that the senate bill is the bill i would have drafted. to the contrary i want a five-year re-authorization that is fully funded. a bill that results in real jobs and a bill that invests in important areas like public transit. while the senate bill allows for only two years, it is a good start and a much -- and it is much better than the republican proposal we have here today. for my colleagues who have a

short memory, let me recap where we were last month. the republican leadership took a 1,000-page bill, undoubtedly the most partisan transportation bill in congressional history and made it worse. they took a bill that was written in secret and jammed through the transportation committee and inserted unrelated and controversial provisions like the keystone pipeline, anwr, and cuts federal in pensions. even worse, they changed the rules in the middle of the game. specifically, after everyone had submitted their amendments to the original single bill, speaker boehner decided to split it into three separate measures which meant that many of the amendments couldn't be considered in a way that they were originally drafted. of course the republicans quickly realized that they didn't have the votes for that bill and yanked it from the floor. it must have been pretty embarrassing because it's been over a month since they gave up on that bill. what has the republican leadership been doing over the last month? negotiabling with the democrats

to reach a compromise, talking with the senate in ways to re-authorization the programs and bring jobs back to the economy? of course not. over the past month the republican leadership has been sitting around pointing fingers and complaining that they can't move a transportation bill even though republicans are in control of this house. it's the end of march, and republicans can't get their act together to get a real transportation bill passed. you call that leadership? give me a break. leadership is all governing. leadership is about doing what's right. honestly, mr. speaker, there is no leadership here. shame on this leadership for bringing us here today. shame on this leadership of putting the american jobs on the line just because they cannot manage their own internal politics. that's right. by refusing to pass the senate bill today, republicans are putting american jobs on the line. with the economy slowly recovering, and with more than 2.7 million construction and manufacturing workers still out of work, why do republicans want to play russian roulette with

this important jobs bill? we should not be in this position today. this is a manufactured crisis. the crisis that is a product of a lack of leadership. a crisis that is a product of a lack of bipartisan cooperation. mr. speaker, we had an opportunity to consider the senate bill today, but the rules committee mislabeled by some as the most open rules committee in decades, blocked that bill from consideration. that's right. this new majority put this bill on the floor, sight unseen and without any markup or hearing. they waived their own three-day layover rule, and this is a closed rule. in fact, i can't even seem to find a c.b.o. score for this bill. and this is the open process my colleagues on the rules committee are so proud of. this is a completely closed rule. i offered the senate bill as an amendment to this rule last night so that members could have an opportunity to vote on it today. not in play -- a stand-alone

amendment. speaker boehner is fond of saying let the house work its will. but republicans on the rules committee do not believe in that philosophy because they blocked my amendment on a party-line vote. why did they like my amendment? as the chairman of the rules committee is fond of usually saying, because they could. now, i will try one more time to offer the senate amendment. congressman tim bishop introduced h.r. 14, the exact same language as the senate-passed bill. if this house defeats the previous question, congressman bishop will be able to offer his amendment to the republican bill. not in place of, just alongside the republican bill. the house like speaker boehner promised would then be able to work its will. it's clear, mr. speaker, that the republican leadership is more concerned with political victories than with legislating. it is clear that the republican leadership would rather score cheap political points with their right-wing base than promote and create jobs in america. president clinton was fond of

saying the perfect can't be the enemy of the good. there's a perfectly good bipartisan senate bill that would pass this house overwhelmingly if the republican leadership decided to bring it up. but, no, the republican leadership would rather play chicken with people's jobs on the line instead of actually legislating, let alone legislating in a bipartisan way. it is clear that when the far right wing of the far right wing opposes something, the republican leadership crumbles like cheap asphalt. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. in 2005 the congress passed safetea-lu which is the last transportation re-authorization bill that was long term. there was under the democratic -controlled house a bill proposed by the chairman that never made it to the floor. because it didn't make it to the floor, my, my, my how we have forgotten it was only a couple

years ago. it didn't make it. safetea-lu expired in 2009, september 30, and there was a bill, never got marked up, never happened. so what happened instead? well, let's see. number one, democrats did a one-month extension. number two, there was a 1.5 month extension. number three, there was a 2.5 month extension. number four, there was a one month extension. number five, there was a nine month extension. number six, there was a two-month extension. so i'm not sure what you're talking about, but as far as lack of leadership we are a long way from having that many extensions. we are a long way from having done what was done in the previous congress. so i would suspect that we have an opportunity here and that opportunity, the way to avoid a shutdown of the nation's transportation programs this saturday night is to pass this extension. and the only way we can get to that is pass this rule which allows for us to consider that extension. the only way we can keep

ourselves from having 3,500 federal employees furloughed is to pass this extension. the only way we can keep 130,000 projects that are highway projects from being at risk is to pass this. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: let me respond to my friend. the difference is that we have a bipartisan, an overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that has passed one of the chambers here, the senate. and so we -- this is the choice we have. do we do these short-term extensions so that cities and towns and states can't plan? or do we take this bipartisan compromise that the senate has put together so that there's some certainty for our cities and towns and for our states? i mean that's the difference. i mean, what's happening here is that there is an internal fight within the republican party. the right wing is battling with the extreme right wing and they

can't agree with each other because they have people in the republican party who don't believe in the public sector. as this economy is struggling to get back on its feet and we see some recovery, more and more every month, we could actually help that recovery. we can move things along. we could create more jobs if we were to act in a different way today. but instead the right way and extreme right ring are having a fight in the republican party, so the republican house leadership is paralyzed. that's not leadership. that's irresponsible. at this point i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. he is absolutely right. the passage of this rule and the approach is not the only way to avert a shutdown and in fact the -- moving forward here is precisely the wrong approach because sadly what's going to happen is it's going to

bifurcate the construction cycle. there is work going on around the country that people want to move forward, and the approval of a 90-day extension means that the people cannot plan for the entire construction cycle. if they take the gentleman's suggestion and approve the bipartisan senate bill, there will be certainty not just for this construction cycle, but the next construction cycle. it's frustrating to watch our friends on the other side of the aisle play chicken. remember the f.a.a. shutdown where the republicans in the house refused to accept a bill that passed the senate overwhelmingly, and when votes for the f.a.a. instead, they chose to leave town, putting out of work 70,000 construction workers and laid off 4,000 others in the f.a.a. we don't have to play this sort of infrastructure chicken.

later today we are going to consider the worst budget for transportation in anybody's memory. the republican budget that will be decided later today calls for a 46% reduction in transportation funding. there isn't enough money in the republican budget to even pay for the areas that are already obligated. i developed this in a friendly way in the budget committee and i do agree, there are 6.5 billion more in actual outlay contracts, roads, bridges, transit projects that we are committed to than they would pay for. . it's sad that we reached this point. i hope the house rejects this rule that would allow mr.

bishop to present the senate bill for an up or down vote. the republicans are afraid that actually there will be dozens of their members that will join us in a bipartisan vote. it's a pipe dream that somehow we're better off cutting the construction cycle in half, not allowing people to plan, that somehow we'll come together and merge the worst transportation bill in history that would overturn 21 years of transportation reform and the agreement of president reagan that we would dedicate money for transit, that we throw this out to the house bill that was so bad they wouldn't even have -- may i have another minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman one minute. mr. blumenauer: they wouldn't even have a hearing on it. i served for a dozen years on the transportation committee. i've worked with the

transportation committee with republican and democratic chairs. and this is an embarrassment that the process is not working. it doesn't have to be partisan and limited. we have two high-level commissions that call for more investment and reform. the best approach is to vote on the senate bill today which i'm confident will pass which is why they don't want it to vote, and then come together to work as we get past this election gong show process and strike a real bargain when we have all the moving pieces at the end of the year, when we are not standing down the barrel of goofy election politics and people will actually be able to work in what's in the best interest of america. and what's in the best interest of america is rejecting this assault on transportation and deal with rebuilding and renewing the country. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has

expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the other side at least letting me know what they did over the last two years. they bifurcated the construction projects. they did it six times, and at least now we know that they have acknowledged what they did during those times when they only gave in some cases one-month extensions. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, my colleague. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. nugent: i want to thank my friend for florida and fellow rules committee member to allow me to speak today on behalf of this. you know, it's interesting to stand up here and listen to what comes across from the other side. they talk about the f.a.a. bill. that's a bill that while they were in control of this area since 2007. there was not a re-authorization of that bill

until this year, until the 112th congress came into power that we now have a four-year re-authorization of the faumplet bill that sat over on the -- f.a.a. bill that sat over on the side since they had control of the house since 2007. no action other than just temporary fixes. and the same goes with now with this bill today in regards to transportation. they want you to believe that the senate passed this great bill out of the senate, a two-year fix. well, let me tell you, mr. speaker, a two-year fix in this industry is like nothing at all. and speaking with developers, road construction folks in my state, they said a six-month extension is as good as a two-year extension and basically all it does is keep their doors open. they don't hire new folks. they don't go out and purchase new equipment. they don't go to caterpillar up

in peoria, illinois, and buy more equipment because what they told me was this. when the senate came back out with an 18-month to two-year extension, they canceled major equipment orders in peoria, illinois. they canceled those orders because there's no reason for them to invest millions of dollars in equipment on a six-month, an 18-month or a two-year extension. we should be standing here talking today about a five- to seven-year extension of the highway bill. that's what we should be talking about. it gives those workers certainty. the other side talks about it in great length, but what certainty did they show when they had control of both houses, the senate and the house, and the president, and what did they show for accomplishment? other than short-term fixes that has nothing to do with

certainty. the construction industry hires based upon certainty, however -- how far they can look out. a major road builder i talked to said, rich, it's not going to work that way. mr. speaker, it's for them to spend money to hire new workers, they need to have some certainty that they're going to have a five- to seven-year window to start building upon, not a six-month fix, not an 18-month fix, not a two-year fix. once again, builders i'm talking to are saying this, on the short-term fixes all it does is keep the status quo alive. the status quo alive. it allows them to keep the employees they have, but they will not invest in new equipment and they're not going to invest in hiring more employees because it's a short-term fix for them. not a long-term fix. we have the opportunity to do a

pay-for and i agree with my friend from worcester we should have a pay-for five -- to seven-year transportation bill, not a short-term fix. but if we don't do a short-term fix today, you heard my colleague from florida talk about what's going to happen on sunday. we're going to run -- all projects stop as we know it. that's not what this house should do. we need to pass the 90-day extension. we need to support this rule and pass the bill so we can move forward to really have un-- so we can eliminate uncertainty, not what we have today, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank my colleague on the rules committee to make a good case why we should reject the 90-

day extension and pass a two-year extension which is 90 days means nothing. most people i talk to prefer two years than 90 days. and here's the difference, you know, with he have a democratically controlled senate that worked with the republicans. barbara boxer came together. here the republicans are fighting with republicans. democrats have been locked out of this entire process. let's get real here. let's be honest with the american people. as reflected in the budget you all are going to vote for later this afternoon which dess amates road and highway funding which basically destroys i think the basis for a strong infrastructure program in this country. you know, you're not here trying to argue about a better bill. you're trying to figure out a way to give states less, to give cities and towns less, that would undercut a lot of the projects that are being

contemplated all across this country. it will not only put people back to work but to make us more economically secure. so that's what this is all about. it's about trying to come up with even a lousier transportation bill than the one you brought to the house floor. at this point i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the rule and i oppose the motion to move the previous question. i am growing more and more deeply concerned that our republican colleagues simply don't get it. they do not understand that their ideological crusade to starve the beast has only resulted in starving the american worker. here we are today taking up the third version of the republican kick the can infrastructure plan down the road in a single week, the third vision -- version in a week. if that's not a complete diversion of leadership i don't

know what is. they have their hands over their ears desperate not to hear commonsense solutions like the bipartisan senate highway bill. since the beginning of the kong kong we have witnessed time -- beginning of the 112th congress, we have witnessed time and again my way or the highway approach to governing. the construction industry is in the middle of the construction season and they're suffering because house republicans want to score political points with their ideological base rather than solve real-world problems with real-world solutions. this week, the house republicans will force to remove two short-term highway extension bills from floor consideration because they would rather dig deeper into the conservative ranks of their caucus than reach across the aisle to discuss solutions for the american worker. sadly, this is nothing new. they've been doing this for the past 15 months. we have lurched from self-created crisis to self-created crisis. i count at least five over the

last 15 months, and yet they wonder why the american public's perception of congress is at an all-time low. meanwhile, i sponsored h.r. 14, the senate highway bill, a bipartisan path forward that makes meaningful reforms and provides certainty to states. i'm proud to be offering this bipartisan legislation to refocus a discussion on jobs and economic opportunities rather than the republican message this week of tearing down medicare and protecting the 1% at the expense of middle-class families. as of today, house republicans have yet to put forward a credible highway re-authorization that puts americans back to work. their only attempt, h.r. 7, the boehner-mica authorization, was called the worst highway bill offer by transportation secretary lahood, a former republican representative, was drafted in the middle of the night without any input. it broke a 30-year bipartisan

cooperation to fund transit, and it couldn't adirect a single democratic vote noreen a majority of republican votes. over in the senate map-21 passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan majority and is fully paid for, something house republicans seem unable to achieving. the man-21 pay-fors are less controversial than those contained in the house republican bill. the senate has estimated that map-21 will save 1.8 million jobs and create up to a million more jobs. that's almost three million jobs wrapped up in this legislation. can i have another minute, jim? mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute. mr. bishop: during the weak economic recovery looking for a jump-start, this is the kind of legislation we need to be passing. house republicans had their chance to address our infrastructure needs with h.r. 7. instead, they chose to pander to their base and chase ideological extremes. i'm sorry to say their effort was an utter failure. map- 1 has the support of senate democrats, senate republicans, house democrats

and the administration. it's time that the house republicans got onboard with job creation instead of fighting it. americans want jobs and safe roads and bridges. the senate passed the biggest job creating bill by an overwhelming majority. let's move h.r. 14 and let's put this country back to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend from florida, mr. mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. mica: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker and my colleagues, let's just set the record straight. the other side said this wasn't a bipartisan process. first off, the first hearing was healed in the ranking member's hometown and district in west virginia. we went from sea to shining sea all the way to los angeles to accommodate bicameral, unprecedented, bipartisan hearing in los angeles. again, the comments made here

do not reflect reality. in the committee we took 100 democrat amendments and we accepted about 20 of them. in addition to when we drafted the legislation, 60% of the recommendations that the democrats were in the -- in the draft that came before the committee. so this stuff about it not being bipartisan, and then the republicans can't get it done, these are the people that can't get it done. they controled the house. they controlled the senate, they controlled the white house during this entire process. they couldn't even get it to committee. they could not get the bill to committee. it passed the subcommittee. so we have passed it. you know, and they made bipartisanship in this committee a one-way street, and it wasn't that way before. they closed down major projects

across this country if we don't pass this extension. why are we here for this extension for 90 days? because we offered 90 days to begin with. they said, no, we won't do 90 days because we want to keep things stired up. said, ok, what do you want? 60 days. ok. in the spirit of bipartisanship we'll go 60 days. they rejected that. some democrats threw each other under the bus, so to speak, and here we are at 90 days again. so, folks, let's get facts straight and reality straight. republicans want america to work and our infrastructure to be built. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: let's talk about this great bipartisan process. all woor asking for today -- all we're asking for today is to have an alternative to be voted on. one substitute. that's it. that's all we have been asking for.

we have been told no, we can't. it's your way or the highway. that's not bipartisanship. all these great bipartisan amendments, let everybody be clear on one thing, not one single amendment has been considered to the transportation bill on this house floor. not one single amendment has been allowed. you yanked the bill when i guess some of the extreme right wing of the extreme right wing got upset on your side, for whatever reason. also because there were a lot of moderates who realized the bill you brought to the floor would bankrupt the highway trust fund. that was bad policy for this country. it was not going to help rebuild our infrastructure. the only bipartisan proposal we have before us right now, which is not perfect, but is the only bipartisan product is the senate bill, which passed 74-22. at this time i would like to yield -- i would be happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from -- the ranking member of the transportation committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. rahall: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i asked for this time only because the chairman referred to opening these hearings in my hometown of beckly, west virginia. which he did. i appreciate that very much. and the many other hearings he had across the country. but the question is, you have to learn from these hearings and you have to incorporate from these hearings into the bill you end up finally writing. i'm not sure that was done from what the gentleman heard from my home state. in addition, which the gentleman from massachusetts has referred to, the bipartisanship of the other body, we all know in this town and across the country how hard it is to get the united states to get that other body to agree on anything, even if it was a resolution saying i love mother, it's hard to get 60 votes over there for anything. yet they got 72 votes for a bipartisan, a bipartisan transportation bill. they got half of the republican members of that other body to support a bipartisan transportation bill. we have tried as the gentleman from massachusetts knows to bring that up in the rules

committee, to make it in order, myself, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, we tried to bring that up and on the floor of the house. every turn in the road, at every corner in the road we get turned down in our efforts to bring up the bipartisan senate transportation bill. and it's not very often that you will find such a measure produced by that other body. yet they have done it at this time and we cannot get it brought up to the floor of this body. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. pass the extension. reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind the members to refrain from trafficking in the well during debate. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, before i yield to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, i just want to point out something for my colleagues here. one of the reasons why many of us prefer the senate bill to

even the house bill that you brought to the floor then split up and yanked from the floor is because the senate bill sustains approximately 1.6 million jobs on an annual basis. the house republican bill destroys 550,000 jobs compared to the current funding levels. what you yanked was a job killer. at this point i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, the ranking member of the highways transit subcommittee, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: this is really a discussion about the future of transportation in america. and it's a very basic difference. the republicans are being hung up because there is a substantial portion of their caucus that believes, truly believes, there is no federal interest, we should not have a

national transportation policy. it should be devolve to the states. that's what this looks like when you devolve to the states. kansas turnpike, 1956, oklahoma said they would build their section. they didn't. they were launching cars into amo's cornfield for the next eight years. this was about the failure of a 50 state transportation polcy. they are being hung up by -- policy. they are being hung up by enough people to hold up this bill on their side who believe this is the way the country should look in the future. now, we want jobs. even if they could move their h.r. 7, which they can't because of this faction, they would cut funding by 20%. we have 150,000 bridges in the federal system, national highway system need repair or replacement. 40% of the pavement needs substantial redoing, not just

resurfacing. $70 billion backlog on our legacy transit system. that's our 20th century system. there is no money in this for a 21st century system. now they are saying, well, this is their vision. their vision. one of two visions. cut 20%, the ryan budget actually would cut transportation by 35% from current levels, or the flat earthers who say there is no federal interest in the national transportation system. one of those three things will come out from their side. 20% cut, 35% cut or no programs. we have an alternative. let's vote on the senate bill. when you can get 22 republican senators to vote to extend the program for two years, we have one gentleman say, two years, nothing no equipment orders. guess what? i have a list here, this is just the beginning of a list, of seven state d.o.t.'s who have contacted the american association of state transportation officials saying 90-day delay will cost jobs.

40,000 jobs in north carolina. on down the list. nevada, maryland, michigan, rhode island, west virginia, new hampshire have all reported in about projects they are going to delay or cancel in we do another 90-day extension and don't do the two-year bill. the two-year bill is enough certainty for these projects to move forward. no, it's not opt minimal. we need a five-year bill. we don't need a five-year bill that guts or destroys the program. those are the alternatives you are offering us here. just give us one vote. just one vote. let us vote on the senate bill which passed with a bipartisan, true bipartisan bill. this is not a bipartisan bill. the gentleman from florida is a good friend. look, we did not sit down and look at this bill and review it. it was presented to us. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from oregon has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. again i go back over this list because we must have forgot it a

few minutes ago when i gave it again. the democrats when they were in control passed a one-month extension back in october 1, 2009. one month. no amendments. 1.5 months a little later, no amendments. 2.5 months, no amendments. one month, no amendments. nine months, no amendments. two months, no amendments. i'm not sure what they are talking about, mr. speaker. pass the extension. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. mr. speaker, the unemployment is going down. but there are people still unemployed. right now we have a senate bill

on transportation, and many don't understand what that means, that is a wide gamut of highways and mass transit and infrastructure ready to be signed by the president of the united states so that millions of americans can go to work and this body won't allow us to vote for a bill that has already passed the senate. higher funding levels, to be able to build, build, build. more jobs, 1.9 million annualized. buy america, do i love it. buy america. making sure that we buy the products right here in america so that not only are we building with american workers, those who supply us, providing guaranteed transit funding for all of america, the crumbling infrastructure of transit, we are providing for it. in houston, texas, we need those moneys and need the operational moneys. here's my point. unemployment is going down. the president is moving forward or employing and empowering

americans, and they won't put the senate bill, bipartisan bill on the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady from texas has expired. the gentleman from florida. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a no vote on the rule. i yield back. mr. webster: may i inquire of mr. mcgovern how many more speakers he has? mr. mcgovern i have the ranking member of the committee and my sefment mr. webster: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, it's my privilege to yield three minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, the rahm of the transportation committee. mr. rahall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. rahall: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i'd like to emphasize that the extension the majority is bringing to the floor this morning is too long and do nothing but continue the uncertainty that states and businesses, small businesses i might add, have faced since the expiration of the last long-term bill in august, 2009. 2 1/2 years and eight extensions ago. uncertainty is what we are

continuing by the passage of this extension today. uncertainty among the small business community in this country. they need the certainty with which to plan contracts. this happens to be the springtime of the year, the time when contracts are let. and when jobs are planned. and when people need to know if they are going to be working or not. not 90 days from now. this is the contract season with the work usually done during the summer and concluded by the fall, and the bottom lines are added up. we have already heard stories of small businesses that have had to cut back from 80% of their budget to 40% or less because they don't know what the congress is going to do in terms of a long-term transportation bill. to elaborate on what my colleague from oregon, mr. defazio has said, the impact on our state d.o.t. of endless extensions and the ability to plan for current and future transportation needs are very well, are very real. here's a few examples, north

carolina has delayed projects affecting 41,000 jobs. nevada and maryland each report 4,000 jobs are at risk due to projects being delayed. michigan has only let 35% of its projects, or 180 million below its normal activity level, and delayed several large construction projects. rhode island has delayed $80 million worth of projects and planning for needed safety and structural improvements of a major interchange. my home state of west virginia reports that an extension would result in a 10% cut in programs. a 10% cut in programs affecting over 1,200 jobs. and the state of west virginia may be forced to shut projects down or delay payments to contractors to manage cash flow. new hampshire, new hampshire, mr. speaker, o will not award contracts on $80 million in projects that were recently bid, affecting 800 job years. and will delay $150 million in bond issuance for the

construction of two exits. illinois estimates that the uncertainty posed by stopgap funding measures means 4,500 jobs could be lost and that ongoing uncertainty will increase contractor risk and cause higher bids for construction projects. without congressional action on the senate bill, many states in the northeast and midwest stand to lose an entire construction season. that would be a devastating blow to many states as they slowly recover from the worst construction downturn since the great depression. while millions of construction jobs and much needed infrastructure projects hang in the balance, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent weeks driving in circles. they have at least within consistent and embraced this theme of uncertainty in their own internal deliberations. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, is yield myself the remaining time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule it will bring up h.r. 14, the moving ahead for progress in the 21st century act. this is the house companion to the bipartisan senate transportation bill that passed in the other body 74-22. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this house of representatives is not working. it's not working for the american people. at a time when jobs should be the most important priority of this congress, we have a leadership that talks about everything but jobs. when it comes to jobs, nothing could be more important than passing a transportation bill. the republicans brought a terrible bill to the floor, so terrible they couldn't even force their own members to vote for it. for it. they had to